Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period 3110591073, 9783110591071

Table of contents :
Preface and Acknowledgements
Contents
List of Abbreviations
Introduction
Part I: The Sources on the Temple of Onias
Chapter 1: Flavius Josephus and Oniad History
Chapter 2: The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History
Postscript: Theodore of Mopsuestia
Chapter 3: The Book of Daniel
Postscript: The Silence of the Lambs: The ‘Animal Apocalypse’ and the Death of Onias III (1 Enoch 90:8)
Chapter 4: The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias
Chapter 5: Archaeology and the Temple of Onias
Chapter 6: Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community
Chapter 7: Onias in the Papyri
Part II: Jewish Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias
Jewish-Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias: An Approach toward Oniad Literature
Chapter 8: The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?
Chapter 9: Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?
Chapter 10: Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?
Chapter 11: Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?
Part III: The History of the Temple of Onias in the Hellenistic Period
Chapter 12: Reconstructing Oniad History: From the Establishment of the Oniad Community in Egypt until the Roman Conquest (168/167 – 31/30 BCE)
Part IV: Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism
Chapter 13: The Temple of Onias and Qumran
Chapter 14: Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism
Concluding Oniad History
Appendicies
Appendix 1. A Genealogical Chart of the Oniad Priestly Dynasty
Appendix 2. Did the Jews of Egypt Pay the Temple Tax to Onias’ Temple?
Appendix 3. Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples
Appendix 4. IJudO i BS19: A Russian Onias?
Bibliography
General Index
Index of Names
Index of Places
Index of Ancient Sources

Citation preview

Meron M. Piotrkowski Priests in Exile

Studia Judaica

Forschungen zur Wissenschaft des Judentums

Begründet von Ernst Ludwig Ehrlich Herausgegeben von Günter Stemberger, Charlotte Fonrobert, Elisabeth Hollender, Alexander Samely und Irene Zwiep

Band 106

Rethinking Diaspora Edited by Stefan C. Reif, Simha Goldin, Nahem Ilan and Andreas Lehnardt

Volume 4

Meron M. Piotrkowski

Priests in Exile

The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period

The subseries Rethinking Diaspora is published on behalf of the Goldstein-Goren Diaspora Research Center, Tel Aviv University.

ISBN 978-3-11-059107-1 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059335-8 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059112-5 Library of Congress Control Number: 2019933093 Bibliografic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliografic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Printing and binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

Für meine Eltern Meir und Doris Piotrkowski in Liebe

Preface and Acknowledgements I find myself truly privileged to be able to do what I am doing. Being able to pursue one’s research and to write about it is, in my view, a true blessing. This book is a slightly revised version of my 2015 Hebrew University of Jerusalem dissertation that was awarded the 2016 Polonsky Prize for Creativity and Originality in the Humanistic Disciplines. What inspired me to pick up this subject was Gideon Bohak’s wonderful book, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis, which I was given to read as part of a class assignment by Prof. Rahel Elior for a course on Hekhalot literature during my M.A. studies at the Hebrew University. I am much obliged to Prof. Elior for having introduced me to the subject of the Temple of Onias and, of course, to Prof. Bohak for having written his book. I sincerely hope that this study does him and his book justice. In fact, Prof. Bohak was also a member of my doctoral advisory committee and I thank him for my conversations with him about the Temple of Onias and its location and for sharing with me the materials he had collected on that subject. This study seeks to provide a cohesive history of the Oniad Temple in the Hellenistic period. The Temple of Onias is a less known but fascinating phenomenon of ancient Diaspora Judaism that functioned for over two centuries in parallel with the Second Temple of Jerusalem and even outlasted it. The existence of a temple, and the adherence to a religion based on sacrifices, a holy place, and the importance of priestly pedigree (as was usual in Jerusalem) distinguished Onias and his community from other Jewish communities in Egypt and the Hellenistic/Roman Diaspora, on the whole. That is because Diaspora Judaism is usually characterized by the absence of a holy place and of a cult based on sacrifices and administered by priests; rather, prayers are substituted for sacrifices, and there is no need, or room, for a temple or for priests. Thus, the singularity of the Oniad community, and its implications for such a form of priestly/cultic religion in the Diaspora context, and its nebulous history merits study. A book such as this, and the dissertation on which it is based, although written by only one person is in fact dependent upon a number of other people, benefactors and institutions without whose help, support, encouragement and inspiration, this study would certainly not have come into being. It is these people and institutions whom I wish to acknowledge. The first and most important person to thank is my Doktorvater Prof. Daniel R. Schwartz. I became his student during my Masters studies at the Hebrew University in 2004 and consider myself lucky to have come under his wing already at that early stage. He is an exceptional scholar, who inspires me and challenges me to look at things in different ways. He is also a true role model, not only https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-001

VIII

Preface and Acknowledgements

for what it means to be an impeccable scholar, but also – and more importantly so – what it means to be a true Mensch. I truly thank him for the many times he went out of his way to help me and for his wisdom, encouragement, kindness, humor, and guidance in the process of writing my thesis. I find it extremely difficult to express in words how much I am indebted to him for all that. It certainly is a great honor for me to be counted among his students. If Danny Schwartz was my Doktorvater, then I surely consider Prof. Tal Ilan my Doktormutter. I came to know Tal in her first days at the Freie Universität Berlin, when I was her student before I began my Masters studies at the Hebrew University. Although she was not officially involved in my thesis, she constantly and consistently listened to, commented upon, read parts of it and helped me with my problems and questions. She is a huge inspiration to me, an amazing scholar and a true ‫אשת חייל‬. Many other scholars have helped me to improve my arguments, read parts of this study, and contributed to it in various other ways. Special thanks are due, first and foremost, to the members of my doctoral advisory committee Prof. Hannah M. Cotton, Prof. Gideon Bohak, and Dr. Noah Hacham. Their input was invaluable and helped to shape this study, while also forcing me to rethink several aspects of it. I consider myself lucky to have been guided by this forum of outstanding scholars. They were always available to me with any questions and problems I had. I want to express my gratitude to Prof. Hannah M. Cotton, who greatly improved my knowledge about Jews in the Roman period and who taught a fabulous and truly memorable course on the Bar-Kokhbah revolt. I am much obliged to Dr. Hacham for so generously sharing his excellent work with me and for the many discussions we had (and still have), not only on the subject of the Temple of Onias, but also on many other aspects of the Egyptian-Jewish Diaspora and ancient Jewish history, such as the Jewish papyri from Egypt we are working on together within the framework of the new Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum IV. Dr. Hacham also read and commented on Chapter 9. He is a meticulous scholar and I much appreciate his comments which helped me to sharpen and improve my arguments. I express my gratitude to Prof. Steve Mason, for many inspiring and stimulating conversations about Josephus, history, and various other topics – anything from belles-lettres to modern-day Israeli history and politics. Prof. Mason read parts of and commented on Chapter 1. Many thanks are due to my friend Prof. Johannes Niehoff-Panagiotidis, who has supported me ever since we met many years ago. Likewise, I would like to thank Prof. Joseph Patrich from whom I learned much about the Temple of Jerusalem and other sanctuaries. I also had the pleasure and privilege of a brief acquaintance with the late Prof. Ehud Netzer, prior to his untimely death in Octo-

Preface and Acknowledgements

IX

ber 2010, with whom I discussed what it took to build a temple, not only for Herod the Great, but also for Onias. I am thankful to him for sharing his knowledge with me. Special thanks are due to Prof. Gohei Hata with whom I had the pleasure of corresponding occasionally about the problem of the Temple of Onias and archaeology, and who generously agreed to share his research with me and to send me a draft of his then unpublished article on the location of the temple. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank Prof. Peter Schäfer, my very first teacher of Judaism. It was he who introduced me to the marvelous world of ancient Jewish history and has kindled my passion for that subject. Without him, I would certainly not be doing what I am doing. I am happy to thank Julia Brauch, Sophie Wagenhofer, Katrin Mittmann and especially Alice Meroz, at the staff at Walter de Gruyter, for accepting this volume for publication and for all their help throughout the publication process. My thanks to the publishers Peter Lang and Mohr Siebeck for their kind permission to reproduce slightly altered versions of this book’s Chapter 9 and a section of Chapter 1.¹ The research for this study would not have been possible without the generous financial aid I received from various institutions over the years. From 2008 until 2010, I benefitted from a generous scholarship from the Minerva Foundation. In 2011– 2012 I was supported by a research grant from the Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies at the Hebrew University. Between 2012 and 2013, I was awarded a scholarship from New York’s Jewish Memorial Foundation and in the same period, I was fortunate to receive the Moritz and Charlotte Warburg Prize in Jewish Studies – a doctoral scholarship from the Hebrew University’s Institute of Jewish Studies. I am truly grateful to all those institutions for allowing me to conduct my research unencumbered. I sincerely hope that their faith in me and their financial assistance were worthwhile. Very special thanks are due to my father-in-law, Prof. Marshall Devor, who sacrificed many hours of his precious time to proofread this study, correct my English, and make several invaluable suggestions and comments. His input has greatly contributed to the quality of this work. A final proofreading and

 Chapter 1.9 (“Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple, or: A Priest from Jerusalem and Rome on Priests and their Temple in the Diaspora”) was published as “Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple,” JSQ 25 (2018): 1– 16 (DOI: 10.1628/094457018X15154209777563) and Chapter 9 (“Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees – An Oniad Composition?”) appeared as “Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?” in Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur in ihrem interkulturellen Kontext, ed. by M. Hirschberger (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012) 117– 142 (DOI: 10.3726/9783-653-02042-7).

X

Preface and Acknowledgements

last corrections were done by Steven Ben-Yishai, my much esteemed fellow-PhDstudent and friend. I am very grateful for his efforts. Another person to be mentioned, and without whom this work would not have taken shape, is Hartmut Naeder, who tirelessly and very patiently helped me with the technological side of putting together the manuscript of this book. Last but not least I want to thank my family, the most important people in my life. I want to thank my parents and my brother, Meir, Doris, and Matan Piotrkowski, for their unconditional love and support in and with every aspect of life. I owe them so much more than plain gratitude. By the same token, I want to thank my wife Noa for her love, warm-heartedness and patience, and for having my back in all of life’s ups and downs. In the course of writing this study, our truly wonderful children Mia and Yotam were born and I am very much grateful to them for making our every day just a whole lot sweeter and brighter. Tel Aviv, Erev Hanukkah 5779 / December, 2018

Contents List of Abbreviations

XVII

1 Introduction  Why Study Onias’ Temple? 6  Research Questions and the Aims of this Study 8 10  Methodology  The Outline of the Study 12 14  The Temple of Onias in Modern Research  Some Remarks on Translations, Spellings, and Citations

23

Part I The Sources on the Temple of Onias Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History 27  Introduction 27 30  A Word on Methodology  Josephus’ Onias Narratives 32 32  Why are the Josephan Onias Narratives Problematic?  The Structure of Josephus’ Onias Narratives 34  Josephus’ Sources for the Oniad Priesthood and the History of 39 Onias’ Temple  Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Judaean War 40  Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Jewish Antiquities 53  Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple, or: A Priest from Jerusalem and Rome on Priests and their Temple in the Diaspora 65 78  Onias’ Motives for Building His Temple 79  How to Identify the Founder of Onias’ Temple?  On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy 81 100  Who Built Onias’ Temple? – Going back to War!  When Was Onias’ Temple Built? 102 104  Conclusion Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History 108  Introduction

108

XII

     

Contents

‘Who Killed Onias III?’ On Andronicus, Diodorus, and 2 Maccabees 109 112 Why Kill Onias III? 113 Onias’ Asylum at Daphne The High Priest Onias III in 2 Maccabees 115 The Forensics of Onias’ Murder: On Philip, Onias III, and the 118 Escape to Egypt Conclusion 122

Postscript: Theodore of Mopsuestia

124

128 Chapter 3 The Book of Daniel  Introduction 128  Daniel 9:26 129 131  Daniel 11:22 Postscript: The Silence of the Lambs: The ‘Animal Apocalypse’ and the Death of Onias III (1 Enoch 90:8) 133 Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias 135 135  Introduction: Some Methodological Remarks 137  The Mishnah: M Menaḥot 13:10  The Talmudic Stories on the Foundation of Onias’ Temple 140  Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d) and B Menaḥot 109b: A Textual 141 Overview  The Older the Better? 144 147  The Differences Between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli 153  The Sources of the Talmudim  Did the Rabbis Read Josephus? On the Relationship between Josephus and the Talmudim (Y Yoma 6,3 [43 c-d] and B Menaḥot 109b) 156  Conclusion: How much (Oniad) History is in the Talmud? 161 163 Chapter 5 Archaeology and the Temple of Onias 163  Introduction  Previous Research: Tell el-Yahoudieh and the Temple of 163 Onias  Problems Concerning the Identification of the Location of the Temple of Onias 166  Conclusion 168

XIII

Contents

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community 169  Introduction: the Funerary Epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh 180  JIGRE 38: The “Land of Onias”  JIGRE 39: “Abramos the πολιτάρχης” 182 189  JIGRE 84: “Marin, the Priestess” 193  JIGRE 129: The “Ḥelkias-Inscription”  Conclusion 196 Chapter 7 Onias in the Papyri 198  Introduction 198 199  The Onias Papyrus: CPJ 132  Onias’ Associates: Dositheos (CPJ 24) and Ḥelkias (CPJ 145) 202  An Egyptian Reaction to the Temple of Onias? (CPJ 520)  Conclusion 205

169

204

Part II Jewish Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias Jewish-Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias: An Approach toward 209 Oniad Literature Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy? 215  Introduction 215  The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles and Oniad 216 Authorship  Unity and Jewishness of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles 218 219  The Layout of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles  The Purpose and Main Themes of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles 220  Dating the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles 225 229  Who Wrote the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles? 234  Conclusion Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition? 236 236  Introduction  The ’Episode in the Hippodrome’ in 3 Macc. and C. Ap. 237

XIV

   

Contents

3 Maccabees: A Response to 2 Maccabees? 241 Prayers, Priests and Temples 244 The Plot Thickens: On Loyalty, Court Gossip, Legitimacy, and 250 Hades Conclusion 258

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean 261 Kingship? 261  Introduction  The Diodoran Passages (40.3): Pseudo-Hecataeus and the Jewish Monarchy 265 270  The Josephan Passages (C. Ap. 1.186 – 204)  Was Pseudo-Hecataeus an Oniad Jew? 276  Who wrote ‘On the Jews’? 285 286  On Moses in Judaea and How to Bury a Jew  The Date and Purpose of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ ‘On the Jews’ 288 291  Conclusion Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction? 293 293  Introduction 297  The Place of the Action 299  The “Honeycomb Scene” (Joseph & Aseneth 14 – 17)  The Figure of Levi: Priesthood and Joseph & Aseneth 301  ‘For behold, the wild old lion persecutes me, because he is the father of the gods of the Egyptians’: J & A 12:9 – 11 and the Sitz im Leben of Ant. 13.66 – 67 303  The World of Joseph & Aseneth and the World of 3 306 Maccabees  Joseph & Aseneth and the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles 316  The Judaisms of Joseph & Aseneth and Onias’ Community: On Priesthood, Conversion, Circumcision and the Openness toward 319 ‘the Other’  Conclusion: The Date and Provenance of Joseph & Aseneth 322

Contents

XV

Part III The History of the Temple of Onias in the Hellenistic Period Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History: From the Establishment of the Oniad Community in Egypt until the Roman Conquest (168/167 – 31/30 BCE) 325 325  Introduction  Onias’ Flight and Jerusalem on the Eve of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ 325 Accession  Why Build a Jewish Temple in Egypt? 331  Isaiah and Onias: Legitimizing the Temple of Onias 333  Ptolemy VI Philometor, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Onias the High 336 Priest  Ptolemaic Defense Policy and the Foundation of the Temple of 339 Onias: Onias’ Temple from a Ptolemaic Perspective  Putting Ant. 13.62 – 73 into Perspective 342  The Site of the Temple of Onias: Where was Onias’ Temple 346 Located?  The Organization of the Oniad Community and the “Land of Onias” 350 351  Oniad-Hasmonean Relations (164 – 31/30 BCE)  Drunken Elephants: The Oniad Community after 145 BCE – C. Ap. 2.49 – 55 and Onias’ Role in the Ptolemaic Dynastic War 355 358  The Death of Onias III and the Next Generation of Oniads  The Oniads in the Shadow of Rome 360 361  Postscript: The Decline of the Oniad Community

Part IV Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism 367 Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran  Introduction 367  “…and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them…(CD 1:10)” and also built a Temple in Egypt? Was the 370 ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ an Oniad?  The ‘Sons of Zadok’ at Qumran and the Oniad Dynasty: The Ideology of Power 381  The Sun: Same Calendar, Same Community? 386

XVI

  

Contents

The Temples of Onias and Qumran: Was there also a Dead Sea Sanctuary? 390 392 ‫מקדש אדם‬: The Qumran Community as a “Temple” in Exile 395 Conclusion

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism 397 397  Introduction  Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community 398  The Place of Onias’ Community in the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora 412  The Temple of Onias and Jerusalem 413 415  Conclusion Concluding Oniad History

417

Appendicies Appendix 1 A Genealogical Chart of the Oniad Priestly Dynasty

429

Appendix 2 Did the Jews of Egypt Pay the Temple Tax to Onias’ 430 Temple? Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples 435 Appendix 4 IJudO i BS19: A Russian Onias? Bibliography General Index

445 481

Index of Names

494

Index of Places

499

Index of Ancient Sources

502

443

List of Abbreviations ABT ACEBT AJJS AJP ANRW AÖAW APF AS ASAE ARN BA BAR BASOR BC BCH BI BIFAO BIJS BJP BJRL BLE BN BZNW Chron CIG CIJ Cor CP CPJ CQR CRAI Dan Deut DSD EI EJ ET ETL Exod Ez Ezek

Annales de Bibliographie Théologique Amsterdamse Cahiers voor Exegese en Bijbelse Theologie Australian Journal of Jewish Studies The American Journal of Philology Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt, ed. by W. Haase and H. Temporini (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1972‐) Archiv der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Archiv für Papyrusforschung Ancient Society Annales du Service des antiquités de l’Égypt Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan Biblical Archaeologist Biblical Archaeology Review Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research Bulletin Critique Bulletin de Correspondance Hellénique Biblical Interpretation Bulletin d’Institut Française d’Archéologie Orientale Bulletin of the Institute of Jewish Studies Brill Josephus Project Bulletin of the John Rylands Library Bulletin de Littérature Ecclésiastique Biblische Notizen Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Chronicles Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (see Bibliography) Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum (see Bibliography) Epistle to the Corinthians Classical Philology Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (see Bibliography) Catholic Quarterly Review Comptes-rendus des séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions & Belles-Lettres Daniel Deuteronomy Dead Sea Discoveries Eretz Israel European Judaism Expository Times Ephemerides Theologicae Lovaniensis Exodus Ezra Ezekiel

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-002

XVIII

FHG FJB Gal Gen GLAJJ HAR Hos HTR HUCA ICS IEJ INJ Isa JAH JARCE JBL JEA Jer JH JIGRE JJS JNES Josh JPOS JQR JRS JSHRZ JSJ JSP JSQ JSoS JSS JTS Judg LCL Lev MG MGWJ Neh NTS NTT Num OS OTP PEFQS PEQ

List of Abbreviations

Fragmenta Historicorum Graecarum, K. O. Müller, T. Müller, A.-J. M. Letronne (eds.) (5 vols.; Paris: Firmin Didot, 1841 – 1870). Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge Epistle to the Galatians Genesis Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (see Bibliography) Hebrew Annual Review Hosea Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Illinois Classical Studies Israel Exploration Journal Israel Numismatic Journal Isaiah Journal of Ancient History Journal of the American Research Center in Egypt Journal of Biblical Literature The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology Jeremiah Jewish History Jewish Inscriptions from Graeco-Roman Egypt (see Bibliography) Journal of Jewish Studies Journal of Near Eastern Studies Joshua Journal of the Palestine Oriental Society Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Roman Studies Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha and Related Literature Jewish Studies Quarterly Jewish Social Studies Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Judges Loeb Classical Library Leviticus Materia Giudaica Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums Nehemiah New Testament Studies Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift Numbers Oudtestamentische Studien Old Testament Pseudepigrapha Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement Palestine Exploration Quarterly

List of Abbreviations

P. Oxy.

XIX

The Oxyrhynchus Papyri, ed. by B. P. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt (66 vols.; London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1898‐). P. Ryl. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands Library, Manchester. Volume II: Documents of the Ptolemaic and Roman Periods, ed. by J. de M. Johnson; V. Martin; A. S. Hunt. (Manchester, 1915). P. Sorb. Papyrus Sorbonne P. Tebt. The Tebtunis Papyri, ed. by B. P. Grenfell, A. S. Hunt, G. Smyly, and E. Goodspeed (London and New York: H. Frowde / Oxford University Press, 1902- ). P. Vindob. K. A. Worp, Einige Wiener Papyri (P. Vindob. Worp) (Studia Amstelodamensia ad epigraphicam, ius antiquum et papyro-logicam pertinentia, Österreichische Nationalbibliothek: Wien, Hakkert 1972). PWRE Pauly-Wissowa Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft RB Revue Biblique RecTrav Recueil de Travaux Relatifs a la Philologie et a l’Archéologie Égyptienne et Assyriennes REJ Revue des Études Juives Rom Epistle to the Romans RP Revue de Philologie RQ Revue de Qumran RRJ Review of Rabbinic Judaism Sam Samuel SBL Society of Biblical Literature SCI Scripta Classica Israelica SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (see Bibliography) SJC Scripta Judaica Cracoviensia SJOT Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament: An International Journal of Nordic Theology SO Symbolae Osloenses TAD B. Porten and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (4 vols.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986 – 1999). TB Tyndale Bulletin TQ Theologische Quartalschrift TSBA Transactions of the Society for Biblical Archaeology VT Vetus Testamentum ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins Zeph Zephaniah ZNTW Zeitschrift für die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft ZPE Zeitschrift für Papyriologie und Epigraphik

Introduction Sometime in the mid-2nd century BCE the Jerusalem high priest Onias III is confronted with several problems of a political and cultural nature. As the official head of the Jewish nation, he is in control of all religious affairs, including authority over the Temple – the spiritual and domestic political center of the Jewish people. But that reality will soon change abruptly. Political power over Judaea does not rest with Onias III, but with the Seleucid kings. In the year 175 BCE, a new aspirant to the Seleucid throne emerges, one with great ambitions: Antiochus IV Epiphanes.¹ Onias III is described in the literature of the time as a pious, benevolent, and prudent man (2 Maccabees 3:1; 15:12); one may perhaps call him conservative. At the same time, Onias lives in a turbulent age earmarked by a cultural storm known as Hellenism that conquered the entire oikoumene (οἰκουμένη) – including Judaea. This new “–ism” with all its new ideas, approaches, wisdom (and also debaucheries) conflicts with the traditional Jewish way of living, and thus challenges the old ways represented by Onias III. As the author of 2 Maccabees bemoans, these new ideas and customs quickly penetrated the Jewish aristocracy including its leaders: the high priests.² Along with Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ accession to the throne came voices for change. The change of power within the Seleucid House constituted a welcomed opportunity for certain “modernist” (i. e. Hellenized) currents to bring about a (domestic) political and religious change in Jerusalem. And it was none other than Onias’ own brother, Jason, who spearheaded that movement and who initiated a coup d’état to topple his brother by bribing Antiochus IV to appoint him as high priest of Jerusalem.³ This is the point where our sources come up short, but it seems that Onias III did not go down without a fight. Allying himself with Antiochus IV’s rival, the young Ptolemaic king Ptolemy VI Philometor, and perhaps backed by Ptolemaic troops, arms and armor, Onias III clashed with his

 On Antiochus IV Epiphanes as a persona politica, see O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria (Classica et Mediaevalia Dissertationes VIII; Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1966) and more recently, P. F. Mittag, Antiochus IV Epiphanes: Eine politische Biographie (Klio: Beiträge zur alten Geschichte Beiheft 11; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006).  “…the priests were no longer intent upon their service at the altar. Despising the sanctuary and neglecting the sacrifices, they hurried to take part in the unlawful proceedings in the wrestling arena after the signal for the discus-throwing, disdaining the honors prized by their ancestors and putting the highest value upon Greek forms of prestige (2 Macc. 4:14– 15).” See also 1 Macc. 1:14– 15.  2 Macc. 4:7– 21. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-003

2

Introduction

brother and his supporters (the Tobiads), who were obviously backed by the Seleucids.⁴ Despite Onias’ efforts to regain power, Jason ultimately prevailed and managed to secure the high priesthood for himself. He quickly introduced several religious changes of the sort the conservative Onias and his followers did not approve of.⁵ Things got worse, though. Jason, too, was deposed by a certain Menelaus who was, according to 2 Maccabees, the brother of Simon, the captain of the Temple. But Jason did not give up; when Antiochus IV returned from an unsuccessful second attempt to conquer Egypt, he found himself confronted with civil unrest in Judaea staged by Jason against Menelaus, who attempted to regain power over Jerusalem. Antiochus IV reacted accordingly. He dispatched a considerable force to aid Menelaus and looted and defiled the Jerusalem Temple. This was too much for Onias to bear. He packed his bags and escaped to his ally Ptolemy VI Philometor in Egypt, along with a number of loyal followers.⁶ Philometor welcomed the refugee Onias and his subjects with open arms, for he too, had something to gain from Onias’ arrival. In a time troubled by much civil unrest in the Ptolemaic Empire, a receding economy, a declining military, and the looming threat of a Syrian invasion from the north-west, Philometor found himself in dire need of loyal human resources to secure his borders. He needed loyal combatants to man his newly and hastily built fortresses throughout the country. It seems that Onias and his followers arrived just at the right time. For Philometor, who employed in his administration many non-Egyptian foreigners from all kinds of different places and ethnicities – Samaritans, Greeks, Idumeans, etc. –, Jews were no oddity. They were, in fact, renowned for their military (mercenary) capabilities.⁷ Onias III was appointed strategos (a military and administrative overseer) of the Heliopolite nome in the eastern Nile Delta and had authority over a large territory that later become known as the “Land of Onias.”⁸ There, he established a large community (at least a few hundred, perhaps close to a thousand); perhaps even more than just one.⁹ It seems that Onias

 This is what Josephus tells us at BJ 1.31– 33. Cf. Ant. 12.238 – 240.  See Theodore of Mopsuestia’s comments in his Commentary on Psalm 54(55).  Our sources are unfortunately silent about the number of Onias’ followers, but his following seems to have been substantial (in the few hundreds). This may be inferred from comparable evidence from military settlements elsewhere. See B. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 101 and there, n. 42 for additional literature. See also below, n. 9.  See e.g A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units in Ptolemaic Egypt,” JSJ 9 (1978): 57– 58.  JIGRE 38 and Ant. 14.131. W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 90 – 94 [henceforth: JIGRE].  Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:18 – 19), which later served as a founding legend for Onias’ community predicts the existence of “five cities speaking the Canaanite language.” One may speculate

Introduction

3

was quite successful in the administration of his nome and also acquired renown in the military sector, for Josephus tells us that he later became the chief-of-staff of the Ptolemaic forces.¹⁰ But Onias was not only renowned for his military and administrative prowess. What really distinguished him and his community from other Jewish communities in Hellenistic/Roman Egypt was the existence in their district of a temple devoted to the Jewish God. This temple, better known as “Onias’ Temple,” or the “Oniad Temple,” was named after its founder. It flourished in parallel to the Jerusalem Temple for several centuries – which is a significant observation, indicating its importance as a religious center – until it too was (presumably) destroyed by the Romans sometime in 73/74 CE.¹¹ While it certainly served as a local shrine for the members of the Oniad mercenary community,¹² it also attracted many other Egyptian Jews – how many is unfortunately impossible to assess. I will argue that Onias’ Temple was no run-of-the-mill backwater sanctuary solely catering to the religious needs of Onias’ community. On the contrary, at its pinnacle Onias’ Temple was a major religious and cultural center of Egyptian Judaism.¹³ This assumption is bolstered by the circumstance that several works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature such as 3 Maccabees, Pseudo-Hecataeus, Joseph & Aseneth, and several oracles of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles appear to have been written in the milieu of the Oniad Temple.¹⁴

whether Onias – accordingly – sought to establish not one settlement, but many. See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press 1996) 27.  C. Ap. 2.49 – 50.  Josephus, our main source on Onias’ Temple and its history, does not record the temple’s destruction by the Romans per se, but only reports on its “closure.” See BJ 7.433 – 435. We should, however, infer from Josephus’ cautious description and from additional sources that the temple was indeed destroyed and not merely “shut down.” On this issue, see Chapter 1 (p. 53, n. 71).  This view is fundamentally stressed by V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: JPS, 1959) 281.  Roughly form the time of its establishment in the 60s of the 2nd century BCE until the decline of the Ptolemaic Empire and the beginning of Roman rule over Egypt in ca. 88 – 31/30 BCE.  See Chapters 8 – 11 and G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, passim, for the suggestion that Joseph & Aseneth was authored at Onias’ Temple. Further Jewish-Hellenistic compositions of suspected Oniad origin are the LXX Isaiah: I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948); K. Kim, Theology and Identity of the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora in Septuagint of Isaiah (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oxford, 2009); A. van der Kooij, “’The Servant of the Lord:’ A Particular Group of Jews in Egypt according to the Old Greek of Isaiah: Some Comments on LXX Isa 49,1 – 6 and Related Passages,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (BETL 132; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997) 383 – 396; M. N. van der Meer, “Visions from Memphis and Leon-

4

Introduction

It is unfortunate for us that information on the Oniad Temple is generally meagre. It is perhaps due to this paucity of sources on the history of the Oniad Temple that many scholars shy away from dealing with the subject. There are some sources on the temple’s history, however, first and foremost the 1st century CE Jewish historian Flavius Josephus. Much as in case of the history of the Second Temple period on the whole, Josephus is our main source. Josephus preserved mostly scattered notes on the Oniad Temple, next to two longer narratives, in both of his major historical works – the Judaean War and the Jewish Antiquities. ¹⁵ However, his accounts on Onias’ Temple are notoriously contradictory and are pervaded with all sorts of other problems, such as Josephus’ Tendenz that remains to be disclosed in this study. The contradictions in the Josephan text particularly concern the identity of the Oniad high priest who built the temple (for Josephus provides two candidates) and when this ensued.¹⁶ Moreover, the motives for the building of the temple also remain unclear,¹⁷ much as the actual appearance of the temple.¹⁸ These shortcomings have affected modern scholarship on the Oniad Temple (and continue to do so), causing much debate about these central historical issues.

topolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt,” in Isaiah in Context: Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by M. N. van der Meer (et al.) (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 281– 316; the Third and Fifth Sib. Or.: J. J. Collins, The Jewish Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBL Dissertation Series 13; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974); and the Testament of Job (L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto: Identità politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia [c. 150 a.C.– 73d.C.] [Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Pavia, Dipartimento di scienze dell’antichità 118; Pisa: ETS, 2007] 76).  In Bunge’s words: “Da Josephus keine ‘Geschichte der ägyptischen Juden’ oder gar eine ‘Geschichte des Onias-Tempels’ geschrieben hat, ist es nicht leicht ein zusammenhängendes Bild zu entwerfen. Was Josephus uns überliefert hat, sind letztlich nur einzelne Szenen…” J. G. Bunge, Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabäerbuch: Quellenkritische, literarische chronologische, und historische Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabäerbuch als Quelle syrischpalästinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v. Chr. (Ph.D. Dissertation; Bonn: Rheinische-Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1971) 574.  Josephus provides two options for that, namely one according to his War account (BJ 1.31– 33; 7.423) which accredits Onias III with this deed; and the second option, championed in his Ant., which has Onias’ III son, Onias IV, build the temple (Ant. 12.237, 383; 13.62; 20.235 – 237). The question pertaining to which Oniad high priest built the temple is intrinsically interlinked with the question when the foundation of the temple occurred. If one follows the War account, we would fix that date at around 170 – 164 BCE, while if one follows Josephus’ report in his Antiquities, we would date that event approximately a decade later into the 50s of the 2nd century BCE.  Onias’ motives for the building of his temple are, according to Josephus, rivalry with Jerusalem (BJ 7.431– 432), but later, in his Antiquities (13.63 – 64), the quest for eternal fame.  Ant. 12.388; 13.63, 67, 72; 20.236 vs. BJ 7.426.

Introduction

5

What exacerbates this admittedly frustrating situation concerning the Josephan evidence is the equally frustrating situation of the so-called hard evidence, i. e. archaeology; for even in this department, not much data can be generated. Although the site of Onias’ Temple was claimed to have been found at Tell el-Yahoudieh,¹⁹ its identification with the site of Onias’ Temple was quickly challenged for good reasons.²⁰ Therefore, archaeologists and historians alike are still in pursuit of its remains until today.²¹ In view of the paucity of archaeological evidence of Onias’ Temple, one may be tempted to hypothesize that the Temple of Onias is solely the brainchild of Josephus, who invented the story of Onias’ Temple in order to convey his very own perceptions on ancient Jewish society and history to his audience. Alternatively, one may be inclined to argue that Josephus introduced the episode of Onias’ Temple merely for the sake of telling us good story, designed to teach its readers a moral lesson. Yet, that kind of position is quite an extreme one – and also quite unfounded. Specifically, besides the Josephan and other literary evidence, Onias’ Temple is also mentioned in some rabbinic texts and in several writings of the early Fathers of the Church.²² Perhaps the most relevant supplementary evidence for the existence of Onias’ Temple comes from the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh. Although not the site of the Oniad Temple per se – it was an Oniad settlement belonging to the so-called “Land of Onias.” Already towards the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century, archaeologists discovered a fairly large (Jewish) cemetery containing funerary epitaphs largely dating to the early Roman period.²³ While one epitaph mentions the “Land of Onias,” another attests to the  The location of Onias’ Temple is commonly believed to be identified with Tell-el-Yahoudieh (the Mound of the Jews), located ca. 20 miles north of Cairo in the eastern Nile Delta. See E. Brugsch-Bey, “On et Onion,” RecTrav 8 (1886): 1– 9; H. E. Naville, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1890); W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities (London: British School of Archaeology, 1906) 18 – 27.  See G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 27– 29 and the subsequent note (n. 21).  Suffice here to refer to the efforts of G. Hata, “Where is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 177– 191 and note the recent excavations by the Berkeley Leontopolis Project that convincingly identified ancient Leontopolis with Tell el-Muqdam, and not with Tell el-Yahoudieh as proposed by Petrie. C. A. Redmount and R. F. Friedman, “Tales of a Delta Site: The 1995 Field Season at Tell El-Muqdam,” JARCE 34 (1997): 57– 83.  See M Menaḥot 13:10; T Men. 13:12– 15; B Men. 109a-b; Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d); B Megillah 10a and B Avodah Zarah 52b. Eusebius, Chronicon Book 2:216 and Jerome’s Latin translation of Eusebius’ work Chronicon, 127; in Danielem XI:14; Theodore of Mopsuestia Commentary on the Psalms 54(55). The Rabbis, inter alia, use and discuss Onias’ Temple as an example for the halakhic problem of the kashrut of such an institution outside the Land of Israel. See Chapter 4.  See Chapter 6.

6

Introduction

presence of priests at the site.²⁴ The latter attestation implies that the local community was centered on a temple – despite its existence in the Diaspora – and hence, the title of this book refers to “Priests in Exile.” Next to the epigraphical evidence for Onias’ Temple there exists some papyrological evidence as well. Some Jewish papyri contain the name “Onias,” a name that is unique to Egyptian Jewry²⁵ and perhaps an onomastic marker for members of the Oniad community, or for those Jews who wished to commemorate the community’s founder by passing on his name. Of particular interest in this respect is papyrus CPJ 132 (P. Louvre N 2329) that mentions a high-ranking Ptolemaic (Jewish) official by the name “Onias” in the Heliopolitan nome in the year 164 BCE. It would follow that we should identify the Onias of the papyrus with Onias III, the Jerusalemite high priest whose flight to Egypt from Antiochus’ IV Epiphanes is recorded by Josephus in his Judaean War. These are problems I shall address in the course of this study.

1 Why Study Onias’ Temple? Like its 6th-5th century BCE predecessor, the Elephantine Temple, Onias’ Temple is a phenomenon of ancient Diaspora Judaism. Perhaps its most remarkable feature is its very existence in the context of the Jewish Diaspora in general and in parallel to the all-revered Jerusalem Temple in particular. That being the case, Onias’ Temple is often overlooked by modern scholars and in modern scholarship; it is assessed as existing in the shadow of its more significant and prominent Jerusalem-based counterpart. This situation is further bolstered by the very fact that the existence of Onias’ Temple is problematic, to say the least, by Deuteronomistic standards, which prohibit the existence of Jewish sanctuaries outside of the Land of Israel.²⁶ The existence of Onias’ Temple is therefore a problem; and a very complex one. This seems to be the chief reason why modern scholars, with few exceptions, have found little interest in Onias’ Temple, and that observation finds confirmation in the fact that, until recently, not one monograph was devoted to the

 JIGRE 38, 84.  The sole exception is “Onias the circle-drawer (‫ ”)חוני המעגל‬who is mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 14.21– 28) and in some rabbinic texts (M Ta’anit 3:8; B Ta’anit 23a) in a Judaean geographical context. While we certainly meet that Onias in Judaea in his later life, we know next to nothing about his origin. His name, in fact, suggests that he was of Egyptian (Jewish) origin and migrated to Judaea. See also Chapter 1 (p. 50, n. 66).  Deut 12, esp. verses 4– 14.

1 Why Study Onias’ Temple?

7

subject.²⁷ The study of Onias’ Temple, however, is important on several levels. Firstly, it bears on the fact that Egyptian Judaism, or Diaspora Judaism, was more diverse than is usually thought. By analogy, one may compare this situation to the study of Judaean Judaism. Its complexity, despite prior knowledge of the existence of different streams (or schools of thought/sects/parties; i. e. the Essenes, Pharisees, and Sadducees) only really became fully appreciated in light of the discovery of the Qumran texts in the middle of the last century. Therefore, as stated, Onias’ Temple epitomizes Egyptian Judaism’s diversity and as such, constitutes a subject worthwhile exploring. The diversity of Egyptian Judaism is essentially manifested in the uniqueness of the Jewish Oniad community in its Diaspora context. It was a community that adhered to a religion based on sacrifices, a holy place, and the importance of (priestly) pedigree as it was accustomed to from Jerusalem. The existence of such a community in a Diaspora context is unusual because Diaspora Judaism is usually characterized by the absence of a holy place, the holy seed (priests), and of a cult based on sacrifices, which is substituted by prayers. The singularity of the Oniad community and its implications for such a form of priestly/cultic religion in the Diaspora context, therefore, merits study. Thus, the reader of this study will encounter chapters entitled “Oniad Judaism” and “Priests in Exile.” Another reason for the need of a new approach on the study of Onias’ Temple is the fact that previous studies often produced a monolithic or static view on various details regarding the temple’s history. This is especially so concerning discussions of the importance and relevance of Onias’ Temple which frequently exhibit firm opinions, but hardly any nuanced ones. In other words, with respect to the acceptance and relevance of Onias’ Temple, one commonly encounters the view that the temple was either accepted by Egyptian Jews, or not.²⁸ Correspondingly, Onias’ Temple was either an important center of Judaism, or not. Hardly anybody ever considers the fact that things are liable to change over time. Thus, by applying this line of thought to the example of the importance of Onias’ Temple as a cultural and religious center, we should consider the possibility that Onias’ Temple was of importance in the beginning of its existence,

 The first was L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto: Identità politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia (c. 150 a.C.–73d.C.) (Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Pavia, Dipartimento di scienze sell’antichità 118; Pisa: ETS, 2007). Although G. Bohak’s book (Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis) deals extensively with Onias’ Temple, it is first and foremost a study of a Jewish-Hellenistic literary work and not a monograph on the history of the Oniad Temple.  This issue will be dealt with in the conclusion to this study.

8

Introduction

but declined at some point in its history (from the beginning of the Roman period); and that is, in fact, what I shall suggest. Other examples constitute discussions of the appearance of the temple, i. e. the question of whether or not Onias’ Temple resembled the Temple in Jerusalem, and the presumption that the Hasmoneans and Oniads were constantly at odds with each other. As for the latter assumption I shall argue that the Oniad-Hasmonean relations improved with time and that we can only speak of tensions in the beginning of Hasmonean rule of Judaea. For reasons of space, I will not include a detailed discussion on the temple’s appearance, although I will address the issue briefly in Chapter 1. However, concerning the problem of the temple’s appearance, let me briefly note that Onias’ Temple stood circa two hundred years. Suffice it to say that any building standing that long requires a make-over once in a while. Thus, a building described in the Hellenistic period will have, arguably, little in common with a building described in the later Roman period.²⁹ Since Josephus, it seems, had both a description of the Oniad Temple from the Hellenistic period and one from the Roman period on his table when he wrote his War account, the contradictory datum in BJ 7.426 that Onias’ Temple did not resemble the Jerusalem Temple, contrary to Ant. 12.388 for instance, suddenly becomes fathomable. The crux of the problem here seems to be that some scholars neglect the element of change in the historical process. Hence, once we acknowledge that things are subject to change over time, many of the problems mentioned above simply dissipate.

2 Research Questions and the Aims of this Study The main aim of this study is to provide answers to the following – most pressing – historical questions: 1.) Who built Onias’ Temple? 2.) When was Onias’ Temple built? 3.) What were Onias’ objectives in building the temple? 4.) What was its exact relation to the Jerusalem Temple? In other words, was the Temple of Onias a schismatic Temple? 5.) Was Onias’ Temple an important religious and cultural center or did it merely serve the need of its local mercenary community? 6.) How did Egyptian Diaspora Jewry respond to Onias’ Temple and what was its place within the Egyptian-Jewish Diaspora?

 See on this issue Chapter 1, p. 48 (and there, n. 69).

2 Research Questions and the Aims of this Study

9

Apart from the attempt to solve the above-posed and much debated questions, this study will also address three more issues which are insufficiently, or not addressed at all, in modern scholarship: 7.) The first issue at hand is the question of an affinity of the Oniad community with that of Qumran. In this context, there are three central issues that demand attention, namely (i) the relationship between the ample references to the “Sons of Zadok” in the Qumran sectarian texts and the fact that the founder of the Oniad community, the high priest Onias, belonged to that prominent high-priestly dynasty of Zadok; (ii) the claim that the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ – who is sometimes identified with the high priest during the time of the so-called Intersacerdotium – was a member of the Oniad dynasty; and (iii), the claim that a physical temple existed at Qumran, just like Onias’ in Heliopolis. 8.) The second issue is the question of the relationship between Onias’ Temple and selected works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature. This particular discussion seeks to complement related previous studies on that subject, such as G. Bohak’s book, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis, which argues for an Oniad background of an ancient Jewish-Hellenistic novel.³⁰ In the same vein, I shall discuss the possible Oniad authorship of the following compositions: 3 Maccabees, Pseudo-Hecataeus, the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, and Joseph & Aseneth. The aim here is to demonstrate that Onias’ Temple was an important Jewish cultural center in no way inferior to Alexandria. Furthermore, I attempt to establish a dossier of themes and characteristics, or parameters, inherent in the compositions discussed here, which may aid in detecting a possible Oniad authorship of other Jewish-Hellenistic works in future research. 9.) The third issue involves the notion of the uniqueness of the Oniad community in its Jewish Diaspora context; that is the Oniad community’s raison d’être as a Jewish community centered on a holy place and the holy seed, an issue I have referred to above. Another aspect I wish to elucidate in an appendix (Appendix 3) to this study is the phenomenon of the existence of Onias’ Temple in parallel to the Temple of Jerusalem. I will also present some possible explanations for the phenomenon of multiple Jewish temples in the Second Temple period. However, I will not tie myself down to one explanation only. Rather, I shall argue that Onias’ Temple, as the Elephantine Temple too, should be perceived as the outcome of a strategy

 See also above, n. 14.

10

Introduction

of survival. In other words, they are ways of saving one’s religion in the face of danger and catastrophe. Onias’ Temple, in my view, was built in response to the defilement of the Jerusalem Temple, which was perceived as an immediate threat to the existence of the cultic Judaism prevalent in Jerusalem at the time. Antiochus IV’s defilement of the Temple and the ensuing religious persecutions constituted a moment of major crisis and panic – perhaps one we underestimate. In view of that, as noted, the building of Onias’ Temple should be viewed as a coping-strategy, or a response to the loss (defilement) of the Jerusalem Temple and not necessarily as an act of rivalry,³¹ or schism, as it is oftentimes opined. This observation, once more, brings us back to the theme of “Priests in Exile,” and in that context, I add that it is noteworthy to observe a similar development in the case of the community at Qumran. The members of the Qumran community deliberately chose to distance themselves from Jerusalem, the Temple, and its priesthood because they perceived the Temple as defiled and ruled by sinners even after the re-institution of the Jewish cult. In contrast to the Oniad community, the Qumran community perceived this situation to be temporary until their return to Jerusalem to an ideal Temple built by God at the end of days. The Oniads, in contrast, seem to have realized, perhaps in a more mundane fashion, that a return to Jerusalem was out of the question in the wake of the assumption of the high priesthood by Jonathan in 153/152 BCE. The Qumranites perceived themselves as a “human Temple” (‫ )מקדש אדם‬residing in the Diaspora, even though the Dead Sea area was (geographically) not part of the Diaspora.³²

3 Methodology Recall that I stressed at the outset of this introduction that Flavius Josephus is our main source for the history of Onias’ Temple. Therefore, his testimony about the temple will stand at the center of our attention in the examination of the various sources. Because of the centrality and importance of Josephus’ narratives for the study of the history of Onias and his temple, I consider this book a study of Josephus, just as it is a study of Oniad history. I have pointed out that Josephus’ reports on Onias’ Temple are not an easy nut to crack and that his accounts are severely tendentious, contradictory, and hardly reconcilable with additional sources unless read and analyzed in a proper manner. There-

 The Yiddish term “davke” perhaps describes that circumstance more precisely.  I shall treat this in Chapter 13.

3 Methodology

11

fore, it is crucial to apply an adequate method of reading and understanding Josephus and his writings. As I shall elaborate further in Chapter 1, much progress has been made in the last sixty years or so in Josephan scholarship. Older scholarship on Josephus is characterized by a prevalent attitude to focus on and analyse Josephus’ sources (Quellenkritik) and by demoting him to a mere compiler of his sources.³³ This attitude has changed, one may say to the other extreme, with the tendency, in current scholarship, to view Josephus as an independent author. Therefore, nowadays, Josephus’ writings are approached and analysed by literary- and composition-critical standards.³⁴ That approach, however, seems to ignore that Josephus used sources, especially for the period he had not been contemporaneous with, which includes much of the period relevant to our study. Therefore, it seems reasonable to choose the middle-lane and to combine these two approaches (i. e. source- and literary-criticism). It is this approach that I have followed in this study. By applying this technique we will discover that, indeed, many of the contradictions of the Josephan accounts of Onias’ Temple dissolve and become readily explainable. The contradictory and confused nature of Josephus’ accounts of Onias and his temple, however, are not our sole problem. For rabbinic texts, too, contain references to Onias’ Temple that should be approached cum granum salis when attempting to extract historical data from them. Extracting historical data from rabbinic texts, for that matter, remains a disputed issue, for they are infamous for their notorious a-historicity.³⁵ This issue, luckily, has begun to gain increased scholarly attention recently but for now, the prevailing assumption in recent scholarship is that not much historical information can be gained from rabbinic texts.³⁶ The “new historical approach,” as it is called, seeks to pro-

 So e. g. G. Hölscher Die Quellen des Josephus für die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jüdischen Kriege (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904) 1. For additional references in this spirit, see Chapter 1, p. 30 (n. 12).  S. Mason, “Introduction,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. by S. Mason (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 11– 18.  P. Schäfer, “Die Geschichtsauffassung des rabbinischen Judentums,” JSJ 6 (1975): 167– 188; M. D. Herr, “The Conception of History among the Sages,” World Congress of Jewish Studies 6 (3 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977) 3:129 – 142 [Hebrew]. See also my remarks in Chapter 4.  This is the main assumption of the “new historical approach” in rabbinic studies, as championed by scholars such as J. Neusner, Beyond Historicism, after Structuralism: Story as History in Ancient Judaism (The 1980 Harry Spindel Memorial Lecture, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, Oct. 5, 1980; Portland: Anthoensen Press, 1980) and first and foremost by D. Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995) 1– 30, 227– 245.

12

Introduction

mote a more careful reading of rabbinic texts, meaning that rabbinic texts reflect the (historical) social, and cultural context of their authors, rather than the purported (historical) context of a given text. In other words, rabbinic texts or stories, though placed by their authors into a Second Temple context for instance, will reproduce the late antique socio-historical setting of their authors. Hence, to pick up the example of Onias’ Temple, the rabbinic stories on its foundation in Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d) and B Menaḥot 109b, should not be approached by assuming that everything said there is unequivocally historical. We must keep in mind that we are dealing with a story on the foundation of Onias’ Temple as seen by the Rabbis in a Palestinian or Babylonian setting of late antiquity. Yet, although I will analyze the rabbinic references to Onias’ Temple using a “new historical” reading, I will also draw attention to the fact that, just as Josephus, the Rabbis too drew on earlier source material in order to create their stories. Thus, I contend that their sources preserve some data we may deem historical, regardless of what the rabbinic authors moulded out of them later. With regret, I once again underline that the biggest challenge to the student of Oniad history is the paucity of adequate sources, which includes the absence of decisive archaeological data. Nonetheless, I hope to compensate for the scantiness of the archaeological data by drawing special attention to the extant papyrological and epigraphical evidence. Even though the scope of this study is limited to the Hellenistic period, it is, in my view, imperative to include the epigraphical data from the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh, despite the fact that the large majority of the graves date to the Augustan period.³⁷ Regardless of their Roman date, the funerary epitaphs from the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh contain much valuable information concerning the spiritual, social, religious, and political life of the Oniad community. The information provided by those epitaphs, thus, is not only of relevance for the study of the community in the Roman period, but is also most telling of the Oniad communal life in the Hellenistic period.

4 The Outline of the Study Although the aim of this study is to provide a cohesive history of Onias’ Temple and its community, the scope of such a project, unfortunately, well exceeds the  D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. by J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 165; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis nach den Inschriften,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, ed. by M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 123.

4 The Outline of the Study

13

limits and limitations of this study. Therefore, this study will concentrate on the Hellenistic period, but will, sporadically (and if the circumstance prescribes it) refer also to events of the Roman period. The book comprises four larger parts. The first part is devoted to a thorough analysis of all extant sources on the Oniad Temple.³⁸ This part of the study is primarily concerned with providing answers for problems relating to the history of the Oniad Temple. In Part 1, I argue that all extant sources – with the sole exception of 2 Maccabees – point to the conclusion that Onias III is to be identified as the builder of the Oniad Temple. The identification of Onias III as the temple’s builder also provides us with a date for its building, which must be sought in 168/167 BCE, a date much earlier than is usually assumed. The second part of the study is concerned with the relationship of some Jewish-Hellenistic compositions and Onias’ Temple. In that context I will discuss the possible Oniad authorship of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, 3 Maccabees, Pseudo-Hecataeus, and Joseph & Aseneth. Moreover, I will attempt to establish certain literary parameters, or characteristics, of “Oniad literature” which will hopefully aid in future efforts to identify a possible Oniad origin of further Jewish-Hellenistic compositions of Egyptian origin. The broader aim of this section of the book is to investigate whether the Oniad Temple was indeed a major center of Jewish culture in Egypt, matching (or even outdoing) that of Alexandria. The third part of the study constitutes a reconstruction of the history of the Oniad Temple and its community in the Hellenistic period. Its purpose is to elucidate the role and function of the Oniad Temple in the larger contexts of Ptolemaic, Seleucid (i. e. “international”) politics and culture, and to put into context the previous findings from Part 1 of this study. Part 4 addresses the nature of the Oniad community as a community of “priests in exile,” and also discusses various features of Oniad Judaism and the place of the Oniad community in the context of the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora. This includes a discussion of the affiliation of the Oniad community with that of Qumran, a community that perceived itself to be of Zadokite origin and currently residing in exile. Last but not least, in the conclusion of this study I will summarize its findings by briefly answering the questions laid out in the introduction. I shall also refer to the debate about whether Onias’ Temple was a rival, or even a schismatic

 That is: Josephus, 2 Maccabees, the Book of Daniel, rabbinic literature, archaeology, epigraphy, and papyri.

14

Introduction

temple, as is often claimed by modern scholars, and whether it was an accepted and important religious institution in Egypt and elsewhere. Attached to this book are four appendices: one that provides a (reconstructed) genealogical chart of the priestly “House of Onias,” one that asks whether the Jews of Egypt paid the half-Shekel Temple tax to Onias’ Temple, one concerned with explaining the phenomenon of Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem, and one that discusses an inscription from Russia mentioning an Onias.

5 The Temple of Onias in Modern Research³⁹ The very first scholarly treatment of Onias’ Temple is a 1730 Bremen Ph.D. dissertation by Johannes Philippus Cassel.⁴⁰ Already Cassel discussed the contradictory reports of Josephus and compared them with the rabbinic material. Notably, following Cassel’s treatment in the 18th century, Onias’ Temple did not arouse scholarly interest until the 19th century, when research on the Oniad Temple was sparked off by a number of more or less professional archaeological excavations conducted in the area of the Egyptian Nile Delta. The affiliation of a location known as Tell el-Yahoudieh (or: “Mound of the Jews”), ca. twenty miles north of modern day Cairo, with Onias’ Temple had been proposed already by several excavators.⁴¹ However, it was W. M. Flinders Petrie, the “Father of Egyptology,” who claimed in 1906 to have discovered the remains of Onias’ Temple at Tell el-Yahoudieh. ⁴²  Literature on Onias’ Temple is quite extensive. Almost every historian devotes at least a few pages to the topic. See e. g. H. Graetz, Volkstümliche Geschichte der Juden 2 (3 vols.; Leipzig: Verlag Oskar Reiner, 1914) 1:319 – 320; L. Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel: Von der Zerstörung des ersten Tempels bis zur Einsetzung des Makabäers Schimon zum Hohen Priester und Fürsten (Leipzig: Oskar Reiner, 1869 – 70) 235, 472– 474; E. Schürer, Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols.; 3rd and 4th ed; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1901– 11) 1:182, 194– 196; 3:97– 100; B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher: Nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1900) 96 – 97; J. Wellhausen, Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte6 (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1907) 248. See also H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895) 64– 83, 126 – 154; U. Kahrstedt, Syrische Territorien in hellenistischer Zeit (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1926) 132– 145; A. Momigliano, Prime line di storia della tradizione maccabaica (Roma: Società Editore del Foro Italiano, 1930) 38 – 39, 49, 146 – 147. Therefore, I restrict myself here to reviewing only publications that are exclusively devoted to the subject.  J. P. Cassel, Dissertatio Philologico-Historica de Templo Oniae Heliopolitano (Bremen, 1730).  H. T. Lewis, “Tel-el-Yahoudeh,” TSBA 7 (1882): 177– 192; E. Brugsch-Bey, “On et Onion,” 1– 8; H. E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew.  W. M. Flinders Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 27.

5 The Temple of Onias in Modern Research

15

Seven years earlier, in 1899, Adolf Büchler published a book on the Oniads and Tobiads, devoting a whole chapter to the Oniad Temple.⁴³ Büchler’s theory that the Oniad Temple was in fact a Samaritan shrine is untenable and was unanimously rejected. This in spite of Büchler’s quite interesting deliberations on Josephus’ genealogical data on the high priesthood in general, and on the Oniad high priests in particular. In my opinion this certainly merits attention. Petrie’s 1906 publication of his findings prompted the first cohesive study on Onias’ Temple by S. A. Hirsch – a rather long article from the same year.⁴⁴ Hirsch’s contribution was not limited to a simple reiteration of Josephus’ reports. In a vein similar to Cassel’s, he juxtaposed the Josephan material on Onias’ Temple with the rabbinic stories on the subject and expanded Cassel’s discussion on several issues, notably the conception of Onias’ Temple as a ‫( במה‬bamah; an illegitimate shrine). After World War I, research on Onias’ Temple re-emerged in Edgar’s 1922 publication of some tombstones discovered at Tell el-Yahoudieh,⁴⁵ not far from the site that Petrie had identified with Onias’ Temple. Again, after some years of silence, the problem of archaeology and Onias’ Temple was revisited by some French publications in the 1930s that challenged Petrie’s identification.⁴⁶ In the same decade, the first Hebrew publication by Y. Brand on the subject was published, primarily focusing on the rabbinic texts on Onias’ Temple just as Hirsch’s article did.⁴⁷ The following decade (the 1940s) witnessed one publication that discussed Onias’ Temple directly, as well as three others that had seemingly little to do with the actual subject at first sight, but treated important aspects connected to it. The first of these four studies, like Brand’s, is another study published in Hebrew (in

 A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im 2. Makkabäerbuch und in der verwandten jüdisch-hellenistischen Litteratur: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Juden von 220 – 160 und zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Litteratur (Wien: Verlag der Israelitisch-Theoligischen Lehranstalt, 1899) 166 and especially 239 – 276, 353.  S. A. Hirsch “The Temple of Onias,” in Jews’ College Jubilee Volume, ed. by S. J. Solomon and F. Emanuel (London: Luzac & Co., 1906) 39 – 80. Note too, that Petrie lectured on his discovery at King’s College in London in 1906 and one may find a summary of that lecture in the Jewish Chronicle of May 18 (1906).  C. C. Edgar, “More Tomb-Stones from Tell el Yahoudieh,” ASAE 22 (1922): 7– 16.  See Comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Comte rendu sommaire d’une mission à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” BIFAO 29 (1929): 155 – 178; Comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Le temple d’Onias el le camp d’Hyksôs à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” BIFAO 35 (1935): 59 – 71.  Y. Brand, “On the Episode of Onias’ Temple,” Yavneh 1 (1939): 78 – 84 [Hebrew].

16

Introduction

1945) that also dealt with the rabbinic accounts on Onias.⁴⁸ Among the three other publications the first is a French study by M. Beek,⁴⁹ whose actual concern is the relationship of Jerusalem with the Egyptian Diaspora. Beek devoted a section of his study to the “phenomenon” of Onias’ Temple. Notably, Beek’s discussion constitutes the first attempt to place the Oniad Temple into its immediate socio-political context, a hitherto rather neglected issue. Next came a review of V. Tcherikover’s Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman Age from the year 1946, in which S. Zeitlin discussed Onias and his temple in response to Tcherikover’s analysis.⁵⁰ The third, quite influential study, is I. L. Seeligman’s discussion of The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, a text that was of utmost importance for the Oniad community, because of its rendition of Isaiah’s prophecy in 19:18 – 19 that envisaged the erection of an altar in the “City of Righteousness” (πόλις ἀσεδέκ) dedicated to YHWH in Egypt.⁵¹ Seeligman argued that large portions of that translation were written in the milieu of the Temple of Onias.⁵² From the 1940s until the 1960s interest in Onias’ Temple appears to have waned once more, save for another archaeological survey from 1958.⁵³ This publication was yet again concerned with the identification of the site with Tell elYehoudieh. A year later, V. Tcherikover’s influential analysis of the subject in his Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews,⁵⁴ was published, which was instrumental in establishing the still prevalent communis opinio that Onias IV built the Oniad Temple. But it also raised other important opinions on Oniad history, such as the notion that the temple was of marginal importance. The year 1960 saw the publication of a third study in Hebrew on Onias, this time not one concerned with rabbinic literature, but with the problem of the historicity of the report on Onias’ III death in 2 Macc. 4:36 – 37.⁵⁵ The late M. Stern concluded that the report of Onias’ III murder in 2 Maccabees is indeed historical

 H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York: The American Academy of Research, 1945) 232– 247 [Hebrew].  M. A. Beek, “Relations entre Jérusalem et la diaspora égyptienne au 2e siècle avant J. C.” OS 2 (1943): 119 – 143.  S. Zeitlin, “Review of V. Tcherikover, The Jews of Egypt in the Hellenistic Roman Age in Light of the Papyri (in Hebrew) Jerusalem, 1945,” JQR 37 (1946 – 47): 89 – 93.  I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 91– 94.  I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 91– 94.  Sh. Adam, “Recent Discoveries in the Eastern Delta (Dec. 1950 – May 1955),” ASAE 55 (1958): 301– 324.  V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: JPS, 1959) 275 – 285.  M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” Zion 25 (1960): 1– 16 (= Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period [ed. by M. Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991] 35 – 50).

5 The Temple of Onias in Modern Research

17

and therefore essentially concurred with Tcherikover’s identification of Onias IV as the temple’s builder. A few years later, in 1965, G. R. Driver was among the pioneers who associated Onias III and the Oniad Temple with the Dead Sea Scrolls.⁵⁶ While he strongly rejected the identification of Onias III as the ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ the mysterious founder of the Qumran community, all the same he underscored the common Zadokite heritage of the Qumran and Oniad communities.⁵⁷ Driver’s 1965 study was followed by another study in Hebrew, published in 1967, the year of the fateful Six-Day War. In this study, Onias is fittingly presented as a pious and brave Jew, who succeeded in defying Antiochus IV’s reprisals and the misdeeds of the Jewish Hellenizers – a colourful portrait.⁵⁸ In the following year the French scholar Martin Delcor wrote a comprehensive and well-received study on Onias’ Temple.⁵⁹ Appended to Delcor’s study is a piece by the French archaeologist Roland DeVaux, who critically responds to an article published in the previous year by S. H. Steckoll on the affinity of the Zadokite Qumran community and the Oniad settlement in Egypt. Among other things, Steckoll tentatively suggested that sacrifices were offered at Qumran too, a view that was, in my mind, correctly rejected by DeVaux.⁶⁰ During the 1970s, scholarly interest in the topic waned once again,⁶¹ and only in 1981 another French study was published that dealt with the relation of Tell el-Yahoudieh and Onias’ Temple.⁶² In the following year, 1982, R. Hayward revisited several aspects in the study of Onias’ Temple, amongst them the importance of Isaiah’s prophecy (19:18 – 19) as a propaganda piece for Onias and his men.⁶³ Hayward also pointed to the importance of solar-imagery in the sources on Onias’ Temple, which will be of importance later in this study, as it, in my opinion, indicates the Oniad usage of the solar-calendar.

 The other pioneer was H. H. Rowley, who, a few years before, had suggested identifying the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ with Onias III. See H. H. Rowley, “The Teacher of Righteousness and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BJRL 40 (1957): 114– 146.  G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965) 133 – 135, 236.  B.-Z. Luria, “Mihu Honio?” Beit HaMikrah 12 (1967): 65 – 81 [Hebrew].  M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias en Égypte,” RB 75 (1968): 188 – 205.  Cf. S. H. Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis,” RQ 6 (1967): 55 – 69 and R. DeVaux’s reply in M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 205. Steckoll’s study is hardly convincing, particularly his effort to argue for the existence of a temple at Qumran.  For an overview on the scholarship on Onias’ Temple until 1980, see also L. H. Feldman, Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937 – 1980) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984) 459 – 463.  A. Zivie, “Tell El-Yahoudieh,” Nahar Misraim 2 (1981): 5 – 16.  R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration,” JJS 33 (1982): 429 – 443.

18

Introduction

In 1985, the issue of the identity of the temple-builder was again at stake in an article by V. Keil, who, in opposition to Stern, defended his identification of the temple-builder with Onias III.⁶⁴ In the same year, for first time, A. Kasher focused on the Oniad community, its organization, and the nature of its settlement, for which he mostly relied on epigraphical data from the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh. ⁶⁵ In the 1990s the topic received the most scholarly attention by far. Almost every year saw the publication of at least one study devoted to different aspects of Onias’ Temple, beginning with a study in Hebrew by R. Vilk. Vilk discussed the odd circumstance of Onias’ III voluntary shelter in a pagan shrine in Daphne near Antioch (2 Macc. 4:33).⁶⁶ Two years thereafter Wasserstein published his important study on the topic that reviews mostly rabbinic accounts on Onias’ Temple.⁶⁷ The same year saw another Israeli publication, by R. Yankelevitch, who, as many of his Israeli predecessors, focused entirely on the rabbinic accounts on Onias’ Temple.⁶⁸ For Yankelevitch, the real subject of the rabbinic stories on Onias is the question of the legitimacy of religious worship outside of Israel. He also challenged the historicity of the rabbinic accounts, stressing that the discussion of Onias’ Temple was strictly of academic nature and thus, does not reflect a Second Temple period reality, but that of Usha. In the following year, David Noy commented on the inscriptions from the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh (Leontopolis),⁶⁹ while Fausto Parente (in the same year) once more addressed the issue of the temple-builder’s identity.⁷⁰ Contrary to most studies, Parente provides a thorough discussion of Josephus’ accounts of Onias, which led him, in correspondence with alternative evidence (such as the papyrus CPJ 132), to challenge the communis opinio of identifying Onias IV with the founder of Onias’ Temple. In another article published in the following year, Parente, draws attention to the Byzantine Bible commentator Theodore of Mopsuestia whose Commentary on the Psalms (54[55]) too, suggests that Onias’ Temple was founded

 V. Keil, “Onias III. – Märtyrer oder Tempelgründer?” ZAW 97 (1985): 221– 32.  See A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985) 119 – 135.  R. Vilk, “Onias’ Asylum in Daphne,” Sinai 108 [1991]: 285 – 287 [Hebrew].  A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis,” ICS 18 (1993): 119 – 29.  R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honour of Shmuel Safrai, ed. by I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, and M. Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1993) 107– 115 [Hebrew].  D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 162– 182.  F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 69 – 98.

5 The Temple of Onias in Modern Research

19

by Onias III.⁷¹ Also in 1995, G. Bohak argued, by means of a creative reading of papyrus CPJ 520, that native Egyptians bore hostile sentiments toward Onias’ settlement and its men.⁷² Bohak’s article is linked to an earlier study of his (from 1994), in which he presented an equally creative reading of the ancient Jewish-Hellenistic novel Joseph & Aseneth, suggesting that the work was authored at Onias’ Temple.⁷³ This article is a concise summary of his 1994 PhD thesis, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis, which was published in 1996 (see above, n. 9).⁷⁴ Despite his focus on the Jewish-Hellenistic novel in his book, Bohak devoted an entire chapter (Chapter 2, pp. 19 – 40) to the history of the Oniad Temple, which was, until recently (see below), the only effort to provide a comprehensive history of Onias’ Temple. Notably, the next half of the decade was dominated by one topic only, the relationship between Onias’ Temple and Qumran.⁷⁵ We recall that this question was treated last in the late 1960s.⁷⁶ In a very interesting study, P. A. Rainbow proposed that a “lost high priest,” Simon III, was Qumran’s “Teacher of Righteousness.” Based on the assumption that the Oniads adhered to so-called papponymy (the custom of naming one’s child after its grandfather), Rainbow argued that Josephus used a flawed Oniad genealogy in his Antiquites (Books 12 and 13) and that there must have existed an unknown priest by the name of “Simon III.”⁷⁷ The same argument was brought forward (independently) by É. Puech two

 See F. Parente, “Le témoignage de Theodore de Mopsueste sur le mort d’Onias III et la fondation du temple de Leontopolis,” REJ 154 (1995): 429 – 436.  G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 250: The Egyptian Reaction to Onias’ Temple,” JSJ 36 (1995): 32– 41.  See G. Bohak, “Aseneth’s Honeycomb and Onias’ Temple: The Key to “Joseph and Aseneth,” in Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 11 (Division A; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994) 163 – 170. The same argument was brought forward by Bohak in a later study, see G. Bohak, “From Fiction to History: Contextualizing Joseph and Aseneth,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1996 Seminar Papers, ed. by D. J. Lull, et al. (SBLSP 35, Supplement VII; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 273 – 284.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Temple in Heliopolis (PhD dissertation; Princeton: Princeton University, 1994).  In the 1990s, the following studies on the relationship between Qumran and Onias’ Temple appeared: G. Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok – Priests – Congregation,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion; Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 1:375 – 384; D. J. Kaufman, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oniad High Priesthood,” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 51– 63 and D. J. Kaufman, “From Tennes to Leontopolis: A Political and Literary-Historical Study of the High Priesthood in Hellenistic Palestine (350 – 159 BCE),” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 117– 122.  See Steckoll’s study and Delcor’s and DeVaux’s reply above, n. 59 and n. 60.  See P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness,” JJS 48 (1997): 30 – 52.

20

Introduction

years later.⁷⁸ Interest in the relationship between the Oniad and Qumran community, however, did not cease with the end of the decade. In 2002 M. and K. Lönnqvist argued, in my view not very convincingly, for a continuous relationship and exchange of manpower between the two communities.⁷⁹ Another not very convincing study from 2006 was published by D. N. Freedman and J. C. Geoghegan, who argue for an identification of the “Wicked Priest” (the “Teacher’s” adversary) with Onias III.⁸⁰ Leaving the subject of Qumran and returning to the 1990s, let us mention some more important studies: Firstly, D. R. Schwartz,⁸¹ who discussed Onias’ Temple in its Egyptian Jewish Diaspora context, arguing that (a) the Temple of Onias, the center of the so called “Land of Onias,” was of significance – in contrast to the opinion of the majority of scholars who think that the temple was entirely insignificant, and (b) that lack of opposition to the Temple of Onias need not, and indeed cannot, indicate enthusiastic devotion to the Temple of Jerusalem. Secondly, E. S. Gruen, as indicated by the title of his study “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” scrutinized the various motivations listed by Josephus in Onias accounts concerning Onias’ temple building project.⁸² Thirdly, Peter Schäfer suggests in a very interesting article (P. Schäfer, “’From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small:’ The Relationship between Palestine and Egypt in the Graeco-Roman Period,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and GraecoRoman Culture, ed. by P. Schäfer [3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998] 1:129 – 140), that fragments of a letter from Jerusalem to the Jews of Onias are preserved in the Talmud. This letter sought to persuade Oniad Jews to return to Jerusalem in order to reclaim their former position. Last, but not least, a very good, yet somewhat neglected study by J. E. Taylor, provides an analysis of the Jose-

 É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 137– 158.  Cf., M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: A New Paradigm (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002) (especially, 83 – 105).  D. N. Freedman and J. C. Geoghegan, “Another Stab at the Wicked Priest,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins: Vol. II.: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth (3 vols.; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006) 2: 17– 24.  D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven,” Zion 62 (1996/97): 5 – 23 [Hebrew].  E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” SCI 16 (1997): 47– 70.

5 The Temple of Onias in Modern Research

21

phan Onias narratives, for the first time taking a literary critical approach to the understanding of the texts.⁸³ It seems that the current century has brought renewed interest in the topic. Several publications have appeared recently on the Jewish high priests that refer the complexity of the Oniad high priestly succession and the related problem of the identity of the founder of Onias’ Temple, but they are not primarily concerned with the history of Onias’ Temple.⁸⁴ Next to the focus on high priests, it is noteworthy to observe the emergence of several new studies that predominantly focus on Egyptian Jewish communities in light of the extant epigraphical and new papyrological evidence. These studies incorporate and discuss the epigraphical and papyrological evidence from the nearby Jewish cemetery of Tell elYahoudieh and the neighboring nomes and villages.⁸⁵ Related to the discussion of so-called “hard evidence,” we should draw attention to a renewed attempt to discover the remains of the Oniad Temple, which is currently underway under the supervision of Gohei Hata and his team of Japanese archaeologists.⁸⁶

 J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias,” JSJ 29 (1998): 297– 321.  See D. W. Rooke’s Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000); J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004) 188 – 226. VanderKam’s study was soon followed by M. Brutti, The Development of the High Priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean Period: History, Ideology, Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2006). See also Parker’s recent study, which devotes much attention to the problem of the identity of the Oniad Temple’s builder. V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien zu den Hohen Priestern der frühen Makkabäerzeit,” ZDPV 124 (2008): 143 – 170.  Regarding the question of the Jewish nature of the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh, see T. Ilan, “The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis and the Question of Jewish Diaspora Cemeteries,” SCI 25 (2006): 71– 86. On the nature and on the organization of the Oniad community see W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis nach den Inschriften,” 117– 133. An inscription granting the right to asylum from an ancient Egyptian synagogue prompted a recent discussion by K. J. Rigsby, “A Jewish Asylum in Graeco-Roman Egypt,” in Das Antike Asyl, ed. by M. Dreher (Köln and Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2003) 127– 141, who argues that Onias’ Temple too had the right of asylum. Regarding papyrology, see J. M. S. Cowey, “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit: Neue Erkenntnisse aus jüngst veröffentlichten Papyri,” in Im Brennpunkt – die Septuaginta; Studien zur Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, ed. by S. Kreuzer and J. P. Lesch (3 vols.; Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2004) 2:24– 43. In a similar vein, G. Gardner, “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century B.C.E.,” JBL 126 (2007): 327– 343, who discusses Onias’ III role in Jerusalem as a “benefactor,” based on the depiction of Onias in 2 Maccabees (especially, 329 – 332).  Prof. Hata kindly sent me a draft of his report on progress with his project, for which I express my gratitude. See n. 21.

22

Introduction

Very recently, in 2007, the very first monograph on the Temple of Onias appeared, written by L. Capponi in Italian.⁸⁷ In her book Capponi focuses on the Oniad community rather than on the history of the temple itself. Unfortunately, Capponi neglects Israeli scholarship on the subject, and in addition, hardly discusses at all the rabbinical sources on the temple, something that I consider important and to which I devote a whole chapter in this study. The rabbinic stories on the foundation of Onias’ Temple are particularly important, especially since the topic gained renewed attention. Those studies apply new scholarly approaches and new developments in the field of rabbinic studies with the subject of Onias’ Temple, as exemplified by an unpublished study by J. Labendz on “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature.”⁸⁸ In another article devoted to the relationship of ancient Jewish literature to the Oniad Temple, Capponi suggests that 3 Maccabees was written by an Alexandrian or Egyptian-Jewish supporter of Onias’ Temple, who rigorously adhered to the Mosaic Laws and attempted to promote more piety amongst the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora.⁸⁹ Remaining in the realm of Jewish literature, one notes a renewed interest in the Oniad background of the Septuagint version of Isaiah, as demonstrated by several new studies on the subject.⁹⁰ In a similar vein, it has recently been suggested that one ought to read the Letter of Aristeas as a polemic against rival biblical translations from Egypt, chief amongst those a translation produced at Onias’ Temple.⁹¹ To conclude this overview of scholarly treatment of the Oniads and the Oniad Temple, I refer to R. Last’s article. By adducing evidence from various Ptol L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli. The subject of Onias’ Temple appears to enjoy popularity in recent Italian scholarship. Next to Capponi’s study, we may also refer to L. Troiani’s study on Josephus’ Onias narratives, which is, however, as unconvincing as Capponi’s book. L. Troiani, “Sulla tradizione del tempio di Leontopoli,” MG 13 (2008): 131– 134.  J. R. Labendz, “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature,” (Unpublished Manuscript, 2003): 1– 10. See also A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (Leiden: Brill, 2013), who devotes a large chapter to the rabbinic accounts on Onias’ Temple (chapter 6); and N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple: The Historical Meaning of a Rabbinic Story,” Zion 78 (2013): 439 – 469 [Hebrew]. I am indebted to all three scholars for sharing their work with me and for providing me with their manuscripts prior to publication.  L. Capponi, “Martyrs and Apostates: 3 Maccabees and the Temple of Leontopolis,” Henoch 29 (2007): 288 – 306.  See above, n. 14.  M. Rösel, “Der Brief des Aristeas an Philokrates, der Tempel in Leontopolis und die Bedeutung der Religionsgeschichte Israels in hellenistischer Zeit,” in “Sieben Augen auf einem Stein” (Sach 3,9) – Studien zur Literatur des Zweiten Tempels: Festschrift für Ina Willi-Plein zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by F. Hartenstein and M. Pietsch (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007) 327– 344.

6 Some Remarks on Translations, Spellings, and Citations

23

emaic legal papyri, this article argues that the letters preserved by Josephus in Ant. 13.62– 73 are essentially hostile towards Onias and his temple.⁹² I shall elaborate more on this issue in my treatment of Josephus and Oniad history in Chapter 1, to which we will immediately turn.

6 Some Remarks on Translations, Spellings, and Citations The reader of this study will encounter two alternative spellings of the word “temple,” one with a small “t,” and one with a capital “T.” The former is employed to denote a temple as a general term, i. e., a temple of pagan nature or just any other temple. The latter (capitalized) spelling is reserved to denote the Temple of Jerusalem or to designate a specific temple, such as “Onias’ Temple,” the “Oniad Temple,” or the “Samaritan Temple,” etc. Translations of the Hebrew Bible follow the New Revised Standard Version Bible (NRSV), as do citations of 1 and 2 Maccabees, unless indicated otherwise. All citations of Josephus derive from the LCL edition.⁹³ The Jewish inscriptions from Egypt are designated “JIGRE” alongside their relevant enumeration as they appear in Horbury’s and Noy’s publication.⁹⁴ Similarly, the Jewish papyri from Egypt appear with the abbreviated designation CPJ for Tcherikover et al.’s collection of Jewish papyri, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. ⁹⁵ Rabbinic texts are referred to as follows: M = Mishnah; T = Tosefta; Y = the Palestinian Talmud (Yerushalmi); B = the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli).

 R. Last, “Onias IV and the άδέσποτος ίερός: Placing “Antiquities” 13.62– 73 into the Context of Ptolemaic Land Tenure,” JSJ 41 (2010): 494– 516.  R. J. Marcus, A. Wikgren, L. H. Feldman (eds. and transl.) Josephus, 13 vols., Loeb Classical Library (LCL; Cambridge and London, 1926 – 1965, reprinted 1997, 1998). Josephus’ works will be cited and abbreviated as follows: The Judaean War: BJ (Bellum Judaicum); The Jewish Antiquities: Ant. (Antiquitates Judaicae); Life: V (Vita); Against Apion: C. Ap. (Contra Apionem).  W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).  V. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and M. Stern (eds.), Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957– 64).

Part I The Sources on the Temple of Onias

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History 1 Introduction The writings of the first century CE Jewish historian Flavius Josephus (born 37 CE – ca. 100 CE) constitute our main source on the history of Onias’ Temple. It is because of their significance for my discussion of Onias’ Temple that I chose to sacrifice chronology and begin this inquiry into Oniad history with a thorough investigation of Josephus’ accounts on Onias’ Temple, rather than say, the earlier 2 Maccabees (see Chapter 2). Born into a Jerusalemite priestly aristocratic family, Joseph ben Mattityahu (‫יוסף בן מתתיהו‬, better known under his Latin name [Titus?] Flavius Josephus) became involved in Judaean politics fairly early in life.¹ Prior to the outbreak of the First Judaean War (66 – 73/74 CE) he embarked on a mission to Rome, which had the purpose of liberating some Jewish priests from captivity – a mission he successfully concluded. A few years later, with the outbreak of Judaean-Roman hostilities, Josephus, being a member of the priestly ruling class, was assigned military and civilian command of the Galilee. He was commissioned to prepare the local population for the upcoming confrontation with the Romans and with thwarting any Roman advance into the Judaean heartland. This task was, it seems, too much for Josephus to handle. At the siege of Iotapata, the last Galilean stronghold, he fell into Roman captivity under dubious circumstances. Josephus, allegedly influenced by a vision he had in a dream, was brought before the prominent Roman general Vespasian. At this meeting he predicted that Ves-

 For Josephus’ biography see in particular G. Hölscher, “Flavius Josephus,” PWRE 9, 2 (1916): 1934– 1942; N. Bentwich, The Life and Times of Josephus (Philadelphia: JPS, 1914); R. Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Gießen: Münchow’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920); H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus: the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1929); S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979); P. Bilde, Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance (JSOT 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988); T. Rajak, Josephus: The Historian and his Society (2nd ed.; London: Duckworth, 2002); L. H. Feldman, “Flavius Josephus Revisited: The Man, his Writings, and his Significance,” ANRW 21.2 (1984), and more recently W. den Hollander, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome: From Hostage to Historian (Leiden: Brill, 2014). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-004

28

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

pasian would become emperor.² Once Josephus’ prophecy was fulfilled, Vespasian set Josephus free and bestowed upon him several benefits, including territories in Judaea and a pension.³ After accompanying Vespasian and his son Titus (who was approximately the same age as Josephus) in Judaea and Egypt, Josephus followed his new patrons to Italy. Fresh off the boat in Rome, Josephus began a new career as the author of a history of the Judaean War. He completed the Judaean War (a.k.a. Bellum Judaicum) around the year 79 CE, but it is possible that he produced revised editions of the composition over the next decades.⁴ Some twenty years after writing the first edition of the Judaean War, he composed a history of the Jewish people from creation to approximately the outbreak of the First Judaeo-Roman War, the Jewish Antiquities. ⁵ The Antiquities comprise twenty books, perhaps in allusion to Di For a discussion of Josephus’ prophecy, see P. Schäfer, “Die Flucht Johanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem und die Gründung des ’Lehrhauses’ in Jabne,” ANRW 19.2 (1979): 43 – 101; A. Schalit, “Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Josephus, Talmud und Midrasch: Zur Geschichte einer messianischen Prophetie,” ANRW 2.2 (1975): 208 – 327; H. R. Moehring, “Joseph Ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian,” ANRW 2.21.2 (1984): 907– 913; T. Rajak, Josephus, 188 – 190; W. den Hollander, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome, 91– 105 and more recently, M. Ben-Shahar, “The Prediction to Vespasian,” in Josephus and the Rabbis, ed. by T. Ilan and V. Noam (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2017) 2:604– 664 [Hebrew].  BJ 7.447– 453 and V 424– 426, 428 – 429. On Josephus’ status in Rome and his patronship with the Flavian dynasty see N. Bentwich, Josephus, 58 – 80; R. Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker, 255 – 278; H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, 15 – 16; Sh. J. D. Cohen, Josephus, 232– 242; P. Bilde, Josephus, 57– 60; T. Rajak, Josephus, 185 – 222; H. M. Cotton and W. Eck, “Josephus’ Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman Elites,” in Flavius Josephus & Flavian Rome, ed. by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 37– 52; W. den Hollander, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome, passim.  On the date of the composition of Josephus’ War, see in particular M. Stern, “The Date of the Composition of the Jewish War,” in Studies in Jewish History ed. by M. Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. Herr (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991) 402– 407 [Hebrew] and H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, 29 – 35; G. Hölscher, “Flavius Josephus,” 1995. There are good reasons to assume that Josephus produced subsequent editions of his War, which he expanded. The particular case in point is the book which concludes the War as we have it today, namely Book 7, which is thought to be a later addition or an expansion of a far briefer original. See on this issue H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, 35, 105; S. J. D. Cohen, Josephus in the Galilee and Rome, 87 argues for a Dominitian date. This has been elaborated in an important article by S. Schwartz, “The Composition and Publication of Josephus’ ‘Bellum Judaicum’ Book 7,” HTR 79 (1986): 373 – 386. As in many cases in scholarship, this view has lately been challenged, cf. H. M. Cotton and W. Eck, “Josephus’ Roman Audience,” 43 – 48, however recently defended by D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus, Catullus, Divine Providence and the Date of the Judaean War,” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 331– 352.  The completion of the Jewish Antiquities should be set in the year 93/94 CE as is commonly accepted (see e. g. H. W. Attridge, “Josephus and His Works,” in Jewish Writings of the Second

1 Introduction

29

onysus of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities. ⁶ In addition to these two opera magna, he also wrote a brief autobiography (the Vita)⁷ and an apologetic/polemical two-volume composition directed against the anti-Jewish ravings of the Graeco-Egyptian scholar and publicist Apion (Contra Apionem).⁸ In his Antiquities (Ant. 4.198; 20.266 – 267) Josephus also expressed his future intention to write a theological treatise dealing with the customs of the Jews and the aetiology of their laws.⁹ It is doubtful, however, whether this project was ever realized. In any case, no such work has survived. Of the Josephan corpus only two compositions, in fact, are of particular relevance for the present discussion, namely the Judaean War and the Jewish Antiquities. A brief passage from the Contra Apionem (C. Ap. 2.49 – 55) will be cited in a subsequent chapter of this study.¹⁰

Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. by M. E. Stone [CRINT, Section 2; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1984] 210 – 211), although in this case too, one may conjecture that Josephus produced several editions of his work. One of those – which is our extant edition today – included a brief autobiography known as the Vita. On Josephus’ Vita, see S. Mason, Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2001) and more recently, D. R. Schwartz, Flavius Josephus: The Life of Joseph (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2007) [Hebrew].  P. Collomp, “Der Platz des Josephus in der Technik der hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung,” in Zur Josephus-Forschung, ed. by A. Schalit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973) 287– 290; H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, 56 – 58.  See above, n. 5.  When exactly the work was written remains unclear, but it seems that Josephus wrote it after the completion of the Antiquities and obviously prior to his death. See L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levison, Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Leiden: Brill, 1996); A. Kasher, Flavius Josephus: Against Apion: Translation from the Original and Commentary (2 vols; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1996) [Hebrew]; Chr. Gerber, Ein Bild des Judentums für Nichtjuden von Flavius Josephus: Untersuchungen zu seiner Schrift Contra Apionem (Leiden: Brill, 1997); J. M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Vol. 10: Against Apion (Leiden: Brill, 2007), and F. Siegert, J. Dochhorn, and M. Vogel, Flavius Josephus: Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums (Contra Apoinem) (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 6; 2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008).  On this topic see H. Peterson, “Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus,” AJP 79 (1958): 259 – 274.  Chapter 9.

30

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

2 A Word on Methodology Before delving into the many problems in Josephus’ Onias narratives and the details of the material itself, it is necessary to address the subject of methodology. I grant that Josephus may be read and understood in many ways. Yet not every way that Josephus is read will yield satisfying results. That is to say, scholars sometimes create more problems than solutions by applying this or that reading to Josephus, or, more to the point, that to the extent they are not interested in the study of “what really happened” they do not ask questions that will help to discover that.¹¹ For this reason I will briefly illustrate how I propose to analyse Josephus’ writings. Much progress has been made within the last hundred years or so in Josephan scholarship. About a century ago, (mostly German) Josephan scholarship was dominated by Quellenkritik, an approach postulating that many ancient texts are compilations of sources collected by a given ancient author and that these sources may be disclosed by the modern scholar. Several ancient writers, Josephus included, were conceived of as mere compilers and not held in much esteem by these modern (German) scholars.¹² This kind of attitude, however, was gradually revised during the latter half of the last century, as more modern scholars began to adopt the view that Josephus was not a mere compiler of sources, but also an independent author who expressed his own views in his writings and arranged and edited his materials, whatever their sources, accordingly.¹³ Thus, modern scholarship on Josephus ex-

 For this and what follows, see the recent D. R. Schwartz, Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) esp. VII-X.  So for instance Hölscher, who finds that “Josephus ist Kompilator,” G. Hölscher, Die Quellen des Josephus für die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jüdischen Kriege (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904) 1. Elsewhere, he claims that the sources collected by Josephus were “mechanisch und gedankenlos zusammengeschweißt,” and that the “Urheber dieser geistlosen Kompilationen ist offenbar niemand anders als J. [Josephus] selber.” G. Hölscher, “Josephus,” 1970 – 1971. See also Bloch’s slightly more sympathetic view that “Man wird hinzufügen dürfen, dass er [Josephus] einer der geschicktesten Compilatoren [sic] war;” H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Josephus in seiner Archäologie (Leipzig: Teubner, 1879) 157. Cf. also Bunge’s assessment that “Josephus war also auf seine recht mangelhaften Fähigkeiten als Kompilator angewiesen.” J. G. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 550.  In fact, already in the 1920s, Laqueur (Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus) adapted the view that Josephus’ writings follow a personal Tendenz, but it is remarkable that his contemporaries failed to endorse Laqueur’s observations and continued to read Josephus as a compilation of sources. The first influential studies which helped to break this pattern were Smith’s and Sh. J. D. Cohen’s studies: M. Smith, “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Israel: Its Role in Civ-

2 A Word on Methodology

31

perienced a shift from good old German Quellenkritik to a more literary approach, practiced predominantly by Anglo-Saxon scholars.¹⁴ Observing modern scholarship on Josephus, one occasionally gets the impression that both approaches are diametrically opposed to each other.¹⁵ However, there is no reason to discard one approach for the other. Put in other words, source-criticism can solve as many problems as literary/composition-criticism does and therefore it seems reasonable to combine both approaches. I will follow a combined approach of source-criticism and literary criticism in my analysis of Josephus’ accounts on Onias and his temple. As I hope to show, combining these two approaches can yield quite revealing and useful results. Moreover, one has to keep in mind that Josephus was a first century CE Jewish historian writing in Rome (predominantly) for a Gentile Roman audience interested in Jews and Judaism.¹⁶ To these factors one should add Josephus’ own biography, beginning his life as a priestly aristocrat in Judaea and ending it as a Diaspora Jew in Rome. These factors certainly influenced his own mind-set, including his perception of the remote past (for instance, events that occurred in the Hellenistic period), just as they influenced the way he portrayed more recent Jewish history. It is hardly possible for us to enter into Josephus’ mind, but we can occasionally discover his own perception of things; this occurs every time Josephus himself comments on certain events. In the following analysis, I have attempted to pay heed to this and the above-mentioned factors as much as possible.

ilization, ed. by M. Davis (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America/Harper & Brothers, 1956) 67– 81 and Sh. J. D. Cohen (Josephus in Galilee and Rome).  Perhaps the vanguard of this approach is S. Mason. See in particular his Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (Leiden: Brill, 1991) and more recently, S. Mason, “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method,” RRJ 6 (2003): 145 – 188. See also J. W. van Henten, “Rebellion under Herod the Great and Archelaus: Prominent Motifs and Narrative Function,” in The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by M. Popović (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 241– 270; J. W. van Henten, “Constructing Herod as a Tyrant: Assessing Josephus’ Parallel Passages,” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 193 – 216 and studies such as T. Landau, Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric and the Herod Narratives (Leiden: Brill, 2006).  See for instance S. Mason, Pharisees, 15 – 16, 40 – 41; S. Mason, “Introduction,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. by S. Mason (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 11– 18.  On Josephus’ audience, see S. Mason, “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Life,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. by S. Mason (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 64– 103, and see also H. M. Cotton and W. Eck, “Josephus’ Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman Elites,” 37– 52.

32

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

3 Josephus’ Onias Narratives Josephus refers to “Onias” and Oniad history in several places throughout his oeuvre: a) The Judaean War BJ 1.31– 33 BJ 7.421– 436 b) The Jewish Antiquities Ant. 12.237– 239 Ant. 12.383 Ant. 12.387– 388 Ant. 13.62– 73 Ant. 13.285 Ant. 14.131 Ant. 15.41 Ant. 19.298 Ant. 20.235 – 237 c) Contra Apionem C. Ap. 2.49 – 55 Thus, in each of his major historical works (the War and the Antiquities) Josephus offers a fairly elaborate account of Onias’ Temple and of Oniad history. As mentioned, he also refers to matters Oniad in his apologetic treatise Contra Apionem, although in a much more modest fashion: His reference to Onias (apparently Onias III) and his involvement in the Ptolemaic fratricidal war (around 145 BCE) between Ptolemy VI Philometor, his sister-wife Cleopatra II, and his brother Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (Physcon), does not appear in a historiographical context per se, but rather follows an apologetic rationale. Namely, his reference to Onias’ involvement in this context serves the purpose of emphasizing that Jews are loyal subjects to their rulers. I will focus on this episode and this claim in Chapter 9. In the present chapter, I shall discuss Josephus’ references to Onias and Oniad history in his War and Antiquities only.

4 Why are the Josephan Onias Narratives Problematic? Josephus’ accounts on Onias and his temple are fraught with problems. Chief among them is the fact that his accounts are mutually contradictory. There are three main contradictions: a) one concerns the identity of the builder of

4 Why are the Josephan Onias Narratives Problematic?

33

Onias’ Temple (Onias III or his son, Onias IV);¹⁷ b) the second concerns the appearance of the temple (did it or did it not resemble the Temple of Jerusalem?);¹⁸ c) finally, what were Onias’ motives for building the temple (rivalry with Jerusalem or eternal fame)?¹⁹ Perhaps the most important question is the one of the identity of the temple’s founder. But this question is also connected to another: How to date the foundation of the temple? In his earlier composition, The Judaean War, Josephus expresses the view that the founder of Onias’ Temple in Egypt was the high priest Onias III – a view he will change by the time he composes his Jewish Antiquities. ²⁰ In the latter work he ascribes the building of the temple to Onias III’s son, Onias IV. This contradiction has implications for any attempted reconstruction of Oniad history “wie es eigentlich gewesen,” for the question of the temple’s builder is of course linked to a chronological question too and then to the circumstances and the reasons of its foundation. By presenting to us two possible temple builders, who are separated by one generation one from the other, Josephus – deliberately or not – provides us with two different dates for the foundation of Onias’ Temple. If we were to adopt Josephus’ datum in BJ, which ascribes the building of Onias’ Temple to Onias III, we would place its foundation chronologically sometime between the Antiochic persecutions (ca. 170 – 164 BCE) and the rededication of the Temple by Judas Maccabaeus in 164 BCE. However, were we to follow Josephus’ chronology and assumption in his Antiquities, that Onias IV founded the Oniad Temple, we would be compelled to date its foundation ten to fifteen years later (i. e., to the 50s of the 2nd century BCE, in the days of Alcimus the high priest).²¹ We immediately see that instead of helping us in disclosing the who’s and when’s of Oniad history, Josephus’ narratives only complicate matters.

 Compare in particular BJ 7.423 (Onias III) with Ant. 12.237; 13.62; 20.235 – 237 (Onias IV).  In BJ 1.33, Josephus notes that: “Onias built a small town on the model of Jerusalem and a temple resembling ours.” We encounter similar statements in Ant. 12.388; 13.63, 67, 72; 20.236. But at BJ 7.426, we suddenly hear that: “Onias erected a fortress and built his temple – which was not like that in Jerusalem, but resembled that of a tower (my emphasis, M.P.).” Note Josephus’ somewhat relativized statement in Ant. 13.63 and 20.236 that Onias’ Temple was “almost similar (παραπλήσιον)” to its Jerusalemite counterpart. Ant. 12.388 and 13.72 have ὅμοιον ἱερόν (“like the Temple”).  Compare BJ 7.431– 432 with Ant. 13.63 – 64.  Josephus ascribes the building of Onias’ Temple to Onias III in BJ 1.33 and 7.423, while in Ant. 12.236 – 240, 387; 13.63; 20.235 – 237 he ascribes it to Onias IV.  Alcimus assumed the office of high priest in 162 and remained in it until 160 or 159; on him, see J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004) 226 – 239. Josephus suggests in Ant. 12.385 – 388 and 20.235 – 237 that Onias IV was passed over by Alcimus as heir to the holy office and thus had to escape to Egypt.

34

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

These narratives do not help us much either when it comes to other issues of Oniad history, such as the much discussed question of Onias’ motives for erecting his temple in the Egyptian Diaspora – a project that was considered by some as problematic by Deuteronomistic standards.²²

5 The Structure of Josephus’ Onias Narratives Before taking a closer look at Josephus’ sources for Onias and his temple, let us analyze how Josephus structured his two central Onias narratives in BJ 7 and Ant. 13.²³ This step is necessary because it bears surprising implications (and results) for the subsequent discussion of Josephus’ sources. For the reader’s convenience I provide a breakdown of Josephus’ Onias narratives in tabular form.²⁴ Book  The Judaean War §§  – Troubles in Egypt with Jewish radi cals who escape to Onias’ Temple; Vespasian orders to shut the place down. §  Flashback: Onias, the son of Simon the high priest, flees from Jerusalem and comes to Alexandria to Ptolemy Philometor, because Antiochus IV of Syria invaded Judaea. Onias proposes to Philometor that he will unite all Jews against Antiochus, if Philometor is willing to help him. §  The king agrees and grants Onias permission to build a temple “according to the customs of the fathers,” (πατρίοις ἔθεσι) “somewhere” in Egypt… Compare BJ . – . Compare BJ . – .

Book  The Jewish Antiquities

§ 

Onias, who has the same name as his father, came to Alexandria to Ptolemy Philometor, because “the Macedonians and their kings” oppress Judaea.

§ 

Because Onias seeks eternal fame and glory (Motive ), he seeks permission from the king to build a temple resembling that of Jerusalem.

§ 

Onias’ project was also encouraged by Isiaiah’s prophecy (Isa : – ; Motive ) that predicted

 Compare the “cult centralization” laws manifested in Deut 12 and I. Helm, “Cult Centralization as a Device of Cult Control?” SJOT 13 (2008): 298 – 309.  For the meantime, I exclude Josephus’ introductory note on Onias’ Temple in BJ 1.31– 33 and his briefer references to Onias and his temple at Ant. 12.237– 240, 383, 387– 388; 20.235 – 237. I shall return to them in due course.  The italics in the text are my own (M. P.) for the purpose of emphasis.

5 The Structure of Josephus’ Onias Narratives

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

The king agrees and grants Onias permission to build a temple “according to the customs of the fathers,” (πατρίοις ἔθεσι) somewhere in Egypt…

§ 

…so that the Jews will become Phil- §  ometor’s allies in his struggle against Antiochus Epiphanes. Hence, Ptolemy grants Onias a territory  stadia from Memphis in the nome of Heliopolis. The Oniad Temple, however, did not § a resemble that of Jerusalem, but looked like a tower.

§ 

§  a

§ b §  §  § 

Dimensions of the Oniad Temple. § b Temple’s altar like that in Jerusalem. Temple vessels: Lampstand unlike that in Jerusalem.

35

the erection of an altar in Egypt by a Jew/Judaean. Onias’ petition letter; he found a place called “Leontopolis” in the nome of Heliopolis which he fancies for his temple project. “the Jews, who have settled there, have many temples, which is unlawful…” Onias found a pagan temple dedicated to Bubastis-of-the-fields, which he wishes to purge and build a proper Jewish temple (dedicated to the μεγίστω θεῷ) on its ruins. That temple should be modeled after the Temple in Jerusalem. This is indeed what the prophet Isaiah predicted > paraphrase of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa : – ). Josephus remarks that the royal couple’s reply will presently follow, which is an expression of piety as against Onias’ sinful request, which furthermore transgresses Jewish law (τοῦ νόμου). Reply Letter: they give Onias the permission to build a temple in Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis, but are concerned whether his project will be pleasing to God (τῷ θεῷ). Mention of Isaiah’s prophecy and hence, Onias’ actions are no violation of Jewish law.

Summary: Onias received the territory and built a temple devoted to God which resembled that of Jerusalem. Josephus adds that it is not necessary to elaborate on the temple’s dimensions and vessels, since he already did so in Book  of his Judaean War.

36

§ 

§ a § b

§  – 

§ 

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

Description of the temple compound (exterior appearance) Onias’ dishonest motives for building the temple (Motive ): Rivalry with Jerusalemite Jews (see BJ . – ; Ant. . – ). Isiaiah’s prophecy (Motive ). Josephus’ conclusion of his narra§  tive: “Such then, was the origin of this temple.”

See Ant. . – 

See Ant. . –  Onias found priests and Levites like himself at “the place” and they performed divine service there. Josephus concludes this narrative with the statement that: “concerning this temple, however, we have already said enough.”

Subsequent history of Onias’ Temple in the Roman period: Closure under Lupus (the governor of Alexandria [ὁ τῆς Ἁλεχανδρείας ἡγημών]) / Paulinus. Duration of the temple:  years

What this chart suggests, as I will show, is the presumption that Josephus consulted, all in all, four independent sources for his Onias narratives. He interchangeably combined and arranged these sources in order to create his Onias narratives. It appears, however, that he did not combine these four sources on Onias and the Oniad Temple all at once. Rather, he combined two sources each for his narratives on Onias in his Judaean War and Jewish Antiquities. For convenience, let me anticipate the detailed source analysis and propose that the sources used by Josephus for his Onias narratives were: 1) a Jewish source on the foundation of the Oniad Temple 2) a list of Oniad high priests 3) a historical source relating events of the pre-Maccabean revolt 4) a Roman military report pertaining to the closure of Onias’ Temple. Although I will elaborate on each of these sources in the subsequent section, for the time being it suffices to show that Josephus used but one Jewish source for his two longer narratives on Onias and the Oniad Temple in BJ and Antiquities. He supplemented his main source with information he obtained from a secondary source: in the case of BJ he used a Roman military report, and in the

5 The Structure of Josephus’ Onias Narratives

37

case of Antiquities – information from the list of Oniad high priests and material from the pre-Maccabean-period-source.²⁵ A brief comparison of the narratives in BJ and Antiquities reveals that they are intrinsically different from each other. On the one hand, one may identify different Josephan Tendenzen in the two. On the other, one finds that they focus on different aspects of Onias’ Temple (or Oniad history), as I shall elucidate below. Notice that in both cases it is Josephus who is responsible for these intrinsic differences, as we shall see in the literary-critical analysis of the Onias narratives which follows the present discussion of the sources. But let us return to our chart. Despite the contradictory nature of several details and certain differences in the general outlook, Josephus’ Onias narratives in BJ 7 and Ant. 13 are at the same time surprisingly complementary, like two sides of the same coin. To give an example: the BJ 7 narrative begins with a background story about the irksome activity of Jewish rebels in Egypt that provoked the intervention of the Roman authorities and ultimately led to the closure of Onias’ Temple (BJ 7.421– 422). Since this narrative is embedded in the larger context of Jewish rebellious activity in Egypt in the aftermath of the First Judaean War (66 – 73/74 CE), it is not surprising that we encounter the story of Onias’ Temple in Book Seven of the Judaean War, which, by and large, chronicles the aftermath of the First Judaean War against Rome. For this reason, namely the context of the First Judaean War, Josephus added a preface (§§ 421– 422) to his Onias narrative in BJ 7. The actual narrative on Onias and the circumstances of the establishment of his temple, in fact, only begins in § 423 and directly corresponds to Ant. 13.62 – the beginning of the Onias narrative in Ant. 13. In the following paragraphs (BJ 7.424– 425) it is stated that Onias sought permission from Ptolemy VI Philometor to build a temple somewhere in Egypt, a wish that is granted by the king in the next paragraph (§ 426). Correspondingly, we hear in Ant. 13.63 that Onias sought permission to build a temple in Egypt, but

 It is usually assumed that Josephus used an independent biased (anti-Oniad) Jewish source for his longer narrative in Ant. 13. See for instance M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias en Égypte,” RB 75 (1968): 194; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias,” JSJ 29 (1998): 305 and Gruen’s apposite comments: E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” SCI 16 (1997): 64– 65. On Josephus’ use of a Roman military report in BJ, see J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Untergangs der Oniaden und der Aufstieg der Hasmonäer,” JSJ 6 (1975): 8; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 38; P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness,” JJS 48 (1997): 32.

38

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

for different motives than the ones cited in the parallel account in BJ 7.²⁶ Now, while both narratives tell us about Onias’ request to build a temple somewhere in Egypt, the War narrative merely states that Onias’ request was granted and continues at this point directly to a detailed description of the temple and its appurtenances. The Antiquities narrative, by contrast, actually supplies us with the details of the petition to the king filed by Onias and with the location of his temple. The Antiquities narrative thus fills a gap in the War narrative. Indeed, it is likely that it does so because Josephus is aware of the fact that, in War, he did not use this part of the source; that this is so is shown, conversely, by the fact that Josephus, at the end of the Antiquities narrative (at Ant. 13.72), suddenly remarks that it is not necessary to elaborate on the temple’s dimensions and vessels, since he already did so in the seventh book of his Judaean War. Indeed, he did so, and it is noteworthy that what follows Onias’ permission to build his temple in the War narrative is a detailed description of the temple – one that Josephus did not want to reiterate in the Antiquities. Thus, it is clear that in writing his account in Ant. 13 Josephus is well aware of what he did and did not include in his account in War 7, and that easy comparability of the two accounts supports the hypothesis that Josephus followed one and the same source for both of those Onias narratives.²⁷ Of course, one might imagine that Josephus, in his Antiquities, simply followed his version in War. But that view would, given the contradictions in the narrative, entail the assumption that he also used an additional source on Onias and Onias’ Temple in Antiquities, a view I have just refuted. Be that as it may, at the same time it is quite telling to see how Josephus parcels out his source on Onias and his temple. In other words, it is noteworthy how he used one specific section of that source for his War narrative and others for

 Compare BJ 7.431 (Onias builds his temple in order to rival the Temple of Jerusalem) and Ant. 13.63 (Onias builds his temple to acquire eternal fame and to build himself a memorial). See also our subsequent discussion on Onias’ motives.  For a similar case see A. Kushnir-Stein, “Josephus’ Description of Paneion,” SCI 26 (2007): 87– 90, who discovered that Josephus used two different parts of one and the same source for his (geographical) description of Paneion in BJ (1.404– 406; 2.168) and in the Antiquities (15.363 – 364). He thus, fragmented his source and used different parts of it at different places in his narratives and compositions for fulfilling his current relevant narratological purpose. Another example is the correspondence between the Jews and the Spartans, which is also recorded in 1 Macc. 12:19 – 23. Josephus, in fact, provides that correspondence twice: once in Ant. 12.225, in the context of his reference to Onias (III), the high priest, who is also mentioned in Josephus’ source (1 Maccabees); and once in Ant. 13.166 – 170, where he correctly associates the correspondence with Jonathan the Hasmonean (also based on information provided by his source, 1 Maccabees). Here we may add that Josephus appears to have acted in the same manner with his Jewish source on the foundation of the Oniad Temple.

6 Josephus’ Sources for the Oniad Priesthood and the History of Onias’ Temple

39

his Antiquities narrative. The reasons behind his choice will be the topic of our literary analysis. To anticipate that discussion, we note that the choice has much to do with Josephus’ own perceptions and biography, much as it is linked to the major themes of his works (BJ and Antiquities, respectively). That is, while source-criticism accounts for some of the contradictions between the narratives, Josephus’ own perceptions appear to account for others.

6 Josephus’ Sources for the Oniad Priesthood and the History of Onias’ Temple In the section on methodology I stressed that Josephus should not be considered merely a compiler of sources, but also an author in his own right. But while the view of Josephus being a shallow-brained compiler of sources is ill-advised, at the same time we have to recognize that he did rely on sources for the composition of his works, especially for the periods for which he was not contemporaneous. That is largely the case for his history of the Oniad Temple, which, with some exceptions,²⁸ focuses on events concerning its foundation rather than events that came later.²⁹ It seems that Josephus did not handle many sources at a time while composing his narratives – most probably not more than two.³⁰ He usually supplemented a main source with related information from a minor, secondary source that was less detailed. It has been shown too, that most of the contradictions in Josephus’ narratives are the result of Josephus’ handling (or mishandling) of his sources. In other words, whenever we catch Josephus contradicting himself in a given nar-

 So the story of the involvement of Onias in the Ptolemaic fratricidal war between Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Physcon (145 BCE) at C. Ap. 2.49 – 55; the stories about Onias’ sons’ (Ananias and Ḥelkias) prominence in the Ptolemaic army and their successful attempt to maintain Alexander Yannai’s reign (103 – 101 BCE) at Ant. 13.285 and 13.354– 355; and last but not least: the story of the closure of Onias’ Temple at BJ 7.421– 422, 433 – 435.  Josephus, for that matter, says so himself (BJ 7.432). The exception is Josephus’ brief report on the Roman intervention which ultimately led to the closure of Onias’ Temple in either 73 or 74 CE (BJ 7.421– 422, 433 – 435) and a fleeting reference to a rendezvous of Oniad soldiers with Judaean reinforcement troops for Julius Caesar under the command of Hyrcanus II/Antipater at Ant. 14.131.  G. Hölscher, Die Quellen des Josephus, 11; K. Albert, Strabo als Quelle des Flavius Josephus (Aschaffenburg: Schnipersche Druckerei Kolbe, 1902) 9 – 11. See also Pere Villalba i Varneda, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1986) 267– 272.

40

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

rative, it is usually due to an erroneous splicing of sources.³¹ Thus, as we shall see, many of the problems related to the contradictory nature of Josephus’ Onias narratives may be explained by source-criticism.

7 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Judaean War I BJ 1.31 – 33 These few introductory paragraphs (cited below) are certainly the most confused of Josephus’ accounts of Oniad history, and among his most confused historical accounts overall. At first sight, they appear to provide a coherent narrative, but at second sight, this impression quickly vanishes. Tcherikover already observed that the contents of this section, or better “Introduction,” do not sit well in their historical context.³² In other words, Josephus’ description of the exploits of Onias actually matches those of another person much better, namely those of his brother Jason.³³ Tcherikover’s suggestion that this story is the background of Jason’s struggle against Menelaus (2 Maccabees 5:5 – 10), is certainly reasonable and may be accepted. If Onias’ exploits as delineated by Josephus in BJ 1.31– 33 are indeed Jason’s, then we are tempted to ponder, with Tcherikover, if Jason, not Onias, was the real founder of Onias’ Temple.³⁴ Nevertheless, Tcherikover ruled out this possibility, as I do too, and argued that “it was not he [Jason], of course, who built the House of Onias, but after Josephus had confused Jason with Onias, and taken him to Egypt, it was a natural thing for him to make Onias builder of the shrine which was called after his name. Thus one error led to another…”³⁵ Tcherikover continued by arguing that what actually lay behind Josephus’ mistake was his working procedure during the composition of this brief passage: For this short passage it was not worth searching the sources exhaustively, and Josephus wrote what he remembered from the books he had read previously and what he knew as

 D. R. Schwartz, “”KATA TOYTON TON KAIPON:” Josephus’ Source on Agrippa II,” JQR 72 (1982): 241– 268; D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees,” JSJ 14 (1983): 157– 171.  V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: JPS, 1959) 392– 394 (Appendix 1). See also D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 B. C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 158.  D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 158; and see 2 Macc. 5:5 – 10.  V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 394.  V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 394.

7 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Judaean War

41

a man of general historical education. Certain things he remembered, and certain things he forgot. He remembered, for instance, the occurrence of a quarrel between the dignitaries of Jerusalem during Antiochus Epiphanes’ wars in Egypt, but forgot that it had begun before that. The names of famous people of the period remained in his memory, but he forgot who had fought against whom, and confused Jason with Onias.³⁶

Tcherikover thus opined that Josephus’ confusion of Jason with Onias came about because of his flawed memory of several historical events that he had read somewhere. While I certainly concede that Josephus apparently confused Jason with Onias, I do not subscribe to the view that we should blame Josephus’ memory for this error. Rather, we should ascribe the mistake to his maladroit handling of his sources. In fact, Tcherikover has already pointed out that the contents of Josephus’ narrative on Onias in BJ 1.31– 32 resemble those found in Ant. 12.239 – 240, and this is not by chance, as I hope to demonstrate below.³⁷ The following chart should help to illustrate my suggestion on how to deconstruct Josephus’ mistake and correct it. BJ . –  (§ ) At the time when Antiochus, surnamed Epiphanes, was disputing with Ptolemy VI the suzerainty of Syria, dissension arose among the Jewish nobles. There were rival claims to supreme power, as no individual of rank could tolerate subjection to his peers. Onias, one of the chief priests (εἷς τῶν ἀρχιερέων), gaining the upper hand, expelled the sons of Tobias from the city. (§ ) The latter took refuge with Antiochus and besought him to use their services as guides for an invasion of Judaea. The king, having long cherished this design, consented, and setting out at the head of a huge army took the city by assault, slew a large number of Ptolemy’s followers, gave his soldiers unrestricted license to pillage, and himself plundered the temple and interrupted, for a period

Ant. . –  (§ ) Now Jesus changed his name to Jason, while Onias was called Menelaus. And when the former high priest Jesus rose against Menelaus, who was appointed after him, the populace was divided between the two, the Tobiads being on the side of Menelaus, while the majority of the people supported Jason; (§ ) and being hard pressed by him, Menelaus and the Tobiads withdrew, and going to Antiochus informed him that they wished to abandon their country’s laws (πατρίους νόμους) and the way of life prescribed by these, and to follow the king’s laws and adopt the Greek way of life (τὴν Ἕλληνικὴν πολιτείαν ἔχειν).

 V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 395.  View V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews, 393. See also E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (Revised and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973 – 1987) 1:150 – 152 (nn. 32 and 37); he does not credit the passages with much importance and deems them historically unworthy.

42

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

Continued BJ . –  Ant. . –  of three years and six months, the regular course of the daily sacrifices. (§ ) The high priest Onias (ὁ δ’ ἀρχιερεὺς Ὀνίας) made his escape to Ptolemy and, obtaining from him a site in the nome of Heliopolis, built a small town on the model of Jerusalem and a temple resembling ours. (§ ) Not content with his unlooked for success in capturing the city and with the plunder and wholesale carnage, Antiochus, carried away by his ungovernable passions and with the rankling memory of what he had suffered in the siege, put pressure upon the Jews to violate the code of their country (καταλύοντας τὰ πάτρια) by leaving their infants uncircumcised and sacrificing swine upon the altar.

Comparison of the two narratives demonstrates their affiliation. The main difference, of course, is Josephus’ exchange of Jason (Ant. 12) with Onias (BJ 1). Despite this confusion of characters, it seems appealing to suggest that Josephus’ “Introduction” (BJ 1.31– 34) is based on the same source as his later narrative at Ant. 12.237– 240. This assumption is bolstered by the fact that it has often been noted that Ant. 12.237– 240 derives from a source that provided information related to 2 Maccabees, a composition that was not at Josephus’ disposal.³⁸ Josephus, on the other hand, made ample use of 1 Maccabees for the period of the Hasmonean uprising, which he supplemented with information he obtained from other (mostly Greek) sources, chief among them Nicolaus of Damascus.³⁹ Among these additional sources, was a certain (Jewish) one which related to events prior to the Hasmonean uprising and contained information about the high priests that 1 Maccabees fails to mention – most probably for polemical reasons. These high priests were Onias, Jason, and Menelaus.⁴⁰ This is exactly the

 Regarding Ant. 12.237– 240, see D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2004) 58 – 59 [Hebrew]. That Josephus did not possess a copy of 2 Maccabees is generally acknowledged. See below, n. 86.  H. Bloch, Die Quellen des Josephus, 80 – 90; G. Hölscher, Die Quellen des Josephus, 4– 10, 17– 19; Sh. J. D. Cohen, Josephus, 44– 47.  View U. Rappaport, The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2004) 63 [Hebrew].

7 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Judaean War

43

kind of information given in the relevant passages in BJ 1 and Ant. 12. For reasons of convenience, I shall call this source the “Menelaus Source.” On that note, let me add two further observations: one regarding Josephus’ narrative, and one of a philological nature. With regard to the first observation, we remember that Josephus chose to open his War narrative with an abbreviated introduction to Judaean history that commences with the Hasmonean revolt and the purification of the Temple. But in order to get to this point in the narrative, Josephus was compelled to provide a brief motive for Antiochus IV’s actions that provoked the Jewish rebellion. He was thus induced to obtain information on the events preceding the outbreak of the Jewish revolt under the Maccabees. That kind of information was not supplied by his main source, 1 Maccabees. His other main source for the first book of the Judaean War, Nicolaus of Damascus, also seems to have contributed little to Josephus’ information of pre-Maccabean Judaea.⁴¹ Hence, Josephus was compelled to rely on a different source that narrated earlier events. This source was his “Menelaus Source,” which also provided him with information on the pre-Maccabean high priests and, perhaps more important for his War narrative, with details and events (and inner fighting) that took place in Jerusalem at the time.⁴² As for our second, philological observation, we take note of the fact that the “Sons of Tobias” who appear in BJ 1.31 and Ant. 12.239 – 240 are mentioned only there and nowhere else in all of Josephus’ writings. This strongly corroborates the assumption that Josephus used the same source for BJ 1.31– 33 and Ant. 12.237– 240. Having posited that Josephus relied on the same source, namely the “Menelaus Source,” for both of his Onias narratives in BJ 1 and Ant. 12, we may now turn our attention to the problems we confront in BJ 1. We recall that two main issues arose, namely 1) the problem that Josephus seems to have confused Jason with Onias and 2) that we consequently need to assume that it was Jason who founded Onias’ Temple rather than Onias, a pill hard to swallow.

 Büchler, who emphasized the parallelsim of BJ 1.31– 33 and Ant. 12.237– 240/2 Macc., believed that a Greek author stood behind BJ 1.31– 33, whom he identified with Nicolaus of Damascus. Cf. A. Büchler, “Les sources de Flavius Josèphe dans le Antiquités (XII,5-XIII,1),” REJ 32 (1896): 179 – 199.  Perhaps the best example to illustrate this fact is Josephus’ account of Menelaus’ death in Ant. 12.384– 385 which has close verbal parallels with the parallel account in 2 Macc. 13:3 – 8. The latter passage seems to be an insertion into 2 Maccabees and thus a separate tradition also known to Josephus. See D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees: Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2008) 28, 34– 35.

44

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

How do we solve the problem of Josephus’ confusion of Jason with Onias? As a first step, let me draw attention away from what Josephus says in BJ 1, and towards what he says in Ant. 12.239. In Antiquities he introduces us to a brief passage concerned with the (Oniad) high priestly succession in the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Within this narrative framework, Josephus provides us with personal information about the relevant Oniad high priests and remarks, inter alia, that Jason’s (original) Hebrew name was Jesus (or: Yehoshuah), which he changed to its Greek equivalent, Jason (Iason). In the same vein, Josephus notes that Menelaus too changed his Hebrew name from none other than Onias to Menelaus. This is where Josephus gets confused. We note that Josephus cites two names for each high priest: one Hebrew name and one Greek name. Let us recall too that this passage deals with the high-priestly succession, while its parallel in BJ 1, which – I have posited – is built upon the same source, lacks those names. It thus seems that the information regarding the Hebrew names of Jason and Menelaus in Ant. 12.239 derives from yet another source whose focus is clearly on high priestly succession. That source was with great likelihood the list of high priests Josephus used also for his longer account of the high priestly succession in Ant. 20.224– 251.⁴³ This would explain why Josephus juxtaposes the Hebrew names of Jason and Menelaus, which he apparently found in his high-priestly source, and their Greek names, which he obtained from his “Menelaus Source.” True, this passage makes a clear distinction between Onias/Menelaus and Jason. But when Josephus was confronted with sources, especially with those mentioning high priests of the same names, he was liable to confuse them. This is what I suggest occurred when he composed his “Introduction” in BJ 1.31– 33. At § 31, Josephus tells us that Onias was “one of the chief priests (εἷς τῶν ἀρχιερέων)” of Jerusalem who successfully prevailed over his adversaries, the “sons of Tobias.” We note too that, in contrast to Ant. 12.237– 240, in BJ 1.31 Josephus mentions neither Jason nor Menelaus, but only Onias, one of the high priests (εἷς τῶν ἀρχιερέων) mentioned by his source. Menahem Stern has put forward the argument that the phrase “one of the high priests” points to a Roman date of the source, for only then did it become

 See G. Hölscher, Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische Chronologie (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse; Bericht 3; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl Winter, 1939/40); O. Gussmann, “Die Bedeutung der hohepriesterlisten Genealogie und Sukzession nach Josephus A 20:224– 251,” in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002: Arbeiten aus dem Institutum Judaisum Delitzschianum, ed. by J. U. Kalms and F. Siegert (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 14; Münster/ Hamburg/London: Lit Verlag, 2003) 119 – 131.

7 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Judaean War

45

common to speak of “the high priests” in the plural, as is shown by Josephus (elsewhere), the New Testament and rabbinic evidence. But Josephus too lived in the Roman period. Accordingly, one should infer from Josephus’ usage of the phrase that he added the passage anachronistically at a later editorial stage, or that his source indeed should be dated to the Roman period.⁴⁴ While it is certainly true that Josephus’ use of this phrase elsewhere may reflect a Roman dating, I am, however, inclined to think that Josephus, in this case, was compelled to use the phrase in order to stay deliberately vague. In other words, the narratological aim of Josephus’ “Introduction” was to provide an abbreviated account of the historical events of the pre-Maccabean revolt in general, and the inner-Jewish party struggle within Jerusalem itself in particular. This obviously fits the all-embracing stasis (στάσις)-theme of the Judaean War. ⁴⁵ One way to achieve this was to leave out superfluous details such as the names of the high priests involved.⁴⁶ But next to that notion, we find that (as we see in Ant. 12) Josephus was also confronted with a source that mentioned three high priests who all were somehow affiliated with the House of Onias (Jason, Onias’ brother and Menelaus, who allegedly bore that byname), but all Josephus wants us to know, in this introductory passage in War, is that an Onias “the high priest” (ὁ δ’ ἀρχιερεὺς Ὀνίας) fled to Egypt and founded a temple there during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. In order to avoid confusion, Josephus, I suggest, “cheated his way out” by simply ascribing all the events to an Oniad high priest, as is indicated by his vague phrasing in BJ 1.31. Josephus was either confused by the contents of his sources when ascribing the narrated events in BJ 1.31– 32 to Onias instead of Jason, or he deliberately confused them in order to introduce the information on Onias’ Temple. A third option is that Josephus perhaps thought that his source was confused, as it simply had to be Onias who

 Regarding the Roman date of the phrase, see M. Stern, The Great Families of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1959) 127– 132 [Hebrew]; For a later interpolation of the passage, see M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” in Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (ed. by M. Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991) 43 – 44 [Hebrew]; E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols.; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1907) 2:275 – 277 and F. Parente, “Le témoignage de Theodore de Mopsueste sur le mort d’Onias III et la fondation du temple de Leontopolis,” REJ 154 (1995): 432– 433.  On the emphasis of the stasis-theme in Josephus’ Judaean War, see in particular T. Rajak, Josephus, 91– 96 and more recently, M. A. Brighton, The Sicarii in Josephus’ Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2009) 23 – 29.  For a similar case see, D. R. Schwartz, “Cassius’ Chronology and Josephus’ Vagueness,” SCI 16 (1997): 102– 112.

46

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

functioned throughout the story. It is the second option, namely the notion that Josephus remained deliberately vague about which high priest did what and when, which I hold to be the more plausible. For, in that way Josephus could also portray Onias in a negative light, as we shall see below. That it was indeed Onias (III), who fled to Egypt and built a temple there in the days of Antiochus IV is confirmed by the source for his later narrative on the Oniad Temple in BJ 7 to which Josephus refers us in § 33. Be that as it may, Josephus’ deliberate use of vagueness in order to avoid confusing his readers, or in order to avoid the appearance of confusing various high priests that he also encountered in other sources concerned with the same event, is a feature of his writing style that may also be observed elsewhere. One example is his narrative of Alexander the Great’s alleged invasion of Judaea in Ant. 11.317– 339 Josephus places this episode in the time of the high priesthood of Jaddua – an ancestor of Onias. However, the story has a parallel in rabbinic literature and was most probably based on an oral tradition that linked the episode to the high priesthood of “Simon the Just,” a proto-rabbinic hero.⁴⁷ Josephus was obviously aware of this tradition too and he incorporated it into his own narrative of this episode.⁴⁸ This, however, confronted him with the problem of combining the source mentioning Jaddua with the other one mentioning “Simon the Just.” The most elegant way to solve this dilemma was to stay neutral and to circumvent the uncomfortable situation of rendering two different names by simply not mentioning names at all. Thus, at Ant. 11.333, 336, 338, Josephus only speaks of “the high priest” and not of Jaddua, although Jaddua is clearly mentioned before (Ant. 11.322, 326) and after (Ant. 11.347).⁴⁹ Similarly, and coming back to our issue, by remaining vague and saying that Onias was “one of the high priests” Josephus deliberately hid his uncertainty which was a result of the confusing state of his sources.

 On “Simon the Just,” see below, p. 91 (nn. 163 – 164).  R. Marcus, “Appendix C: Alexander the Great and the Jews,” in Josephus Jewish Antiquities, Books IX-XI, ed. by R. Marcus (9 vols; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957) 512– 532; A. Momigliano, “Flavius Josephus and Alexanders’ Visit to Jerusalem,” Athenaeum 67 (1979): 442– 448; Sh. J. D. Cohen, “Alexander the Great and Jaddua the High Priest according to Josephus,” AJS Review 7– 8 (1983): 41– 68; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) 189 – 202; and more recently, A. Kasher, “Further Revised Thoughts on Josephus’ Report of Alexander’s Campaign to Palestine (Ant. 11.304– 347),” in Judah between East and West; the Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400 – 200 BCE), ed. by L. L. Grabbe and O. Lipschits (London: T & T Clark, 2011) 131– 157.  D. R. Schwartz, “On Some Papyri and Josephus’ Sources and Chronology for the Persian Period,” JSJ 21 (1990): 186 – 189 and similarly, D. R. Schwartz, “Cassius’ Chronology and Josephus’ Vagueness,” 102– 112.

7 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Judaean War

47

Beyond the use of names, Josephus’ confusion of Oniad high priests in BJ 1.31– 33 can also be explained by the fact that the original source (“Menelaus Source”) failed to mention Onias’ intention to build a temple. This becomes evident by comparing BJ 1 with Ant. 12.⁵⁰ Both texts tell of inner-Jewish partisan disputes and portray Antiochus IV’s persecution of the Jewish religion.⁵¹ But BJ 1.33, which reports on Onias and Onias’ Temple, has no parallel in Ant. 12.239 – 240, and thus this element seems to have been inserted into the earlier narrative.⁵² To sustain this assumption, note that the narrative in BJ 1.31– 33 would not suffer any lacuna or illogical continuation were we to remove § 33 from it. Thus, we assume that Josephus deliberately inserted the reference to Onias and to the foundation of his temple in § 33, which was originally not part of his source. This would mean that we could narrow down the actual “Introduction” part on Onias’ Temple (BJ 1.31– 33) to only one paragraph, namely § 33. BJ 1.31– 33, therefore, should not be considered a coherent literary unit, or a separate tradition ascribing the building of Onias’ Temple to Onias III as it has been in the past.⁵³ It seems that Josephus hastily tacked on only one paragraph (§ 33), to an earlier textual structure that had already existed, at a later editorial stage of his Judaean War – perhaps to create symmetry when he added the whole Onias narrative in Book Seven of his War. ⁵⁴

 See the chart above.  Note too, Josephus’ change in perspective regarding Jewish law from BJ 1.34 (τὰ πάτρια) to Ant. 12.240 (πατρίους νόμους) which he directly confronts with the “Greek way of life” (τὴν Ἕλληνικὴν πολιτείαν ἔχειν). Compare this paragraph with 2 Macc. 4:13 and 7:26. See on this issue, B. Schröder, Die ‘väterlichen Gesetze’: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 263 – 266 (esp.) and D. R. Schwartz, “Review: B. Schröder, Die ‘väterlichen Gesetze’: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer (1996),” SCI 17 (1998): 248 – 252. I shall return to this issue in the discussion of the narratological aspects of Josephus’ Onias narratives.  Even though Josephus inserts here (Ant. 12.237) a cross-reference to his later account on Onias and Onias’ Temple in Ant. 13.62– 73, no mention is made here about the Oniad Temple per se, rather only about the fate of the high priest Onias.  Contra M. A. Beek, “Relations entre Jérusalem et la diaspora égyptienne au 2e siècle avant J. C.,” OS 2 (1943): 125 – 128; M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 47– 48 [Hebrew]; F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 430; J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie,” 8; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 317; M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: A New Paradigm (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002) 88, 91; L. Troiani, “Sulla tradizione del tempio di Leontopoli,” MG 13 (2008): 131– 134 and others.  S. Mason has argued for the unity of BJ 1 and BJ 7 and that the episode of Onias’ Temple frames Josephus’ War narrative as part of a well-designed Ringkomposition of the work. See S. Mason, “Structures and Aims of Josephus’ Judaean War,” in Early Christianity in Context: Studies in Religion, Culture, and Literature, ed. by E.-M. Becker and A. Klostegaard Petersen (Numen Sup-

48

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

II BJ 7.420 – 436 Josephus’ core source for his main narrative on Onias’ Temple in BJ 7 was a Jewish source that I label the “Leontopolis Source.”⁵⁵ This source recounted the story of the foundation of the temple. It also included a correspondence between Onias and the Ptolemaic royal couple, Ptolemy VI Philometor and Cleopatra II. The royal correspondence may actually have been the foundation charter of Onias’ settlement as it included the permission to build his temple.⁵⁶ It is likely that the “Leontopolis Source” was stored in the Oniad Temple’s archives and obtained by the Roman forces that first stripped the temple of its valuables and then closed or destroyed it (in BJ 7.433 – 435).⁵⁷ That way, it could have come to Josephus’ attention while he accompanied Titus to Egypt after the capture of Jerusalem; if not, he must have learned of it later, in Rome.⁵⁸ plement Series; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 7– 11. I would like to express my gratitude to Prof. Mason for providing me with the manuscript of this article prior to its publication.  Similarly, L. H. Feldman, “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared with 1 Maccabees,” in Josephus & the History of Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 43, who identifies one source for the foundation of Onias’ Temple. See also J. von Destinon, Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jüd. Arch. Buch XII-XVII – Jüd. Krieg Buch I (Kiel: Lipsius, 1882) 36 – 37.  Compare the story of the arrival of the high priest Ḥezekiah, who founds a Jewish settlement in Egypt and reads a royal decree in a ceremony in front of his followers. C. Ap. 1.189 and Hecataeus of Abdera (or Pseudo-Hecataeus) apud Diodorus Siculus 40.3. See B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, ’On the Jews’: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996); D. R. Schwartz, “Diodorus Siculus 40.3 – Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Talmud, ed. by M. Mor (et al.) (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003) 181– 197; H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895) 77– 83; M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: The Israeli Academy of Science and Humanities, 1974) 1:20 – 45 [henceforth: GLAJJ] and Chapter 10.  On the use of material from temple archives by ancient Jewish historians see 1 Macc. 14:48 – 49 and U. Rappaport, The First Book of Maccabees, 36, 38 [Hebrew]. Rappaport notes that the author of 1 Maccabees had access to documents stored in the archives of the Jerusalem Temple and made extensive use of them for his work. See also M. Stern, The Documents of the Maccabean Revolt: Translation, Commentary, and Introductions (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1965) 76 [Hebrew] and A. Lange, “2 Maccabees 2:13 – 15: Library or Canon?” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology: Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9 – 11 June, 2005, ed. by G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (JSJSup 118; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 164– 167.  Josephus visited Alexandria several times: in the company of Vespasian and Titus in 69 CE (BJ 4.656) and a brief stay with Titus prior to his departure for Rome after the winter of 71 CE (BJ 7.117). Note too, Josephus claim that he had married an Alexandrian woman (V 415) who might have had some knowledge of the Oniad Temple. Moreover, Hata proposes that Josephus stayed

7 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Judaean War

49

Josephus combined the “Leontopolis Source” with information from a second, minor source, which contained things Roman. This source stands behind the contents of BJ 7.420 – 422, 426 – 427a, 433 – 435, for it tells us about Vespasian’s order to make Onias’ Temple inoperable, the actions and succession of the Roman officials Lupus and Paulinus, and the closure of the Oniad Temple at the hands of Roman troops. Notably, the Roman source also supplied information on the distance from Onias’ Temple to Memphis, which amounted to 180 stadia (a Roman measure [!] amounting to about 33 kms, and not a Ptolemaic measure, as we would expect from a source from that period). It also contained the note that the temple, unlike its Jerusalemite counterpart, resembled a tower. Although we should consider the latter statement Josephus’ own, we should assume too that he relied here on information from a source. Based on the details of the appearance of the Oniad Temple contained in his second (Roman) source, Josephus saw fit to revise his earlier statements regarding the temple’s appearance.⁵⁹ His usage of a different source therefore accounts for this contradiction, as I have proposed above. Information of this kind, such as the marching distance from the Roman camp (obviously at Memphis)⁶⁰ to Onias’ Temple and the deeds of Roman military officials, all point to the milieu of the Roman military.⁶¹ I therefore wish to propose that the Roman source on Onias’ Temple was a Roman military report (commentarius). It is, for that matter, a well-known fact that Josephus made use of comparable material elsewhere in his Judaean War. ⁶²

in Egypt about one full year (between 65 – 66 CE) on his way back from his Roman embassy, but this is mere conjecture. Cf. G. Hata, “Imagining Some Dark Periods in Josephus’ Life,” in Josephus & the History of Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 316 and there n. 20. Hata suggests that during this stay, Josephus visited Onias’ Temple. Again, this remains in the realm of speculation. On the contrary, the many contradictions in Josephus’ narratives on the temple attest to the likelihood that he did not have “a clear picture of the temple of Onias” in his head, as Hata claims (G. Hata, “Imagining Some Dark Periods in Josephus’ Life,” 316 [n. 17]).  Namely at BJ 1.33; and see also Ant. 12.388; 13.63, 72; 20.236.  The remains of a Roman military camp have been discovered to the south of the ruins at Kom Sabakha, near Memphis. See P. Davoli, “Settlements – Distribution, Structure, Architecture: Graeco-Roman Period,” in A Companion to Ancient Egypt, ed. by A. B. Lloyd (2 vols.; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) 1:353.  For a comparable case, see Y. Shahar, “Josephus the Stage Manager at the Service of Josephus the Dramatist: Masada as Test Case,” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 353 – 379. I owe this reference to Prof. D. R. Schwartz.  Josephus seems to have made extensive use of Vespasian’s commentarii (ὑπομνήματα). See V 342, 358; C. Ap. 1.56; W. Weber, Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem Jüdischen Krieg

50

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

Identifying sources in Josephus’ Judaean War is somewhat more difficult than in his Antiquities, where Josephus frequently admits that the information he has just provided derived from a given ancient writer.⁶³ His War is notable for the lack of such notices, which makes the identification of sources all the more difficult.⁶⁴ Moreover, in general the work is more thoroughly edited than Antiquities, which makes roughness caused by splicing less frequent. Nevertheless, there are several other indicators, such as certain phraseology,⁶⁵ or odd repetitions within the text,⁶⁶ that point to a change or a splicing of sources. Indeed, also in our Onias narrative in BJ 7, we encounter indications of the above kind. This bolsters the assumption that Josephus combined sources throughout his narrative. In my view, such points of interlacing introduce BJ 7.420 – 422, 426 – 427a, and 433 – 435. We note that the Onias narrative constitutes a whole new topic in BJ 7, which up to that point deals with the activity of Jewish rebels in Egypt. This narrative begins at § 420 with the introduction of a new character: “Lupus was then in control of Alexandria…(§ 420).” This indicates

des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Kohlhammer, 1921) 96 – 97, 136. See also H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, 36, 39; M. Broshi, “The Credibility of Josephus,” JJS 33 (1982): 379 – 384; T. Rajak, Josephus, 215 – 216. For Josephus’ use of a Roman military report as a supplementary source see also above, n. 25.  For example, Ant. 1.94; 12.135, 137 (Polybius); 13.319 (Timagenes apud Strabo); 14.68 (Nicolaus of Damascus and Strabo), etc. See on this issue e. g. K. Albert, Strabo als Quelle, passim; M. Stern, “Nicolaus of Damascus as a Source for the History of Israel in the Times of Herodian Dynasty and the Hasmonean Dynasty,” in Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (ed. by M. Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991) 445 – 464 [Hebrew] and B.-Z. Wacholder, “Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989) 147– 172.  H. St. J. Thackeray, Josephus, 39.  See in particular H. G. M. Williamson, “The Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities XI.297– 301,” JTS 28 (1977): 49 – 66; D. R. Schwartz, “”KATA TOYTON TON KAIPON”,” 241– 268.  A prominent example for such is Josephus’ narrative on another Onias, “Onias the Circledrawer (‫)חוני המעגל‬,” in Ant. 14.21– 28 that contains a bothersome repetition of the Passover-festival which results from Josephus’ splicing of two sources. On Onias “the circle-drawer” see W. S. Green, “Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic Tradition,” ANRW 2.19.2 (Berlin, 1979): 628 – 647; O. Betz, “The Death of Choni-Onias in the Light of the Temple Scroll from Qumran,” in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, ed. by A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, and M. Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press/Ministry of Defense Press, 1980) 84– 97 [Hebrew]; F. Gottlieb, “Why the Figure of Ḥoni the Circle-Drawer in Jewish Legend Resembles that of Moshe our Teacher,” EJ 15 (1981): 25 – 29; J. H. Charlesworth, “Ḥoni,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D. N. Freedman (6 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1992) 3: 282. This is perhaps a good opportunity to note that Richardson conjectured a possible descent of Onias the circle-drawer with the Oniad priestly dynasty, see P. Richardson, Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (University of South Carolina: Columbia, 1996) 79 (n. 107).

7 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Judaean War

51

that Josephus just switched to a new source. The new source recorded Roman activity in Egypt in general and dealt with specific Roman military actions there in particular, among them the closure of Onias’ Temple. It is for this reason that I have suggested that we should identify that source with a Roman military report (henceforth: the “Roman Source”). Josephus, however, supplements his Roman Source with another one only two paragraphs later (at § 422). This is indicated by the phraseology Josephus employs here, namely that “event x happened for the following reason (καὶ δὶα τοιαύτην αἱτίαν…)” – a phrasing that, as has been shown, often introduces material from a new source that was not coordinated more naturally with the main narrative.⁶⁷ We recall that this is the point (§ 423) where Josephus actually begins his account of the foundation of Onias’ Temple for which he relies on the “Leontopolis Source.” Yet, it seems that he does not stick consistently to the “Leontopolis Source” until the end of his narrative on the Oniad Temple. This becomes evident from his contradictory statement at § 427 that Onias’ Temple did not resemble the Jerusalem Temple, even though Josephus emphasizes the opposite elsewhere (namely at Ant. 12.388; 13.63, 67, 72; 20.236), and the (Roman) reference to the distance from Memphis to Onias’ Temple.⁶⁸ Thus we can explain why Josephus suddenly changed his mind about the appearance of Onias’ Temple. The “Leontopolis Source,” which was concerned with the foundation of the temple, must have been written around the time it purports to describe, viz. sometime in the Hellenistic period (around the mid-2nd century BCE). It is therefore not too surprising that a building described in the Hellenistic period will have little in common with a description of the same building about a century or two later in the Roman period (as described in Josephus’ Roman Source). Taking into consideration that the Oniad Temple stood for ca. 200 years we should assume that a building standing this long would undergo repairs (mainly because of natural erosion and decay) and even minor or major renovations.⁶⁹ We know for a

 See H. G. M. Williamson, “The Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities XI.297– 301,” 50 – 55.  See above, n. 18. Even though these two paragraphs constitute Josephus’ own assessments, they were certainly influenced by information he obtained from his Roman source.  For the conclusion that Josephus’ descriptions of the Jerusalem Temple too, reflect different building stages see L. I. Levine, “Josephus’ Description of the Jerusalem Temple: ”War”, “Antiquities”, and Other Sources,” in Josephus & the History of Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 233 – 246. The Jerusalem Temple was renovated several times, see J. Patrich, “The pre-Herodian Temple II: The Building Project of Simeon the Just on the Temple Mount,” RB 118 (2011): 558 – 574. On the scope of Herod’s Temple expansion-project, see Josephus’ description in Ant. 15.380 – 424 and D. W. Roller, The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) 176 –

52

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

fact, that the Jerusalem Temple underwent major structural changes between the Hellenistic and Roman periods, especially in the days of Herod and it is, consequently, not farfetched to assume that Onias’ Temple underwent some structural changes and renovation over time as well. Thus the question of whether Onias built a replica of the Jerusalem Temple in Egypt depends on which structures are being compared. Ant 13 (and elsewhere) and BJ 7, in fact, refer to two different building stages of essentially one and the same building. That having been said, Josephus seems to return to his “Leontopolis Source” in § 427b, where he continues his narrative by providing a description of the appearance and appurtenances of the Oniad Temple. In §§ 431 and 432, Josephus moves on to speculate about Onias’ motives for building his temple, for which he surprisingly provides two: one in § 431 (Onias’ “dishonest motif”: rivalry between him and the Jerusalemite Jews) and one in § 432a (Isaiah’s prophecy). As I shall argue below, the disparaging words in paragraph § 431 are entirely Josephus’ own, while the statement that Onias was encouraged by Isaiah’s prophecy appears to have come from his “Leontopolis Source.” I will return later to a discussion about Onias’ real motives for building his temple. For now, I wish to draw attention to the second part of this paragraph, where Josephus seemingly concludes his narrative with the words: “Such, then, was the origin of this temple.” While that sentence suggests that he intended to finish his narrative on Onias right there, the next three paragraphs show that he did not in fact do so. Rather, I propose that his concluding sentence in § 432b only indicates that at that point he ceased to use his “Leontopolis Source.” This assumption is sustained by the contents of the subsequent three paragraphs, which again refer to matters Roman, opening with the words: “Lupus, the governor of Alexandria (ὁ τῆς Ἁλεχανδρείας ἡεγημὼν),” as if we have not received this information already

180; J. Knoblet, Herod the Great (Lanham: University Press of America, 2005) 108 – 117; E. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod the Great, The Great Builder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 137– 178, 271– 276; J. Patrich, “583 BCE – 70 CE: The Temple (“Beyt ha-Miqdash”) and its Mount,” in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, ed. by O. Grabar and B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2009) 44– 45. With regard to the resemblance of the Samaritan and the Jerusalemite Temples, Magen remarks that during Herod’s time, the sacred precinct was enclosed by a series of structures that are not mentioned by the Mishnah, which tends to ignore Herodian constructions altogether and tries to remember the pre-Herodian Temple. Therefore, there are no reliable descriptions of the dimensions of the Jerusalem precinct in the Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods, which in turn makes a comparison of Mt. Gerizim with Jerusalem impossible. Moreover, one cannot speak of uniform dimensions of the Temple Mount in either the First or Second Temple period. “While the size of the Temple changed over the course of time, a fixed sacred nucleus remained.” Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations. Volume II: A Temple City (JSP 8; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008) 142– 145.

8 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Jewish Antiquities

53

in § 420. Josephus obviously returns here – once more – to his Roman Source. The real conclusion of his Onias narrative comes only thereafter, with his remark at § 436 concerning the 343-year-duration of the Oniad Temple, a remark we indeed expect from a thorough historian. This notice also seems to derive from Josephus’ quill.⁷⁰ I conclude this section with the summary that Josephus had, and interwove, two main sources while composing his longer Onias narrative of BJ 7: a Jewish source on the foundation and appearance of the Oniad Temple from the Hellenistic period (the “Leontopolis Source”) and a Roman military report that contained information on the closure (or perhaps destruction)⁷¹ of Onias’ Temple and, in that context, contained some other details about it, such as the marching distance from there to Memphis and the resemblance of the temple-building to a tower.

8 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Jewish Antiquities Let us now focus on Josephus’ sources for Onias and Oniad history in his Antiquities. As I have already stressed, Josephus typically did not use more than two sources at a time for the narratives he put to paper (or rather, to parchment or papyrus). Therefore, it seems reasonable to assume that this situation was not

 The figure 343 is much debated and usually emended to 243. See Thackeray’s note e ad loc. (LCL) 429 and S. A. Hirsch, “The Temple of Onias,” 54; S. Krauss, “Leontopolis,” 8; M. A. Beek, “Relations entre Jérusalem, ” 126; I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948) 93; G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965) 312; P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 43; R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration,” JJS 33 (1982): 436.  In BJ 7.433 – 435 Josephus wants us to believe that the Oniad Temple was “shut down” (ἀπέκλεισε) by the Romans. However, a passage in the Fifth Book of the Sibylline Oracles (5.501– 507), as well as the “updated” prophecy of Isaiah (19:18) in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, both suggest that the temple was actually destroyed by the Romans. The reason why Josephus seems to contradict this particular detail is perhaps an effort of his to whitewash the Romans from the heinous act of having destroyed a (or another) temple. Destroying temples was looked upon as an act of barbarity in antiquity and it would certainly be most unflattering to the Romans had Josephus related the destruction of Onias’ Temple – for, “shutting down” a sanctuary is only half as bad as destroying one, and a far more diplomatic way of stating the fact that, no matter how we look at the issue, Onias’ Temple ceased to function. See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 37– 40 and S. H. Rutledge, “The Roman Destruction of Sacred Sites,” Historia 56 (2007): 179 – 195, esp. 190 (n. 46).

54

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

any different in the case of his Onias narratives. In other words, Josephus seems not to have had recourse to a plethora of source material on Onias and Oniad history. This, let us say “economical” perspective of Josephus’ use of sources prompts me to argue that he used the “Leontopolis Source” not only for his narrative in BJ 7, as we just saw, but also for the one in Ant. 13; above, we have already seen the general similarity of these two narratives.⁷² This section is concerned with the additional sources that Josephus used for his references to Onias, his temple, and Oniad history. For the reader’s convenience, I have divided Josephus’ reference to Onias and the Oniad Temple into three separate units that I will discuss presently. These are: a) The ‘Epistolary Piece’ (Ant. 13.62– 73) b) Josephus’ Notes on Oniad Genealogy (Ant. 12.237– 240; 12.383, 387– 388; 20.235 – 237) c) Miscellaneous (Ant. 13.285; Ant. 14.131; Ant. 15.41; Ant. 19.298)

a) The ‘Epistolary Piece’ (Ant. 13.62 – 73) Once more, let me emphasize that Josephus had an Oniad founding legend (the “Leontopolis Source”) on his table which he used to compose his narratives on Onias and his temple not only in BJ 7, but also in Ant. 13. Because of its contents, I choose to designate the segment of that narrative in Ant. 13, the ‘Epistolary Piece’ since it basically constitutes an exchange of letters between Onias and the Ptolemaic royal couple. However, the ‘Epistolary Piece’ is overtly misoOniad in spirit and is therefore usually held to be of (Jewish) Alexandrian origin, based on the unfounded premise that Alexandrian Jews were unequivocally loyal to the Jerusalem Temple and hence, hostile toward Onias’ Temple.⁷³ I shall return to this issue below, but will anticipate here briefly by stating that the ‘Epistolary Piece’ is not a separate source, but part of the “Leontopolis  On Josephus’ so-called local (Diasporan) sources, see also T. Rajak, “Josephus in the Diaspora,” in Flavius Josephus & Flavian Rome, ed. by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 90 – 91.  See for instance: M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias” 194; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 305 – 306. The rationale being that Onias’ Temple is nowhere mentioned in (Jewish) Alexandrian literature and an Alexandrian antagonism toward Onias’ Temple is thus commonly assumed. So e. g. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 280; A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis,” ICS 18 (1993): 123; J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995) 128. Capponi has recently argued that the Sitz im Leben of the ‘Epistolary Piece’ is pro-Hasmonean. Compare L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 65.

8 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Jewish Antiquities

55

Source,” and its unflattering profile of Onias is not Alexandrian in origin, but Josephan. Within the framework of anti-Oniad polemic, the awkward fact has often been noted that it is the Gentile Ptolemaic king who is supposedly upset by Onias’ plan to erect a temple on impure soil and who is concerned with his transgression of Jewish law (§ 70). This fact is stressed by Josephus in the preceding paragraph (§ 69), as an indicator of the king’s and the queen’s supposed piety.⁷⁴ That a Gentile king is that deeply affected by the violation of Jewish law by a Jewish priest indeed sounds odd. It seems to follow Jewish-Hellenistic literary commonplaces, rather than genuine Graeco-Roman literary standards.⁷⁵ Hence, scholars have put forward the view that the ‘Epistolary Piece’ is a Jewish forgery, a hostile anti-Oniad Alexandrian tradition, and not a genuine correspondence between Onias and the royal Ptolemaic couple.⁷⁶ While that view is likely to be true, we shall see in the following section that Josephus’ remark in § 69 and the king’s concern about whether Onias’ project will be pleasing to God (τῷ θεῷ)⁷⁷, fulfill a certain narratological function in the whole episode – name-

 See below, p. 73.  For comparable reactions see e. g. 2 Macc. 4:35 – 37, where the hostile Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes mourns the murder of the high priest Onias and similarly Ptolemy IV Philopator at 3 Macc. 6:22. On these characteristically Jewish Diasporan literary topoi, see D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period,” in Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit. Wege der Forschung: Vom alten zum neuen Schürer, ed. by A. Oppenheimer (München: R. Oldenbourg, 1999) 29 – 40.  See e. g. S. Krauss, “Leontopolis,” in Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906) 7– 8; B. R. Motzo, Saggi di storia e letteratura Guideo-Ellenistica (Florence: Felice Le Monnier Editore, 1924) 183 – 185; M. Beek, “Relations entre Jérusalem,” 124– 125; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 277– 278; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 194– 195; A. Zivie, “Tell El-Yahoudieh,” Nahar Misraim 2 (1981): 10; J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple – The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substiuierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kultes im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 190; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 305; E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 59; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 27– 28; V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien zu den Hohen Priestern der frühen Makkabäerzeit,” ZDPV 124 (2008): 153.  Schlatter has already noted that Josephus uses that term, which is a loose term, “gern da, wo er Heiden reden läßt.” See A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 1. Heft, 14. Jahrgang; Gütersloh: ‘Der Rufer’ Evangelischer Verlag, 1910) 38. Note that in § 67, in Onias’ petition letter to the king, Onias expresses his wish to dedicate his temple to the μεγίστω θεῷ (the “Almighty,” or “Great God”). Schlatter comments that Josephus uses the phrase ὁ μέγιστος θεός because of his “Bedürfnis, den jüdischen Gott von den anderen zu unterscheiden…” and he brings the example of Ant. 15.385 and “ebenso will Onia [sic] in Ägypten einen Tempel τῷ μεγίστω θεῷ bauen.” A. Schlatter, Wie sprach Josephus von Gott?, 18. While we agree with Schlatter that it is Josephus himself who is responsible for apply-

56

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

ly to discredit Onias and his temple. Therefore, paragraphs 69 – 70 should be considered Josephus’ own rephrasing of his source. I contend that the ‘Epistolary Piece’ is not a hostile Jewish source of Alexandrian origin, but part of Josephus’ “Leontopolis Source.” He had already used it in BJ 7, rephrased it, and thus made it conform to his own perceptions and Tendenz, giving it his very own anti-Oniad tinge. The presumption that the ‘Epistolary Piece’ derives from the “Leontopolis Source,” which Josephus used for his narrative on Onias’ Temple in BJ 7, is further bolstered by a tiny and bizarre detail at Ant. 13.65, which comes in the context of Onias’ first letter to the royal couple and opens with the following statement: Many and great are the services which I [Onias] have rendered to you in the course of the war, with the help of God, when I was in Coele-Syria and Phoenicia…(Ant. 13.65).

For most commentators the tiny piece of information that Onias was involved in a war in “Coele-Syria and Phoenicia” (Κοίλῃ Συρία καὶ Φοινίκῃ) – a typical Ptolemaic (!) geographical designation of the area we tend to conceive of as Judaea⁷⁸ – which Josephus supplies here in passing, creates a problem.⁷⁹ For, if we accept Antiquities’ view that the Onias spoken of in this instance is Onias IV, who was active sometime in the fifties of the second century BCE (if we follow Josephus’ internal chronology), we are compelled to find a conflict in Judaea in those years in which Onias IV could have rendered (military) services to Ptolemy VI Philometor. The problem is that there was none. However, were we to accept

ing this term in the first instance in § 69, it seems to us that the second term (μεγίστω θεῷ) in our second instance in § 67 (see also § 64) is what Josephus found in his source. We also note that this specific divine epithet was popular among Jews of the Diaspora such as Onias and his community. See Chr. Zimmermann, Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewählten neutestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnungen vor ihrem frühjüdischen und paganen Sprachhorizont (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 573 – 585. I owe this reference to Prof. D. R. Schwartz. The view that Josephus used a different term to refer to God in § 69 corroborates my assumption that this paragraph is essentially Josephus himself speaking.  On the term “Κοίλῃ Συρία καὶ Φοινίκῃ” and its Ptolemaic context, see E. J. Bickerman, “La Coelé-Syrie: notes de géographie historique,” RB 54 (1947): 256 – 268; K. Kessler, “Koile-Syrien,” in Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, Vol. 6, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider (Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler, 1999) 630; G. M. Cohen, The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, The Red Sea Basin, and North Africa (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006) 37– 43. The fact that this term was at home in the Ptolemaic period, strengthens my assumption that the “Leontopolis Source” is an Oniad founding legend authored in Egypt during that very period.  See e. g. E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 59; V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien,” 154.

8 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Jewish Antiquities

57

the view that the ‘Epistolary Piece,’ of which Ant. 13.65 is a part, chronicles the exploits of Onias III and not those of his son (Onias IV), we would immediately see how this (initially) bothersome reference fits nicely into the overall chronological setting of the narrative, and the historical context of the Sixth Syrian War (170 – 168 BCE). Namely, we recall that in BJ 1 and 7, Josephus tells us much about Onias III’s involvement in the inner-Jewish political struggles in pre-Maccabeanrevolt Jerusalem, and how he was part of a pro-Ptolemaic faction that was instrumental in the ousting of the pro-Seleucid camp (BJ 1.31– 32).⁸⁰ These events occurred during, and in the wake of, the Sixth Syrian War (170 – 168 BCE), and it seems that the note on Onias’ involvement in a war in “Coele Syria and Phoenicia” in Ant. 13.65, indeed refers to that conflict. It follows that Josephus’ notice in Ant. 13.65 is better placed in the context of Onias III, and not that of Onias IV, who, we note in passing, must have been too young to be actively involved in a conflict in those days.⁸¹ But, not only that – the fact that this detail seems out of context in Ant. 13.65, but much in context of BJ 1 and 7, implies that it was originally at home in the latter. In other words, we are left with the impression that the entire narrative on Onias’ Temple in Antiquities 13 was part of the source Josephus used for his earlier narrative in the War. The only obstacle to this assumption appears to be the statement in Ant. 13.62 that it was Onias IV, Onias III’s son, who built the temple at Heliopolis; that contradicts War’s assertion that the temple was built by Onias III. We will now turn to that issue below. The reason why the majority of scholars assume that Ant. 13 is based upon a separate tradition or a new source unconnected with BJ 7 is the fact that, in Antiquities, Josephus appears to have changed his mind regarding the identity of the Oniad temple-builder (§ 62).⁸² While Josephus begins his BJ 7 narrative on Onias and Onias’ Temple (BJ 7.423) with the statement that it was “Onias, the son of Simon the high priest” (Onias III) who fled to Egypt and built a temple there, in Ant. 13.62 it is “Onias, who has the same name as his father” (hence Onias son of Onias, or: Onias IV) who did so. Indeed, as most scholars posit, Josephus seems to correct, in Antiquities, his earlier statement in BJ 7.423. However, he did not do so based on new information from a new source for Antiquities 13, but based on alternative information of genealogical nature he had obtained elsewhere.⁸³ That “elsewhere,” I contend, is the genealogical information

 Onias III’s involvement in the inner-Jewish political struggles in Jerusalem on behalf of the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Great Powers is alluded to in BJ 7.423, 425.  See also J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 306.  See the next note.  For the view that Josephus corrects his earlier statements about the Oniad temple-builder, see e. g. S. A. Hirsch, “The Temple of Onias,” 47; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 276; J.

58

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

about the Oniad high priestly succession (Ant. 12.237– 240; 20.235 – 237) to which we shall turn in a moment. Let us briefly anticipate this discussion and remark that Josephus’ supposed “correction” is actually quite the opposite, namely a Verschlimmbesserung. It is a serious blunder and the reason for all the confusion and complexity of much of the Oniad genealogy preserved by Josephus. As I shall show, Josephus got it right the first time (in his War), attributing the building of Onias’ Temple to Onias III. This will, of course, have significant implications for reconstructing the founder’s purpose.

b) Josephus’ Notes on Onias III’s Genealogy (Ant. 12.237 – 240; 12.383, 387 – 388; 20.235 – 237) Ant. 12.237 – 240: Ant. 12.237– 240 constitutes a textual unit that has attracted the attention of several scholars.⁸⁴ The piece deals with pre-Maccabean history and refers to the high priests who were ignored by the author of 1 Maccabees (Jason, Menelaus, and Onias). The latter composition served as Josephus’ main source in the Antiquities for his narrative on the early Hasmonean period down to the rule of Simon the Hasmoenan.⁸⁵ Since, as noted, 1 Maccabees omits any references to pre-Maccabean history, including information pertaining to the high priests of this period, but 2 Maccabees often does include such information, it has been conjectured that Josephus had recourse to a source akin to 2 Maccabees, or even to Jason of Cyrene’s original composition.⁸⁶ Be that as it may, it is obvious that JoBunge, Untersuchungen, 556; J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 188 – 190; M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 44 [Hebrew]; M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:406; L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 58. See also V. Keil, “Onias III. – Märtyrer oder Tempelgründer?” ZAW 97 (1985): 222.  See D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 58 – 59 [Hebrew]. That the information contained in Ant. 12.237– 241 derives from a source other than 1 Maccabees does not only emerge from its contents, but is also suggested by the phrase “about this time” (Ὑπο δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν) which usually signifies that Josephus interlinks sources. See above, n. 65.  It seems that Josephus had recourse to a version of 1 Maccabees which was only comprised of thirteen chapters, for Josephus did not reproduce the last three chapters of the composition. See e. g. J. v. Destinon, Die Quellen des Josephus, 86; G. Hölscher, Die Quellen des Josephus, 8.  H. Willrich, “Berührungen zwischen Josephus und Jason von Kyrene,” in Zur Josephus-Forschung, ed. by A. Schalit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973) 115 – 138. That Josephus did not have recourse to 2 Maccabees as a source is also stressed by M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 44– 45 [Hebrew]; Chr. Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch, in Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, ed. by H. Lichtenberger (JSHRZ; 6 vols.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976) 1:177; B. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 190.

8 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Jewish Antiquities

59

sephus supplemented his main source (1 Maccabees) with information from this new source that I labelled the “Menelaus Source.” Indeed, I suggest that Josephus was compelled to introduce this source – at least with regard to Oniad genealogy. That is because it appears that his previous source on Oniad genealogy, the list of high priests, supplied the Oniad high priestly succession only down to Simon II and his sons. This may be due to the circumstance that a subsequent list, which would have been stored in the archive of the Temple, was damaged in one of the lootings of the Temple by Menelaus, or Antiochus IV,⁸⁷ or perhaps even destroyed purposefully by the Hasmoneans in the wake of the purification of the Temple in 164 BCE and/or their assumption of power in Judaea later for reasons of propaganda and legitimization of their power.⁸⁸ That Josephus juxtaposes information from his list of Oniad high priests with details about the Oniad priests Jason and Menelaus from his “Menelaus Source” becomes evident from his emphasis that Jason was actually called Jesus and that Menelaus, similarly, was named Onias. It is worthwhile pointing out in this context that in previous places, where Josephus talks about Oniad high priests, he refers to them only by their (Graecized) Hebrew names: Jaddua, Onias, Simon, etc.⁸⁹ None of them has two names. In Ant. 12.237– 240, in contrast, we suddenly hear about Oniad high priests bearing Greek names such as Jason and Menelaus. Obviously, Josephus accommodated here information on the Oniad high priests (and Oniad genealogy) to his “Menelaus Source.” This observation too can be adopted to explain some other errors in that piece (Ant. 12.237– 240). For example, the odd notice that Simon had two sons who were both named Onias, or the fact that Josephus, as others have pointed out before me, wrongly assigns events to Menelaus which should instead be assigned to Jason.⁹⁰ Let me conclude this brief examination of Ant. 12.237– 240 with the observation that Josephus apparently struggled with his sources and that his splicing of two sources can explain the spurious details in this piece.

 1 Macc. 1:20 – 24; 2 Macc. 5:15 – 16.  A damnatio memoriae so to speak. This has been suggested by É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum. Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 155; J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie,” 10 and there n. 37. P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 41– 42, suggests that Josephus’ confused Oniad genealogy is due to a forged list of high priests.  See e. g. Ant. 11.347 (Jaddua, Onias); Ant. 12.43 – 44; Ant. 12.157 (Manasseh, Eleazar, Simon, Onias).  Cf. 2 Macc. 4:7– 20.

60

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

Ant. 12.383, 387 – 388: This passage too, is part of Josephus’ narrative on early Hasmonean history. As in the previous case, here too, Josephus supplies information that was missing in his main source, 1 Maccabees. A comparison of 1 Maccabees with Ant. 12.382– 388 shows that Josephus used 1 Maccabees (6:60 – 62) faithfully until the first half of § 383, where he begins to add extra information he obtained from another source. My supposition that Josephus switched sources in § 383 is supported by the fact that when he returns to his main source (1 Maccabees) in § 389, he is compelled to employ the resumptive formula, “about the same time.”⁹¹ Ant. 12.383 – 388 recounts Menelaus’ execution at Beroea and the fact that he was succeeded by Jacimus (or Alcimus).⁹² In § 383 we are once more told that Menelaus was also called Onias, a note we have previously encountered in Ant. 12.239. But this is not the sole information Josephus reiterates from that part of Ant. 12 (237– 240). We also hear again about the fate of Onias’ III son, Onias IV, to whom he ascribes the flight to Egypt and the building of the Oniad Temple. Since Josephus basically reiterates information from the earlier passage (Ant. 12.237– 240) that came from the “Menelaus Source,” we must assume that, directly or (via Ant. 12) indirectly, he depends upon the same source for this passage as well. That assumption is bolstered by the fact that we once again encounter here details about the fate of the high priest Menelaus, who is not mentioned in his main source (1 Maccabees). In the same vein, we note that Josephus, in analogy to his note that Menelaus carried the byname Onias, says that Menelaus’ successor Alcimus was “also called Jakeimos (§ 385).” Josephus’ repeated provision of two names for the same high priest also suggests that he is coordinating between two sources. I conjecture that it was the circumstances of Alcimus’ accession to the high priesthood, as mentioned in 1 Maccabees 7:5 – 9, that prompted Josephus to introduce the extra information supplied by his “Menelaus Source” for his narrative. However, it seems that the mention of Alcimus in his main source was not the only reason for Josephus’ introduction of the piece on Menelaus’ demise. Josephus also seems to have been anxious to comment on Menelaus’ wickedness, on his keenness to “compel the Jews to abandon their fathers’ religion (…τοὺς Ἰουδαίους ἀναγκάσαι τὴν πάτριον θρησκείαν καταλιπεῖν; § 384)” and “to violate

 “Ὑπο δὲ τὸν αὐτὸν καιρὸν,” see above, n. 65.  For a similar account of these events see 2 Macc. 13:4 (“But the King of kings aroused the anger of Antiochus against the scoundrel; and when Lysias informed him that this man was to blame for all the trouble, he ordered them to take him to Beroea and to put him to death by the method that is customary in that place.” [NRSV]).

8 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Jewish Antiquities

61

their [own] laws” (…τὸ ἔθνος ἀναγκάσαντα τοὺς ἰδίους παραβῆναι νόμους; § 385). This is quite in harmony with one of Josephus’ major themes in the Antiquities: to depict Jewish villains as transgressors of Jewish law (or the Jewish constitution).⁹³ To sum up our findings concerning the passage Ant. 12.383, 387– 388, we have seen that the source for the information provided here on Onias and Oniad history stems from the same source, the “Menelaus Source” that also provided the information concerning Ant. 12.237– 240. The “Menelaus Source” employed the Greek names of the pre-Hasmonean high priests Jesus (Jason), Onias (Menelaus), and Jakeimos (Alcimus), and also supplied the information that a son of Menelaus had fled to Egypt in the wake of Alcimus’ accession to the high priesthood. It is important to note that something in that source caused Josephus to identify Menelaus with Onias. I shall return to this problem below.

Ant. 20.235 – 237: This brief passage is part of Josephus’ survey of the high priesthood in the Second Temple period (20.224– 251).⁹⁴ As such, it constitutes a kind of condensed review of the Oniad high priesthood. But, instead of a concise recapitulation of genealogical information on the Oniad high priests akin to what we encounter throughout Books 12 and 13 of his Antiquities, we are astounded by the fact that Josephus’ sole focus is on two Oniad high priests, namely Onias III (whom he identifies with Menelaus) and the latter’s son Onias IV, and the particular events which led to the establishment of the Oniad Temple in Egypt.⁹⁵ To reiterate, Josephus’ mention of Menelaus, his identification of Menelaus as Onias III, the note about his assassination at Beroea, the flight of his son (Onias IV) to Egypt, and the mention of Jakeimos,⁹⁶ all point to the fact that what stands be-

 See H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 151, 170 – 176. On Josephus’ concern with the “laws of the fathers,” see B. Schröder, ‘Die väterlichen Gesetze’, 268 – 270.  See above, n. 43. On the high priestly prostasia see D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community,” SCI 7 (1983 – 1984): 30 – 52 (esp. 40, 43 – 50).  Compare, in contrast, Josephus’ quite elaborate survey of the Hasmonean high priests in Ant. 20.238 – 245.  Note that a high priest named “Jakeimos” only appears three times in the Antiquities: At Ant. 12.385; 20.235, 237. See A. Schalit, Namenswörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus: A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (ed. by K. H. Rengstorf; Suppl. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 9. We have associated all of these occurrences with Josephus’ “Menelaus Source.” “Alcimus,” in turn appears nine times in the Antiquities: Ant. 12.385, 387, 391, 393, 395, 397– 398, 400, 413. With the exception of the first two (Ant. 12.385, 387), all other occurrences belong to the parts in which Josephus

62

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

hind this historical summary of the Oniad high priesthood is Josephus’ “Menelaus Source.” This immediately raises the question of why Josephus refrained from presenting a detailed summary of all Oniad high priests as he did, for instance, with the Hasmonean high priests? I propose two answers to this question. The first concerns the overall narratological purpose of Josephus’ summary of Jewish high priests, while the second concerns the body of source material on those priests and its intricacy. As to the first (narratological) purpose of Josephus’ list of high priestly succession I posit, with Gussmann,⁹⁷ that this survey is in line with Josephus’ own perception of Jewish history, which he describes as a history of crisis (Krisengeschichte) or deterioration.⁹⁸ Specifically, Josephus wishes to demonstrate that in a perfectly functioning Jewish constitution overseen by the high priests,⁹⁹ (1) the latter should be of Aaronite descent; (2) the priesthood should be an issue of pedigree (i. e. one is born a priest); (3) the high priestly office is lifelong; and (4) the office should be bequeathed from the father to the oldest son.¹⁰⁰ But as with life in general, so too high-priestly succession is often not perfect. And thus it happened several times in the course of Judaean history that some of the above points remained unfulfilled. In the case of our example, Onias/Menelaus, points 1, 3, and 4 were violated. Accordingly, Josephus bemoans in Ant. 20.235 that, even though Alcimus was a priest of Aaronite descent, he was not part of the distinguished ‘House of Onias’ that held the high priesthood until a Gentile king interrupted the appropriate high priestly chain of succession

rephrases his main source for the early Hasmonean history, 1 Maccabees. The first two occurrences (Ant. 12.385, 387), as we have seen, belong to the “Menelaus Source” and make the connection between “Jakeimos” and “Alcimus.” The identification of the former with the latter, however, was done by Josephus in his attempt to harmonize his 1 Maccabees source with his supplementary “Menelaus Source”.  O. Gussmann, “Die Bedeutung der hohepriesterlichen Genealogie,” 126 – 127.  O. Gussmann, “Die Bedeutung der hohepriesterlichen Genealogie,” 122 – 128 and D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions,” 49 – 52, who discusses Josephus’ own perceptions with respect to the list of high priests.  See C. Ap. 2.185 and C. Thoma, “The High Priesthood in the Judgement of Josephus,” Josephus the Bible, and History, ed. by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989) 196 – 215; D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions,” 32– 34, Y. Amir, “‘θεοκρατία’ as a Concept of Political Philosophy: Josephus’ Presentation of Moses’ “Politeia”,” SCI 8 – 9 (1985 – 1988): 83 – 105; H. Cancik, “Theokratie und Priesterherrschaft: Die mosaische Verfassung bei Flavius Josephus, C. Apionem 2,157– 198,” in Religionstheorie und politische Theologie: Theokratie, ed. by J. Taubes (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1987) 65 – 77; T. Rajak, “The “Against Apion” and the Continuities in Josephus’s Political Thought,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. by S. Mason (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 222– 246.  O. Gussmann, “Die Bedeutung der hohepriesterlisten Genealogie,” 125 – 126.

8 Josephus’ Sources for Onias and Onias’ Temple in the Jewish Antiquities

63

(points 3 and 4). This foreign intervention and disruption of the priestly succession eventually resulted in the establishment of a separate Jewish shrine outside of the Land of Israel, an event which constitutes a major problem in its own right, violating the law of cult-centralization enshrined in Deuteronomy 12. As we will discover soon, this problem irked Josephus personally. The irksome fact that foreign rulers intervened in the high priestly succession is stressed by Josephus elsewhere too,¹⁰¹ but he underlines the fact that the first incident of such insolence occurred during the high priesthood of Onias.¹⁰² Thus, there seems to have been a narratological reason for Josephus to provide precisely this episode of Oniad priestly history and not others. But let me add once more that this was not the sole reason for Josephus’ shying away from further referring to Oniad high priests. Rather, there appears to have been an issue with Josephus’ sources on Oniad genealogy as well. This problem must have contributed to his decision to choose the passage from his “Menelaus Source” for the representation of the Oniad high priesthood in Ant. 20.224– 251 and not something else.¹⁰³ This brings us to the second possible answer to the question of why Josephus chose not to supply us with a cohesive list of Oniad high priests. Above, I made the suggestion that Josephus did not have adequate information on the Oniad high priests after a certain point in time. This particular point in time seems to have been the high priesthood of Onias III. This problem compelled Josephus to resort to a more detailed source, although that source seems to have been of inferior quality, as we shall see below. This second source was his “Menelaus Source,” which he used to supplement his primary source on the Oniads, namely his list of Oniad high priests before Onias’ III lifetime. Thus, in order to

 Aristobulus’ II, Hyrcanus’ II, and Herod’s appointment of Aristobulus III (Ant. 15.34). In like manner, also the former’s grandson, Aristobulus II (ruled ca. 66 – 63 BCE), refrained from following the norm by violently impeaching his brother Hyrcanus II, Salome Alexandra’s (76 – 67 BCE) son and the legitimate successor to the high priesthood, from office (BJ 1.117– 120// Ant. 14.6 – 7). As is well known, due to this fratricidal struggle Judaea lost its independence to the Romans and Aristobulus II was captured and killed (Ant. 14.124). Furthermore, the deliberate deposition of and appointment of high priests became one of the trade-marks of Herod’s rule of Judaea. Josephus emphasizes in Herod’s obituary, that he was a despicable character (Ant. 17.191) and someone, who constantly transgressed the Jewish law (Ant. 14.167; 15.41; 17.151).  See for instance Ant. 15.41.  Josephus’ convoluted note in Ant. 20.236 about the Oniad high priestly succession involving three individuals with the same name (Onias) is perhaps the best indicator for a break in the tradition around Onias III. This confused passage will be of our concern below (“How to Identify the Founder of Onias’ Temple?” pp. 79 – 81).

64

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

furnish us with reliable information regarding the fate of the House of Onias, Josephus chose to reproduce the information supplied by his “Menelaus Source.”

c) Miscellaneous (Ant. 13.285; Ant. 14.131; Ant. 15.41; Ant. 19.298). Ant. 13.285: This paragraph refers to the sons of Onias, Ananias and Ḥelkias and their involvement and high rank in the Ptolemaic army. Josephus adds here the information that their father was the one who had fled to Egypt and built a temple in the nome of Heliopolis, thus implying (without specifying) that the reference here is to the sons of Onias IV, if we follow his Oniad genealogy in the Antiquities. Two paragraphs later (§ 287), Josephus cites Strabo, who identifies Ananias and Ḥelkias as members of the Oniad (mercenary) community. Thus, just as Josephus, it appears that Strabo too was aware of the existence of the Oniad (mercenary) community.¹⁰⁴ Ant. 14.131: Since this notice has a parallel in War (BJ 1.189 – 190), it seems in all likelihood to be based upon Nicolaus of Damascus, Josephus’ main source for BJ 1 and the Hasmonean and Herodian periods.¹⁰⁵ This passage too, is concerned with the Oniad (mercenary) community. We are told here that a Judaean contingent under the command of Antipater and Hyrcanus II, on its way to relieve Julius Caesar in Alexandria, encountered a force of Oniad soldiers at Pelusium. The Oniad Temple is not mentioned at all. But, reference is made here to the “Land/Country/Territory of Onias” (Ὀνίου χώραν), a term which is also attested in an inscription from the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh. ¹⁰⁶ Ant. 15.41: This brief notice seems to derive from Josephus’ own quill. It bemoans the fact that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was the first Gentile ruler to actively (and unlawfully) intervene in the rightful succession of the Jewish high priesthood.¹⁰⁷ However, the note is based on the information about the high priestly

 On Strabo as the source for this passage, see K. Albert, Strabo als Quelle, 18.  See M. Stern, “Nicolaus of Damascus as a Source of Jewish History in the Herodian and Hasmonean Age,” in Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (ed. by M. Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991) 445 – 464 [Hebrew]. On Nicolaus of Damascus, see B.-Z. Wacholder, Nicolaus of Damascus (University of California Publications in History, 75; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962).  Inscription no. 38 in W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 90 – 94.  For Josephus’ portrayal of the history of the high priesthood as a history of crisis and its implications for the overall Jewish history, including the notion that tampering with the high priestly succession is an unlawful act having the potential to endanger the unity of the Temple cult, see O. Gussmann, “Die Bedeutung der hohepriesterlisten Genealogie,” 126 – 127.

9 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple

65

succession of Oniad high priests from Josephus’ list of high priests. Notably, the Oniad high priests referred to in this brief pericope are designated by their Hebrew names (i. e. Jesus and Onias).¹⁰⁸ The contents of Ant. 15.41 will be of importance for our later discussion of Oniad genealogy. Ant. 19.298: Also this passage is concerned with high priestly genealogy and based on information previously given by Josephus. Here, Josephus emphasizes that Simon son of Boethus, just as “Simon the Just,” had three sons who all became high priests (Ant. 12.238).¹⁰⁹ We have seen that the origin of information of this kind (i. e. high priestly succession) mostly interests priests and seems to derive from Josephus’ list of high priests.

9 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple, or: A Priest from Jerusalem and Rome on Priests and their Temple in the Diaspora Alongside the assumption that Josephus’ narratives on Onias’ Temple indeed transmit historical facts, we should at the same time accept the view that not everything Josephus says necessarily reflects historical reality. In other words, much of what Josephus has to say on the subject of Onias’ Temple – like much of what he says about other things – may be colored by the fact that, in addition to being a historian who composed historical narratives based on reliable sources, he was also a literary person, i. e. an author, in his own right. Josephus did not merely copy his sources, but rather arranged them and paraphrased them according to his own perceptions and narratological purposes. This becomes fairly obvious in his narratives on Onias and Onias’ Temple, as we shall presently see. I suggest that Josephus used an “Oniad” founding legend (preserved in the “Leontopolis Source”) as the source standing behind both his narratives on Onias and his temple in BJ 7 and Ant 13, but skewed it polemically and in accordance with the respective main themes of the Judaean War and the

 Compare Ant. 12.237– 239 where Josephus emphasizes that “Jesus changed his name to Jason, but Onias was called Menelaus.” It becomes evident from this brief notice that Josephus juxtaposes here information from the high priestly list, which featured the Hebrew/Aramaic names of the high priests, with information from his “Menelaus Source,” which preserved the high priests’ Greek names.  Stern contends that Josephus, here, wrongly linked high priests to the House of Boethus, just as he did in case of the alleged three sons of Simon of the “House of Onias.” M. Stern, The Great Families of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, 136 [Hebrew].

66

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

Antiquities. I also wish to draw attention to the fact that Josephus – the author – underwent a personal change, namely from being a proud Jewish Jerusalemite priest and representative of the Judaean upper class, to a perhaps well-to-do Diaspora Jew based in Rome.¹¹⁰ Effects of that personal change, so I argue, permeated into the narratives of both of his historical works, the Judaean War and the Antiquities, in general and into those concerning Onias and the Oniad Temple in particular. This fact accounts for several different emphases found in both his narratives in BJ and Antiquities, which are – to say the least – quite different in nature. The purpose of this section, therefore, is not only to expose Josephus’ own prejudices on Onias and the Oniad Temple, but also to strip Josephus’ narratives of those biases and see whether we can obtain a more nuanced picture of the history of Onias’ Temple.

I The Judaean War We should be somewhat surprised by the fact that a book that deals primarily with a war between Jews and Romans in Judaea and focuses predominantly on events in Jerusalem and its Temple, actually begins and ends with a narrative on another Jewish temple located elsewhere, that of Onias in Egypt. Josephus’ narrative on Onias and the Oniad Temple actually brackets his larger narrative on the Roman suppression of the Jewish revolt in Judaea. Josephus’ perhaps hastily added note on Onias’ Temple concludes with the remark that he will return to the subject “in due course” (BJ 1.33). His return comes towards the end of the Seventh Book of his War. We have seen that the “Introduction” (BJ 1.31– 33) refers to the political situation in pre-Maccabean Jerusalem on the eve of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ invasion of Judaea, his plundering and defilement of the Temple and his ensuing religious persecutions of the Jews. These events occurred on the background of the Sixth Syrian War (170 – 168 BCE), between Antiochus IV Epiphanes and Ptolemy VI Philometor.¹¹¹ In these

 See above n. 3 and M. Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew (WUNT 2.357; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013) passim and more recently, W. den Hollander, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome, 120 – 138.  On the Sixth Syrian War, see W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers: Ein Beitrag zur Politik und zum Staatsrecht des Hellenismus (ABAW N. F. 11; München: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934) 40 – 81; O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria (Classica et Mediaevalia Dissertationes VIII; Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1966) 64– 101; G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches:

9 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple

67

few paragraphs, Josephus emphasizes that there was great sedition among the people of Jerusalem, some taking the side of the pro-Ptolemaic party, and some of the pro-Seleucid party. Onias, apparently the head of the pro-Ptolemaic party, initially prevailed over the “Sons of Tobias” – the pro-Seleucid party (so we infer from Josephus’ report even though he does not explicitly say so). Soon, however, Onias’ initial success was reversed and he fled to his patron Philometor in Egypt. The Ptolemaic king, so we learn next, allowed Onias to build a temple and a city resembling Jerusalem in a nome called Heliopolis. As mentioned, Josephus promises to elaborate on these events “in its proper place” which does not come until Book Seven of his War. In the meantime we note that Onias’ flight to Egypt and the foundation of Onias’ Temple were, according to this narrative in BJ 1, essentially due to an inner-Jewish struggle – a stasis (στάσις) – upon which Josephus refrains from elaborating. Of importance for our inquiry is the fact that Josephus associates the Onias episode with inner-Jewish (political) struggles, a theme that we re-encounter throughout Josephus’ narratives in his Judaean War. Thus, I argue that the placement of the Onias episode in BJ 1 in the context of Jewish in-fighting is not by chance: stasis (στάσις) is a major theme of the overall composition, and therefore we already meet this theme in the brief introductory passage to the subject of Onias’ Temple.¹¹² Keeping this in mind, let us proceed to Josephus’ main narrative on Onias and his temple in War 7.421– 435. Josephus embeds this narrative in the larger context of the Roman mopping up of the last pockets of resistance after the destruction of the Temples in Judaea and in Egypt in the wake of the First Judaean War.¹¹³ He states that, on the orders of Vespasian, the Oniad Temple was closed out of fear that the Jewish rebels, who had fled there from Judaea, might cause further upheaval. This background functions as the cue for Josephus to return to his narrative on the Oniad Temple and thus fulfill his earlier promise, made in Book 1 of the War (BJ 1.33), to elaborate on the history of Onias’ Temple “in due course.” And we may observe that he indeed begins this narrative where he left off, with Onias’ flight to Egypt in the wake of the Sixth Syrian War and Antiochus’ invasion of Judaea and his defilement of the Temple (BJ 7.423). Josephus relates that Philometor permitted Onias to build a temple somewhere in Egypt, on the latter’s request. What Philometor gets in return, so we learn from Josephus, is the full-fledged loyalty of all Jews – especially against Philometor’s nemesis, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Philometor agrees to Onias’ proposal Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004) 128 – 134.  See above, n. 45.  BJ 7.408 – 437.

68

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

and allows him to build a temple and an altar in the Heliopolitan nome in Egypt. What follows is a description of the Oniad Temple and its vessels. Oddly enough, and in contrast to what he says elsewhere on Onias’ Temple, Josephus remarks here that it did not resemble the Temple of Jerusalem, but was shaped like a tower.¹¹⁴ Only the altar, in fact, was a copy of the one in Jerusalem (BJ 7.427). Earlier, I explained this apparent contradiction by Josephus’ use of two conflicting sources, from different periods of time. After the depiction of the Oniad Temple and its vessels, Josephus appears to voice his own opinion on Onias and his project. He says that: “Onias was not actuated by honest motives” (§ 431) and that all he had in mind in building his temple was to rival that of his brethren in Jerusalem against whom he harbored resentment for his exile. For this reason, so Josephus, Onias attempted to draw as many worshippers as possible from Jerusalem to his own newly established religious center in Egypt. Immediately thereafter, however, Josephus adds that Onias was encouraged to build this temple for another reason, namely the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 19:18 – 19). This predicted the building of an altar by an ανήρ Ιουδαίος – a Jew, or a Judaean (as we prefer to translate here, i. e. someone from Judaea, rather than just any Jew). Thus, Josephus, in fact, provides us with two motives for Onias’ temple-building project, of which one was self-service and the other was fulfillment of prophecy. I shall come back to the question of motive below. In the meantime, let us return to Josephus’ narrative. Following his note on Isaiah’s prophecy, Josephus rounds off his narrative on the Oniad Temple by relating the circumstances of its closure in the Roman period and by providing us with a figure for the duration that it stood. Many things are missing in this narrative. For instance, what occurred in the later life of the temple’s builder (in my view Onias III) and what was the ensuing history of this temple? Instead, Josephus skips directly to its closure in the 1st century CE. Josephus’ account of Onias’ Temple is therefore essentially an elaboration on the circumstances of its building, a rather elaborate description of its appearance and its vessels, and a report on its ultimate fate, rather than the history he promised readers at the beginning of his War. I argue that these were essentially the complete contents of Josephus’ “Leontopolis Source,” which he supplemented with information from the Roman source. Besides these, all we have is Josephus himself speaking and commenting on Onias and his actions. These few lines are of particular interest. First, let me point out that Josephus dedicated a fair portion of his overall narrative on the Oniad Temple to the temple itself, including its vessels. It

 BJ 7.427.

9 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple

69

seems that Josephus himself was interested in such details. As we know, he was a priest and it is quite natural to assume that his pedigree, and perhaps his experience as a priest, fostered his interest in things priestly.¹¹⁵ Second, we observe that Josephus does not compliment Onias for his actions. His disdain is clear from his brief comment at BJ 7.431 about Onias’ “dishonest motives.” We find Josephus accusing Onias of building his temple for the sole purpose of causing rivalry and stirring up dissent amongst the Jews – in particular those of Egypt against those of Jerusalem. We recall that this theme of dissent – or stasis – between Jews also surfaced in his brief introductory remarks on Onias and his temple in BJ 1. Josephus thus, re-introduces us to his main theme (stasis) of his War also in this narrative. And accordingly, Josephus portrays Onias as a dishonest person, who constantly seeks to spread dissent and rivalry amongst the Jews – in particular with those in Jerusalem. Onias thus becomes the epitome of a στασιαστής, a seditionist, of the kind that he condemns throughout his War. ¹¹⁶ It follows, most obviously, that Josephus likes neither Onias, nor his actions. For that matter, it becomes also understandable that the real villains in Josephus’ War, namely the Jewish radicals, in the end find shelter at Onias’ Temple, which is consequently “shut down” by the Romans.¹¹⁷ Apart from showing that Josephus was not personally fond of Onias and his temple, this story functions as yet another example for inner-Jewish dissent in Josephus’ War narrative and harmonizes with his major stasis-themes of the composition. We therefore have good reason to doubt that rivalry was indeed the impetus for the building of Onias’ Temple. So much for Josephus’ depiction of Onias and his Temple in the Judaean War. Let us see how Josephus treats this episode in his Jewish Antiquities, some twenty years later.

II The Jewish Antiquities In contrast to the Judaean War, which mentions Onias and his temple only in Books 1 and 7, we encounter notes on Onias and his fate in nine different, scattered places throughout the last ten books of the Antiquities. ¹¹⁸ Most of these notes are of a genealogical nature and primarily provide us with information  See e. g. BJ 1.3; 3.352; (and hinted to in) 5.529; V 3 – 4, 80, 198; C. Ap. 1.54.  See T. Rajak, Josephus, 78 – 104 for Josephus’ irritation with Jewish separatists.  On the problem whether Onias’ Temple was closed or destroyed by the Romans, see above, n. 71.  See our chart above (p. 32).

70

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

about Onias’ family tree.¹¹⁹ In fact, these references teach us little about the history of Onias’ Temple – if anything. The sole exception is the comparatively long narrative on the subject that Josephus purposefully placed in Antiquities 13. This longer account will be our focus in this section. Josephus placed his longer narrative on Onias towards the beginning of Book 13 of his Antiquities. That book mainly deals with Hasmonean history. By and large, the Onias-story is framed by events taking place in Judaea, which was still, at least nominally, ruled by the gradually disintegrating Seleucid Empire. Thus, right before we hear about Onias, Josephus closed his narrative on the events in Judaea with the death of Demetrius I at § 61. Then, he turns to his story on Onias (§§ 62– 73), to which he appends a story on a quarrel between Jews and Samaritans, before the Ptolemaic king Philometor, about the holiness and legitimacy of the Jerusalem and Samaritan Temples (§§ 74– 79). These events are said to have taken place in Alexandria and under Philometor. Here, I wish to draw attention to the fact that Josephus locates his story on Onias in Alexandria and not in Heliopolis/Leontopolis (§ 62). Thus, it seems that he arranged his story on Onias and the one on the Jewish-Samaritan dispute not only according to their chronological order, but also according to geographical aspects. In fact, Josephus explicitly says so in his concluding remark to this whole section (Ant. 13.62– 78): “These, then, were the things that befell the Jews in Alexandria in the reign of Ptolemy Philometor (Ant. 13.79).” This arrangement, however, is clearly also thematic, as both stories deal with temples competing with the one in Jerusalem. Moreover, the episode allows Josephus to bridge his main narrative on the political events at the time of the Ptolemies and the Seleucids. We hear in the paragraphs following the episode on the Samaritan Temple (§§ 80 and onwards) about Ptolemaic-Seleucid relations under Philometor and subsequently find ourselves back in the realm of Seleucid-Hasmonean relations and embroiled in events taking place in Judaea. Josephus, thus, returns in § 80 to the narrative he had left off at paragraph 61. We have made this little detour in order to show that Josephus, besides his chronological arrangement, embeds a subtle reference to Jewish law in his overall narrative on Judaean history in Antiquities 13. The main component of this discussion appears to be his narrative on Onias in Ant. 13.62– 73. Below, I will focus on Ant. 13.62– 73, but first I wish to preface the discussion of that passage with a brief discussion of another one – Ant. 13.46 – 57 – that appears just a bit before Josephus’ main narrative on Onias. That passage deals with Hasmonean

 View also J. v. Destinon, Die Quellen des Josephus, 20, 29.

9 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple

71

history and is part of Josephus’ main narrative of Antiquities 13. In that context we hear (Ant. 13.46 – 57) that Demetrius I (a pretender to the Seleucid throne and Seleucus’ IV son, r. 160 – 151 BCE) made a proposal to the Jews of Jerusalem in order to gain their loyalty and support for his struggle against his rival, Alexander Balas (another aspirant to the Seleucid throne). That proposal contained a list of promises and benefits which partly concern the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood. Most tellingly, the list contains the following: I [Demetrius] also permit them [the Jews] to live in accordance with their country’s laws (πατρίοις νόμοις) and to observe them…and that it shall be the concern of the high priest that not a single Jew shall have any temple for worship other than that of Jerusalem (Ant. 13.54).¹²⁰

Intriguingly, the parallel passage in 1 Macc. (1 Maccabees 10:38) that Josephus rephrases here, merely postulates that the inhabitants of the territory belonging to Judaea ought to obey the high priest.¹²¹ Nothing is said there about the prohibition against having other Jewish temples; the words italicized above have no parallel in their source. The admonition that Jews should be loyal to one temple only, namely that in Jerusalem, is therefore Josephus’ own contribution and consequently reflects his own perception. Notably, we also encounter this “oneTemple-concept” elsewhere in his writings – so, for instance, in his treatment of the ideal Jewish constitution in C. Ap. 2.193.¹²² Even though Josephus continues his narrative on Demetrius I down to the latter’s death at Ant. 13.62, as we noted, he does not abandon the theme of the outrageous Jewish habit of maintaining multiple temples, as we shall see some paragraphs later (at Ant. 13.66). But before turning to that discussion, let us briefly note some further points of interest concerning Josephus’ narrative of the history of Onias’ Temple. For instance we note that the whole piece (Ant. 13.62– 73) comprises a kind of dialogue

 Italics and brackets are mine, M.P.  “As for the three districts that have been added to Judea [sic] from the country of Samaria, let them be annexed to Judea so that they may be considered to be under one ruler and obey no other authority than the high priest (1 Macc. 10:38; NRSV).” Italics and brackets are mine, M.P.  C. Ap. 2.193: “We have but one Temple for the one God, common to all as God is common to all (LCL).” Note that Whiston (W. Whiston, The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus [4 vols.; Boston and Philadelphia: Thomson and Andrews / Johnson and Warner, 1809] 3:510) translated the second part of that sentence as follows: “…for likeness is the constant foundation of agreement,” which better reflects Josephus’ mindset as expressed in Ant. 13.66. See also Josephus’ summary of the mosaic code, in which he emphasizes the oneness of the Temple of Jerusalem (Ant. 4.200 – 202). View also G. Bohak, “Theopolis: A Single-Temple Policy and its Singular Ramifications,” JJS 50 (1999): 3 – 16.

72

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

between Onias and the royal couple in the form of a petition letter and its reply. Perhaps most telling is the fact that the narrative does not yield much information about the actual history of the Oniad Temple, and provides even less information about the temple itself. Instead, we hear much about the circumstances of its construction and about what is considered proper and improper according to Jewish law (e. g. § 66). While I argued that Josephus’ source should be held responsible for providing us only with an account on the circumstances of the construction of Onias’ Temple, it seems that the emphasis on Jewish law is the whole point of the story: Namely, how to lead a life (in the Diaspora) in accordance with the proper fulfillment of Jewish law.¹²³ Now, apart from fulfilling his promise to refer to the Oniad Temple once more in his narrative “in its proper place” – as Josephus remarks at Ant. 12.237 – he uses the narrative on Onias and his temple in the Antiquities to bring across a halakhic/ideological point: Jews should not have more than one temple and that one temple should be in Jerusalem and nowhere else. In that context we read in paragraph § 66 that Onias had: …found that most of them [i. e. the Jews in Egypt] have temples (ἱερὰ), contrary to what is proper (τὸ καθῆκον ἔχοντας), and that for this reason they are ill-disposed towards one another, as is also the case with the Egyptians because of the multitude of their temples and about the forms of worship.¹²⁴

Having more than one temple thus puts Jews on an equal footing with animalworshiping native Egyptians, who maintain a multitude of temples and are, therefore, constantly at odds with each other; so Josephus claims. In fact, as I have already noted, the very same claim that having many temples invites dissent is repeated elsewhere in Josephus’ writings. So, for example, in C. Ap. (2.193), a text I have pointed out earlier, and in Antiquities 11.323, a passage that refers to the circumstances of the building of the Samaritan Temple.¹²⁵ It is for this reason, to unite Egyptian Jewry, that Onias seeks permission to build one temple “in order that the Jewish inhabitants of Egypt may be able to

 Below, notes 131 and 132.  Italics and brackets are mine, M.P. Krause’s attempt to understand and interpret the term ἱερὰ as “synagogue” and not “temple” in this (and other) passage(s) is unfounded. Cf., A. R. Krause, “Diaspora Synagogues, Leontopolis, and the Other Jewish Temples of Egypt in the Histories of Josephus,” JAH 4 (2016): 88 – 112.  Notably, another “Jewish” temple of debatable legitimacy. On this issue see J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 171– 203.

9 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple

73

come together there in mutual harmony (§ 67).” To make his plan more appealing to Philometor, Onias adds that by giving him the permission to build his temple, Philometor would greatly benefit from the project. But we are surprised to find that Ptolemy, in his reply to Onias’ letter of request, is not so much concerned with his own interests as with Jewish law – a point that Josephus stresses as follows: One may get a notion of the king’s piety and that of his sister and wife Cleopatra from the letter which they wrote in reply, for they placed the blame for the sin and transgression against the Law (τοῦ νόμου) on the head of Onias (§ 69).¹²⁶

In other words, Josephus condemns Onias and his actions as sinful and transgressing Jewish law. This observation also reflects upon another point, namely, that in Ant. 13 Josephus says next to nothing about the Oniad Temple itself, with the sole exception of the laconic remark that Onias’ Temple and its altar resembled that in Jerusalem, although it was “only smaller and poorer (§ 72).” This statement may be explained in a twofold manner. On the one hand, the remark is clearly pejorative and therefore fits well into the overall miso-Oniad spirit of the whole narrative. On the other hand, it probably also conveys actual historical fact. True, we do not know exactly what the Oniad Temple looked like. The only description we have is Josephus’ account in BJ 7, which notably contradicts what he says elsewhere, as we have noted above, claiming at BJ 7.427 that the Oniad Temple did not resemble its counterpart in Jerusalem. This may not be the proper moment to discuss the outside appearance of Onias’ Temple and whether or not it indeed resembled the Jerusalem Temple. We recall that Josephus relies on sources for making statements of that kind. That is as true for his description of the Oniad Temple in BJ 7 as it is for his narrative on Onias and his actions in Ant. 13. All this is to say, as we have seen above, that Josephus’ Roman source used in BJ 7 must have referred to details pertaining to the appearance of Onias’ Temple which caused Josephus to make a comparison between it and the grandiose (Herodian) building with which he was familiar from his youth and to revise and negate his earlier statement (at BJ 1.33) that Onias’ Temple resembled the Jerusalem Temple. Thus, we can both accept Josephus’ remark that the Oniad Temple looked “poorer and smaller” in comparison to its Jerusalemite counter-

 Note Josephus’ similar wording of Ant. 13.69 and Ant. 14.65, a text that admires the sheer piety of Jewish priests offering their sacrifices while being themselves slaughtered by Roman forces during Pompey’s capture of Jerusalem (on which see below, n. 131).

74

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

part and at the same time acknowledge that it suits Josephus’ own Tendenz of denigrating Onias and his temple.¹²⁷ That having been said, let us return to our observation that Josephus is in general conspicuously silent about the Oniad Temple in Ant. 13. This observation, in my view, demands explanation. For we may imagine that this would also be a “proper place” to elaborate more on the Oniad Temple itself; for instance its dimensions, its cult, or its vessels. Instead, when he touches upon this subject Josephus refers us to his narrative in BJ 7. And we remember that this cross-reference to his earlier War narrative indicated to us, earlier in our discussion, that Josephus used only one Jewish source for his two Onias narratives in BJ 7 and Ant 13. We thus note that Josephus deliberately chose not to refer more often to Onias’ Temple in Ant. 13 and hence, we are entitled to ask ourselves why this should be so. One may argue that Josephus refrained from elaborating on the Oniad Temple because he saw no need to repeat himself (see e. g. Ant. 13.371– 373). In fact, this is not the only case in which he refers us back to earlier parallel accounts in his War. ¹²⁸ One may argue that Josephus introduced such cross-references simply for reasons of economy, i. e., in order to promote his earlier writings. However, I suggest that other motives led him to do so: namely, his own biography. Approximately twenty years elapsed between the composition of his Judaean War and his Jewish Antiquities, sufficient time for Josephus to have undergone a personal change.¹²⁹ As we know, he began his adult life as a Jewish priestly ar-

 Last too, has recently noted that the term άδέσποτος ίερός in the Onias narrative in Ant. 13 (§ 67) is to be understood in a derogatory light, but suggests that the land on which Onias’ Temple was built was acquired under shady circumstances. R. Last, “Onias IV and the άδέσποτος ίερός: Placing “Antiquities” 13.62– 73 into the Context of Ptolemaic Land Tenure,” JSJ 41 (2010): 494– 516. Compare L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 66, who explains the antiOniad spirit of Josephus’ Onias narrative in the Antiquities by his (alleged) Hasmonean ancestry (see V 2). As we have argued, the reason for Josephus’ animosity toward the Oniad Temple is to be sought elsewise.  See V 412 where he refers us to the conquest of Iotapata by the Romans as recounted in Book 3 of his War, or his remark at Ant. 18.11 on the three Jewish sects, where he refers his readers to his parallel account in Book 2 of his War.  This premise has already been put forward by R. Laqueur, Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus, passim; H. Rasp, “Flavius Josephus und die jüdischen Religionsparteien,” ZNTW 23 (1924): 27– 47; K.-S. Krieger, Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994); D. R. Schwartz in various publications (see e. g. “Temple and Desert: On Religion and State in Second Temple Period Judaea,” in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, ed. by D. R. Schwartz [Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992] 29 – 43); and more recently M. Tuval, From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew, 260 – 274; and M. Tuval, “A Jewish Priest in

9 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple

75

istocrat in Judaea, while he ended it as a (perhaps) prominent Diaspora Jew in Rome.¹³⁰ Josephus of the 70s – the priest – seems to have been more interested in temples and cult than Josephus of the 90s some twenty years after his exile, living his life without the religious institution of the Temple. In a religious reality devoid of a holy place, one’s most meaningful expression of religiosity was the adherence to the “ancestral” law, i. e., the Torah, for the fulfillment of Jewish law is not bound to a specific place and thus, may be practiced everywhere. This is exactly the kind of worldview expressed in Josephus’ portrait of Onias in his Antiquities. Let me demonstrate this with one example: Narrating the episode of Pompey’s conquest of the Temple (63 BCE), Josephus provides us with a dramatic account of how the priests in the Temple continued to perform sacrifices until the moment that they too fell victim to the fighting. While Josephus specifies in detail the cultic performance of the priests – pouring libations and burning incense – in his War-account, he is notably less interested about things cultic in his Antiquities. There, he summarizes the detailed description of the priests’ labor with the simple statement that they were “busied” with the sacrifices and performing the “sacred ceremonies,” while he his actual interest in telling this whole episode is to provide us with an example of how Jews are affectionately adherent of God’s νόμων (“laws”), while sacrifices become more of a subsidiary matter. Thus, Josephus’ focus shifted from cult and temple to Jewish law, which befits the world-view of a Diaspora Jew.¹³¹ For Diaspora Judaism is char-

Rome,” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 397– 411. One could argue that Josephus began working on his Antiquities more or less immediately after completing the Judaean War, i. e., perhaps in the early 80s. However, there is no indication in the entire corpus of his writings as to when he began working on the Antiquities, or, for that matter, which book he began to write first. Even if he had produced a “first draft” of the Antiquities in the early 80s, he revised his material in the late 80s/early 90s in order to tie the work together. This would have allowed substantial time to pass from the beginning of the project to its completion and for Josephus’s mindset to adjust to a Diaspora setting. In any case, even in the early 80s he would have been faced with the new reality of a temple-less Judaism, whose focus shifted from temple cult to a Judaism centered on adherence to Jewish law.  See above, n. 3.  Compare BJ 1.150: “Then it was that many of the priests, seeing the enemy advancing sword in hand, calmly continued their sacred ministrations, and were butchered in the act of pouring libations and burning incense; putting the worship of the Deity above their own preservation.”; and “…and the enemy rushed in and were [sic] slaughtering the Jews in the temple, those who were busied with the sacrifices none the less continued with to perform the sacred ceremonies; (Ant. 14.66 – 67).” I owe this reference to Prof. D. R. Schwartz. On this particular episode, see also D. R. Schwartz, Reading the First Century, 161– 162. Compare in this context also Ant. 8.274– 281 with 2Chron 13:3 – 12 (Jerobam’s speech to Abias) and Ant. 12.267, 300 – 304, 406 – 409; 13.197–

76

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

acterized by a lack of a holy place, and therefore, it is hardly surprising to find that details such as dimensions of a temple and temple vessels gradually became less significant for Josephus. Instead, we observe that leading a life according to the Jewish law became much more crucial.¹³² Since Josephus was a spokesman of a “One-Temple-One-Law-One-City” ideology well after the destruction of the Temple, he could not agree with Onias’ efforts to build an additional temple elsewhere other than in Jerusalem and consequently condemned Onias for transgressing Jewish law. In such a context, we should add that it was not Josephus who invented the prohibition of building Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem: it is, in fact, part of biblical law, established in Deuteronomy 12.¹³³ In Josephus’ eyes, Onias transgressed Jewish law and thus became a paradigm for a sinner and transgressor. Josephus’ portrayal of Onias in the Antiquities thus follows his own Weltanschauung and also dovetails with one of the major themes of his Antiquities, namely the emphasis on the adherence to Jewish law.¹³⁴ Since Onias is portrayed as a transgressor of Jewish law, his temple is also viewed by Josephus as illegitimate. That conclusion is further bolstered by the fact that Josephus appends to his narrative on Onias’ Temple the aforementioned disputation on the legitimacy of the Samaritan Temple vis-à-vis that in Jerusalem held before Ptolemy Philometor (Ant. 13.74– 79).¹³⁵ In that story, notably, Philometor emphasizes the superiority and legitimacy of the Jerusalem Temple. He

199 (Maccabean speeches) with 1 Macc. 2:6 – 13; 3:58 – 59; 7:33 – 38; 13:1– 6 and regarding these differences I. Gafni, “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” in Josephus, the Bible and History, ed. by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1989) 116 – 131 and B. Schröder, Die ’väterlichen Gesetze’, 88 – 89. A related example is 1 Macc. 1:21– 24 that meticulously lists (in three whole verses) the Temple vessels looted by Antiochus IV Epiphanes vis-à-vis 2 Macc. 5:16, which requires only one verse to delineate the same event without going into details. See also our next notes.  On the differences between Jewish religiosity in the Diaspora and the more temple-centered ideology of Judaean Judaism, see in particular D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 29 – 40; D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven,” Zion 62 (1996/97): 5 – 23 [Hebrew]; and N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-identity in the Qumran Sect and in Hellenistic Judaism,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9 – 11 January, 2005, ed. by E. G. Chazon, B. Halpern-Amaru, in collaboration with R. A. Clements (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 3 – 21.  See above, n. 22 and E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 60 – 62, and our Appendix 3.  H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 151; B. Schröder, Die ’väterlichen Gesetze’, 128, 263.  Concerning debates on the historicity of this episode, view E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 240 – 243 and A. Kasher, “Samaritans in Hellenistic Egypt,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2002) 162– 164 [Hebrew].

9 Josephus on Onias and the Oniad Temple

77

even has the Samaritan envoys executed for their effort to undermine the superiority of the Jerusalem Temple.¹³⁶ Therefore, judged from a purely literary perspective, Josephus’ arrangement of his narratives on Onias’ Temple and the discussion on the legitimacy of the Jerusalem versus the Samaritan Temples seems to convey that – for Josephus – Onias’ Temple stands on equal footing with the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim. Βoth are considered as illegitimate shrines. Thus, we also find that in Josephus’ Antiquities, written circa 20 years after his War, Onias is accused of transgressing Jewish law rather than of building a rival Temple elsewhere and causing dissent amongst the Jews, as lamented by Josephus in his War narrative. Despite the fact that the temple-qua-temple finds hardly any recognition in the Antiquities, it is there, that Josephus further develops the idea that a Jewish temple should only exist in Jerusalem and not anywhere else. But why would Josephus suddenly care about Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem in his Antiquities even though we have claimed that he is no longer much interested in temples and cultic things in that composition? The answer to this question seems to be Josephus’ statement at Ant. 13.66: “since it is unlawful.” Josephus’ discussion of Onias’ Temple in the Antiquities is, hence, theoretical/ideological in nature and in that sense impressively similar to the rabbinic discussions of Onias’ Temple, which were mostly concerned with the question whether Onias’ temple was a legitimate shrine or not.¹³⁷ We conclude this thought with the note that the Rabbis – as Josephus too – lived in a temple-less reality and it is because of that circumstance that they phrased their debates about the Temple in legal terms. For Josephus, a Jewish Temple could and should only exist in Jerusalem.

 Note similarly, that the notion that transgression of the law carries the death penalty, is also expressed in Ant. 12.286, where Josephus has Judas put to death anybody who “transgressed the laws of the country (τα πάτρια).”  M Men. 13:10; T Men. 10:12– 15; B Men. 109a-b and H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York, 1945) 232– 247 [Hebrew]; R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honour of Shmuel Safrai, ed. by I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, and M. Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1993) 107– 115 [Hebrew]; J. Labendz, “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature,” (Unpublished Manuscript, 2003) 1– 29; N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple: The Historical Meaning of a Rabbinic Story,” Zion 78 (2013): 439 – 469 [Hebrew].

78

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

10 Onias’ Motives for Building His Temple In each of his larger narratives on Onias and Onias’ Temple in BJ 7 and Ant. 13, Josephus supplies a set of motives for Onias’ building project. In BJ 7.431 he claims that Onias was driven by the self-seeking motive of purposefully rivalling the Jews of Jerusalem and their Temple. In the Antiquities (13.63), Josephus maintains that Onias sought “eternal fame” and to “purchase himself a memorial.” While I have argued that Onias’ motive in BJ 7 reflects Josephus’ own perception, i. e., his interest in depicting Onias as a fomenter of stasis (i. e. internal dissent), I note too that his motive in the Antiquities is much in line with Josephus’ perception of Onias as a transgressor of Jewish law. For “purchasing oneself a memorial” or “eternal fame” decidedly fall into the category of unlawful conduct of life and may even bear blasphemous connotations.¹³⁸ Josephus thus seems to adapt Onias’ motives for the building of his temple to the general themes of his compositions: rivalry and stasis in BJ and hubris and unlawfulness in Ant. The motives for the building of Onias’ Temple enumerated by Josephus should consequently be taken cum granum salis. They do not necessarily reflect historical truth.¹³⁹ In this context we take note of the fact that Josephus, in addition to providing a different motive for the building of Onias’ Temple in his narratives in BJ 7 and Ant. 13, adds another common motive: the prophecy by Isaiah, which immediately succeeds the first motive Josephus ascribes to Onias.¹⁴⁰ Presuming that both Onias narratives (BJ 7 and Ant. 13) by and large stem from the same source, I assume that Isaiah’s prophecy was given as Onias’ motive for building his temple in the “Leontopolis Source” that Josephus used. It seems that he added to that motive his own opinion, which reflected his own Tendenz at the time of the respective composition it appeared in. Hence, along with the motivation from Isaiah’s prophecy Onias was motivated by sentiments of rivalry and revenge according to the War narrative, and by personal gain and glory (in addition to Isaiah’s prophecy) in the Antiquities narrative. While we may be suspicious of the personal motives Josephus ascribes to Onias for the building of his temple, Isaiah’s prophecy appears nevertheless to have been decisive. It certainly provided a form of legitimacy for his project and may have functioned as some sort of founding legend of the temple. We  See e. g. Ant. 15.300; 17.163 and M. Adinolfi, “Elogia l’autore di 1 Macc. 6,43 – 46 il gesto di Eleazaro?” in Questioni bibliche di storia e storiografia, ed. by M. Adinolfi (Brescia: Paideia, 1969) 103 – 122 (esp. 111– 115). I owe this reference to D. R. Schwartz.  See also E. S. Gruen “The Origins and Objectives,” 57– 58.  So for instance in BJ 7.432 and respectively in Ant. 13.64.

11 How to Identify the Founder of Onias’ Temple?

79

should not neglect the consideration that Onias, being an observant Jewish priest, indeed believed that Isaiah’s prophecy would materialize in his days. Yet, there is no solid proof that Isaiah’s prophecy was Onias’ main motivation for the foundation of his temple; in general, it is always desirable to be able to quote biblical verses in support of one’s projects, but they need not be the sole motivation. In this case, as we shall see below (Chapter 12), Onias’ real motive for building his temple seems rather to have derived from the suspension of the cult in Jerusalem following Antiochus IV’s capture of the city and the ensuing religious persecutions.

11 How to Identify the Founder of Onias’ Temple? It is the communis opinio that Onias IV, Onias’ III son, built the Temple of Onias.¹⁴¹ A central text for maintaining that view (next to Ant. 12.236 – 237 to whose examination we shall turn in due course below, and a brief remark in Ant. 13.62) is Ant. 20.236 where Josephus states the following: Onias, who was the nephew of the deceased Onias and who bore the same name as his father [i. e. Onias], made his way to Egypt… and built a temple there.

Upon reading this succinct notice we would indeed be inclined to consent to the communis opinio about who built the Oniad Temple in Egypt, but at the same time, we cannot help but be irritated by this note’s utterly confused nature. And not only are we, Josephus’ readers, confused, but it seems that Josephus himself must have been confused; and likewise his translators. In his LCL trans Among the first scholars to suggest this hypothesis and to challenge the view that Onias III was the temple’s founder as suggested by Josephus’ War account was V. Tcherikover (Hellenistic Civilization, 276 – 277) who was since followed in his opinion by an array of scholars: See e. g. M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 35 – 50 [Hebrew]; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 189; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 1:83; A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias,” 122; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 21; A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985) 7, 132– 135; J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 124; E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 52; D. J. Kaufman, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oniad High Priesthood,” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 52– 53; P. Schäfer, “‘From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small:’ The Relationship between Palestine and Egypt in the Graeco-Roman Period,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. by P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 1:133; G. Hata, “Where is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 177– 178; L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 58.

80

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

lation Feldman feels compelled to explain in various footnotes to which “Onias” Josephus actually refers.¹⁴² Indeed, the general consensus that Onias IV built Onias’ Temple should, and has, been challenged on occasion for good reasons.¹⁴³ That is why, in my opinion, the question of the Oniad Temple’s builder still remains open. It is the aim of this study and this section of this book, to solve this enigma, although it is probably too ambitious to think that it can be done once and for all. Doing so requires testing the hypothesis that Josephus’ identification of Onias IV with the Oniad Temple’s builder in the Antiquities is deceptive and the result of his confusion of high priests bearing the name Onias and of the sources pertaining to them. Put differently, we will see that Josephus thought that there were more Oniases than his sources actually supplied, causing him to confuse the genealogy of Oniad high priests in his Antiquities, and thus, ultimately, rendering useless his identification of Onias IV as the builder of Onias’ Temple, in the Antiquities, for any attempted reconstruction of Oniad history. This is what I contend happened. This conclusion also compels us to resort to his War account and follow his statement there that it was Onias III who built the Oniad Temple. Moreover, as we will discover at the end of this part of the study, the conclusion that it was not Onias IV, but Onias III, who fled to Egypt and built a temple there, is supported by the additional evidence (for example Theodore of Mopsuestia, rabbinic literature, and the papyri) discussed in the following chapters of this book. Since the problem with the identification of Onias IV as the builder of Onias’ Temple is intimately linked to Josephus’ presentation of the Oniad priestly genealogy in the Antiquities, in what will follow, I will discuss and point to several of the problems with this genealogy. This notwithstanding, it seems impossible to pinpoint exactly where Josephus’ mistake (or mistakes) lay. This too is because of the garbled and episodic state of the Oniad genealogy supplied by him. What seems to have caused him to revise his earlier identification of the temple’s builder with Onias III as given in his War is that, in the Antiquities, he did not have recourse to a complete list of Oniad high priests; his list of high priests was partial. A second factor at play here seems to have been his struggle and inability to (correctly) combine information supplied by this partial list with other sources mentioning high priests from the Oniad dynasty. In the course of his efforts to combine these sources, it seems, Josephus made mistakes in assigning the correct historical information in one source to a (correctly) corresponding

 Cf. Feldman’s notes (b-d) in LCL ad loc. (Ant. 20.237).  F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 69 – 98, and F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 429 – 436; V. Keil, “Onias III,” 221– 232; V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien,” 143 – 170.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

81

high priest Onias in another, or he simply conflated Oniad high priests and events related to them. As already noted, it seems impossible to say how and where exactly this (or these) mistake(s) happened. Nevertheless, in pursuit of the question of the identity of the builder of Onias’ Temple it is necessary to review Josephus’ Oniad genealogy and to point to some of its problems, for it is passages such as Ant. 20.237 which demonstrate Josephus’ confusion and compel us, by commonsense, to suspect the assumption that Onias IV had indeed built the Oniad Temple in Egypt.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy The sources of information for the high priests who served from the time of Jaddua’s successors Onias I (beginning in approximately the 320s BCE) to the reign of Onias III (before 175 BCE) are perhaps even more exasperating than those of the Persian Period…[Josephus’] narrative, far from being continuous, is episodic in the extreme. ¹⁴⁴ Josephus hat die [oniadische] Genealogie nahezu hoffnungslos in Verwirrung gebracht.¹⁴⁵

Josephus’ information on Oniad genealogy was twofold. For one, he had recourse to an Oniad genealogy (most probably a list of Oniad high priests) until the time of the accession of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, or more precisely until Onias III. For the period subsequent to Antiochus IV Josephus relied, as noted, on information supplied by his “Menelaus Source.” The latter source contained not only genealogical information about the last Oniad high priests (Onias, Jason, and Menelaus, etc.), but also data of a historical nature, such as details on events that occurred during the tenure of each of those high priests – a kind of histoire scandaleuse. Both sources, Josephus’ list of Oniad high priests and his “Menelaus Source,” seem for one reason or another, to have been erroneous and incomplete. Josephus’ attempt to harmonize and combine one source with the other is what eventually caused him to confuse and to produce an utterly flawed Oniad genealogy. As noted above, Josephus’ flawed Oniad genealogy is the crux of the problem of the identification of the builder of the Oniad Temple. But, at the same

 J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 112.  V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien,” 151.

82

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

time, it is also the key to solving this mystery. In other words, once we understand that Josephus erred concerning his Oniad genealogy (be that because of a flawed source, as VanderKam suggests, or because of his own mistake, as Parker would have it), we will be able to work out who really built the Oniad Temple and when. For that reason let us now focus on Josephus’ Oniad genealogy. The following chart presents what Josephus has to say about the genealogy of the Oniads: ) Ant. . ) Ant. . – 

) Ant. . – 

) Ant. . – 

) Ant. . – 

) Ant. . – 

“About this time” it was that Jaddua the high priest died, and Onias his son took the high priesthood. On the death of the high priest Onias, he was succeeded by his son Simon, who was surnamed the Just, because of both his piety toward God and his benevolence to his countrymen. But as he, when he died, left an infant son named Onias, his brother Eleazar, of whom we are now writing, took over the high priesthood… At this time the Samaritans, who were flourishing, did much mischief to the Jews by laying waste their land and carrying off slaves; and this happened in the high priesthood of Onias. For, when Eleazar died, his uncle Manasses took over the priesthood, and, after he departed this life, the office came to Onias, who was the son of Simon, called the Just. And Simon was a brother of Eleazar, as I have said before. And death also came to his [Hyrcanus the Tobiad’s] uncle Onias, who left the high priesthood to his son Simon. When he too died, his son Onias became his successor in office, and it was to him that the Lacedaemonian king Areios [sic] sent an embassy with a letter… About this time the high priest Onias the high priest also died, and Antiochus gave the high priesthood to his brother; for the son whom Onias had left was still an infant…Jesus, however, – this was the brother of Onias – was deprived of the high priesthood when the king became angry with him and gave it to his youngest brother, named Onias; for Simon had three sons, and the high priesthood came to all three of them, as we have shown. Now Jesus changed his name to Jason, while Onias was called Menelaus. The aforesaid Antiochus and his general Lysias were the first to depose anyone from the high priesthood. This they did in case of Onias, surnamed Menelaus; for they put him to death at Beroea, excluded his son from the succession, and appointed as high priest Jacimus, who was of Aaron’s line but not of the same family as Onias. In consequence of this, Onias, who was the nephew of the deceased Onias and who bore the same name as his father, made his way to Egypt…Jacimus had retained the priesthood three years…

Josephus’ Oniad genealogy according to his narrative in the Antiquities may be depicted in the following manner (Figure 1):

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

83

Jaddua | Onias I | Simon I “the Just” (brothers: Eleazar, Manasseh and both of them uncles of Onias II) | Eleazar | Manasseh | Onias II | Simon II | Onias III – Menelaus – Jason (Jesus, brother of Onias III) | Jason | Onias IV (Temple of Onias)

Menelaus/Onias (brother of Onias III and Jason) | Alcimus (Jakeimos)

Figure 1: The Succession of Oniad high priests according to Josephus’ Antiquities (Books 12, 13, 20)

At first sight, this family tree looks convincing. Yet at second sight, we discern the following problems with this genealogy: 1) While in and of itself there is nothing improbable about the statement that Onias II was too young to become high priest following his father’s (Simon I) death and was passed over in office by an uncle, it is strange that this is reported to have occurred twice (Ant. 12.43 – 44 and §§ 157– 158). 2) A still disputed issue in modern scholarship is the question of the identification of the illustrious high priest “Simon the Just.” According to Josephus’ genealogy, “Simon the Just” should be identified with Simon I (see Ant. 12.43 – 44, 157– 158), but that notion is usually doubted. Instead, schol-

84

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

ars prefer, based on references to a high priest called Simon in Ben Sira and a “Simon the Just” in rabbinic literature, to identify Simon II and not Simon I with “Simon the Just.”¹⁴⁶ Thus, one may be led to conclude that Josephus, accidentally or not, assigned genealogical and historical data to the wrong Simon. 3) In Ant. 12.224– 225, which is part of the so-called “Tobiad Romance,”¹⁴⁷ Josephus digresses from his main narrative on the Tobiads and introduces a correspondence between Onias the high priest and Areus, king of Sparta. He assigns this exchange of letters to an Onias who lived during the mid-3rd century BCE. A cognomen of the Spartan king, Areus, is not mentioned and since there were two Spartan kings by that name (Areus I, lived 309 – 265 BCE and Areus II, lived 262 – 254 BCE) it remains ambiguous which of the two is meant. This notwithstanding, we are aware of the fact that Areus II died while still a child and it is therefore unlikely that it was he who was Onias’ correspondent. This only leaves the well-known and important king Areus I as Onias’ correspondent.¹⁴⁸ This presumption is corroborated by parallel evidence from 1 Maccabees 12:7– 23, a passage that also cites a correspondence between an “Onias the high priest” and a Spartan king by the name of Areus. The parallel in 1 Maccabees also fails to specify which Onias or which Areus is meant, but it is implied there (at 12:7) that their correspondence was conducted in the remote past. Hence, a 3rd century BCE date for that correspondence seems likely. On the one hand, we may be quite content to have discovered the identity of Onias’ correspondent. But on the other, this identification creates a chronological problem. For, how can Areus I, who reigned in the mid-3rd century BCE, exchange letters with

 See below, nn. 163 – 164.  On Josephus’ “Tobiad Romance” see in particular: J. A. Goldstein, “The Tales of the Tobiads,” in Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. by J. Neusner (4 vols; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 3:85 – 123; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988) 486 – 503; D. Gera, “On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads (Josephus, “Antiquities” 12, 156 – 222, 228 – 236),” in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays, ed. by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press; Israel Exploration Society, 1990) 21– 38; D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 B.C.E. (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 36 – 58; D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?” in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. by M. Goodman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 47– 61; G. Fuks, “Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note,” JJS 52 (2001): 354– 356; D. R. Schwartz, “Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let A Stated Anomaly Be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks,” JJS 53 (2002): 146 – 151.  On Areus I see P. Cartledge and A. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities (London: Routledge, 2002) 28 – 37, esp. 36 – 37.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

85

someone (Onias III) who lived in the mid-2nd century BCE? While we may accept the view that a correspondence between Areus I and an Onias indeed occurred – regardless of this event’s historicity¹⁴⁹ – one needs to amend the identity of Areus’ correspondent as has indeed been suggested.¹⁵⁰ Suffice it to note here, in a vein similar to our point (2), that Josephus seems to have assigned real or imagined events to a wrong Onias. 4) At closer view, Josephus’ notice in Ant. 12.43 – 44 that an Onias, son of Simon, was passed over in the succession of the high priesthood due to his immaturity at the time of the death of his father sounds suspiciously similar to what he says about the fate of Onias IV at Ant. 12.237– 239. This strongly suggests that Ant. 12.43 – 44 and §§ 237– 239 are doublets. 5) True, there is nothing particularly odd about having three sons. But it is very odd to claim that parents would have given two of their sons the same name.¹⁵¹ Josephus makes this claim of Simon (II), who is said to have had three sons, two of whom he named “Onias.”¹⁵² This oddity is commonly pointed out by modern scholars. I join their ranks in stressing that something is obviously wrong here which demands clarification.¹⁵³

 See M. S. Ginsberg, “Sparta and Judaea,” CP 29 (1934): 117– 122; S. Schüller, “Some Problems Connected with the Supposed Common Ancestry of Jews and Spartan and their Relations During the Last Three Centuries B.C.,” JSS 1 (1956): 257– 268; C. Burkhart, “Juden und Spartaner,” Hermes 95 (1967): 317– 324; R. Katzoff, “Jonathan and Late Sparta,” AJP 106 (1985): 485 – 489; J. N. Bremmer, “Spartans and Jews: Abrahamic Cousins?” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites; Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. by M. Goodman, G. H. van Kooten, and J. T. A. G. M. van Ruiten (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 47– 59.  See D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?” 47– 61 and D. R. Schwartz, “Once Again on Tobiad Chronology,” 148 – 150. Note that Fuks adheres to Josephus’ proposed genealogy and maintains that Onias II was Joseph the Tobiad’s uncle. G. Fuks, “Josephus’ Tobiads Again,” 355. So did Stern already, M. Stern, Documents, 114– 115 [Hebrew].  See below, n. 174.  Ant. 12.238 – 239. See also Ant. 19.298.  E. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen über Sinn und Ursprung der makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1937) 65 and Ed. Meyer, Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums: Die Entwicklung des Judentums und Jesus von Nazaret (3 vols.; Stuttgart und Berlin: J. G. Gotta’sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger, 1921) 2:133; M. Stern, The Great Families of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, 136 [Hebrew]; F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 195; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 193 (and there, n. 14), and more recently V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien,” 145.

86

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

Let us discuss some of these problems and see how they can help us in disclosing the identity of the founder of Onias’ Temple.¹⁵⁴

I Uncle Who? On the Problems with Ant. 12.43 – 44, 157 – 158 Ant. 12.43 – 44 states that when Onias (I) the high priest died, he was succeeded by his son Simon, and when Simon died, his immature son (Onias II) was passed over in favor of that son’s uncle (i. e., Simon’s brother), called Eleazar. Here Josephus also mentions, somewhat in passing, that Simon was better known under the sobriquet “the Just.” While Simon’s sobriquet will be a matter of discussion in our next sub-section (no. II), let us consider Onias II’s uncle(s). On the face of it, nothing problematic seems to be at hand here. But this impression quickly wanes when taking into consideration Josephus’ subsequent reference to the Oniad priestly succession which comes at Ant. 12.157– 158. Here it is stated that after Eleazar died, Onias II was passed over once more by another uncle called Manasseh. Josephus wants us to believe that only after Uncle Eleazar and Uncle Manasseh both passed away, it was finally Onias II’s (son of “Simon the Just”) turn to become high priest. This, put mildly, is somewhat unusual. For is it really possible that Onias was passed over twice? True, life can be ironic, but perhaps in this case, there might just be more to it than meets the eye. For, equally odd is Josephus’ (re‐)emphasis in § 158 that Eleazar was Simon’s brother (ἀδελφός) – a fact we have already learned in the preceding paragraph (§ 157). Why the repetition? Is Josephus suddenly unsure about Onias’ relation to Manasseh? It turns out that the note on the priestly succession of the ‘House of Onias’ supplied by Josephus at Ant. 12.157– 158 is riddled with problems. The mere mention of both Eleazar and Manasseh in this context is quite bothersome, as I have pointed out. I will presently discuss this oddity in detail. Let us begin with Eleazar. A high priest of that name is not recorded in any other contemporary source. The sole exception is a reference in the Letter of Aristeas, where an Eleazar “the high priest of Jerusalem” is prominently mentioned.¹⁵⁵ It is in fact not coincidental that Josephus introduces this otherwise un-

 The discussion of problem no. 3 is sufficiently discussed here and therefore, I will exclude it from the following analysis.  Letter of Aristeas 1, 33, 35, 41, 50, 83, 96, 123, 126, 172, 174, 320. See also J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 157– 167 and S. A. Hirsch’s contention that Eleazar did not really exist, “The Temple of Onias,” 73, 76.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

87

known high priest precisely in Ant. 12.43 – 44, for the latter passage marks a digression from his current narrative, which is his rephrasing of the Letter of Aristeas (Ant. 12.21– 120). Into this paraphrase he inserts his Oniad genealogical material.¹⁵⁶ In harmony with his source (the Letter of Aristeas), Josephus places Eleazar’s high priesthood in the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (285 – 246 BCE). Philadelphus is the Ptolemaic king associated with the legend of the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, as recounted in the Letter of Aristeas. Josephus was obviously confronted with the problem of the absence of a high priest called Eleazar in his list of Oniad priests, even though a high priest of that name appeared in his other source, the Letter of Aristeas. What could he do? 1) Perhaps, his list mentioned an anonymous uncle of Onias II who became high priest due to the latter’s immaturity and it was this unnamed uncle whom Josephus incorrectly identified as the high priest Eleazar of the Letter of Aristeas. 2) Another possibility, of course, is that Onias II’s uncle was not anonymous but in fact listed by name. But if this were the case, it would mean that Josephus ignored this detail and deliberately exchanged the Eleazar in his succession list with Eleazar of the Letter of Aristeas in order to artificially place him in the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus. 3) A third possibility, however, one we have not considered yet, and one that I hold to be the most plausible, is that Eleazar was, in fact, not Simon’s but Onias’ brother (and not his uncle!). This assumption is rooted in the observation that the Greek text of Ant. 12.44 is quite ambiguous about Simon’s and Onias’ relation to Eleazar, since all that is said there is that Eleazar was ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ (“his brother”) and it seems that it is Onias, and not Simon, who is meant there.¹⁵⁷ In fact, we only infer that Eleazar was Onias’ uncle because the previous sentence refers to Simon, and thus, the mention of “his brother” in the following sentence, can imply that Josephus means “Simon’s brother” and not “Onias’ brother.” Normally, however, the use of “his” (αὐτοῦ) refers to the most recent antecedent – in this case, Onias. True, the notion that Eleazar was Simon’s brother (and thus Onias’ uncle) also emerges from Ant. 12.158, where Josephus says so explicitly. But this notice, as we recall, strikes us as an awkward repetition, and moreover, seems to be Josephus’ own insertion, making sure that we understand that Eleazar was Onias’ uncle. This, on the other hand, creates the odd situation that – if we follow Josephus’ succession of Oniad high priests – Onias II was  On Josephus’ version of the Letter of Aristeas, see A. Pelletier, Flavius Josèphe adapteur de la lettre d’Aristée: Une reaction atticisante conre la Koinè (Études et Commentaire XLV; Paris: Klincksieck, 1962) and Sh. J. D. Cohen, Josephus, 34– 35.  ἀποθανόντος δὲ τούτο καὶ νήπιον υἱὸν καταλιπόντος τὸν κληθέντα ’Ονίαν, ὁ ἀδελφὸς αὐτοῦ ’Ελεάζαρος,…(Ant. 12.44).

88

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

passed over twice by an uncle in the high priesthood. This also implies that Josephus mixes up relations of high priests belonging to the Oniad dynasty and that consequently, Onias II (being an infant) was surpassed once by an uncle (called Menasseh), while he may have had a brother by the name of Eleazar, whom Josephus mistook for Onias’ (II) uncle, because, so I presume, Josephus here combined a (partial) list of Oniad high priests – which may not have mentioned an Eleazar by name, but actually only recorded that Onias had an (unnamed) brother – with information from a secondary source (the Letter of Aristeas) mentioning an Eleazar the high priest. How Josephus mistakenly turned Eleazar (the alleged brother of Onias II) into his uncle, as we shall presently see, is connected to the mention of Onias’ other uncle, Menasseh. This is best explained by assuming, as a working hypothesis, that Josephus seems not to have had any better information to fill a void in the Oniad high priestly succession after Onias I (mentioned in Ant. 11.347) and by the circumstance that he seems to have merged high priests from the Oniad dynasty, namely, in this case, Onias I and Onias II. As noted, this assumption is corroborated by Josephus’ next genealogical reference that states that another of Onias II’s uncles, Manasseh, also overtook him in the succession to the high priesthood. Like Eleazar, so too in the case of Manasseh not much is known about a high priest of that name, save for the brief notice by Josephus at Ant. 12.157.¹⁵⁸ Ant. 12.157 is seemingly the first instance where we hear about a Manasseh in the context of Oniad genealogy. But, before turning our focus to Manasseh, let me point to another peculiar piece of information Josephus appends, somewhat in passing, in the preceding paragraph (§ 156), namely a reference to clashes between Samaritans (or Samarians) and Jews during the tenure of Onias II.¹⁵⁹ The peculiarity of this brief note is rooted in the observation that Josephus, by and large, reports on troubles with the Samaritans in the historical context of

 This is also stressed by J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 168.  The Greek text refers to the Jews’ antagonists as Σαμαρεῖς, i. e., Samarians, rather than Σαμαρείτας (Samaritans) even though R. Marcus labels them Samaritans in his translation in the LCL (ad loc.). Some scholars consequently argued that the Jews’ opponents were not Samaritans, but Samarians and that the upheaval between them came in the context of the Fourth Syrian War (219 – 217 BCE). See A. Büchler, Die Oniaden und Tobiaden, 87– 88, and M. Mor, “The Samaritans in the Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period,” in The Samaritans, ed. by A. D. Crown (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 11– 13 and also U. Rappaport, “The Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period,” Zion 55 (1990): 382 [Hebrew]; R. Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 156 – 160. Josephus, however, uses the term synonymously as is indicated by its parallel occurrence in Ant. 11.340 – 341, where he indeed refers to Samaritans. See also R. Pummer, The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus, 4– 7, 281.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

89

Onias I and his predecessors, rather than in the context of the later Oniads.¹⁶⁰ Therefore, we suspect that the note on Jewish-Samaritan friction in the days of Onias II is anachronistic. Indeed, it seems that this note is more at home in the historical context of the end of Antiquities 11, where Samaritans and Oniad high priests are the main subjects of the narrative (see below, Table 1). It is also there (Ant. 11.302– 324) that we hear about a quarrel over the high priesthood involving two brothers: Jaddua and Manasseh. As a result of this struggle both brothers became high priests – albeit in different places. Jaddua remained the high priest of the Jerusalem Temple. Manasseh, who had a wife of Samaritan origin (a woman called Nicaso) whom he refused to divorce, thereby exacerbating the conflict (Ant. 11.306 – 308), took up his father-in-law’s (Sanballat) not-tobe-refused offer to become the high priest of the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim (Ant. 11.324). It is of some note that all this is said to have happened at a time of intense friction between Jews and Samaritans. Setting the issue of friction aside for a moment, this passage contains the significant information that Manasseh was Jaddua’s brother and thus an uncle of Onias (Ant. 11.302) – but of Onias I, not of Onias II. Table 1: How Ant. 12.156 – 158 seems misplaced and fits much better into the context of Ant. 11. Ant. . – 

When Joannes departed this life he was succeeded in the high priesthood by his son Jaddus. He too had a brother, named Manasses, to whom Sanballetes – he had been sent to Samaria … and was of the Cuthean race from whom the Samaritans also are descended…

Ant. . – 

…as for the temple on Mount Garizein [sic], it remained. And whenever anyone would be accused by the people of Jerusalem of eating unclean food or violating the Sabbath or committing any other such sin, he would flee to the Shechemites [= Samaritans, M.P.], saying that he had been unjustly expelled. Now by that time the high priest Jaddus was also dead, and his son Onias [Onias I] succeeded to the high priesthood.

Ant. . – 

At this time the Samaritans, who were flourishing, did much mischief to the Jews by laying waste their land and carrying off slaves; and this happened in the high priesthood of Onias [Onias II according to Josephus, M.P.]. For, when Eleazar died, his uncle Manasses took over the priesthood, and, after he departed this life, the office came to Onias, who was the son of Simon, called the Just. And Simon was a brother of Eleazar, as I have said before.

 See e. g. the upheaval caused by the intermarriage of Manasseh and Nicaso narrated in Ant. 11.302– 304, 306 – 312; the general animosity between Jews and Samaritans referred to in Ant. 11.341 (during the days of Alexander the Great).

90

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

Returning to Josephus’ note at Ant. 11.347 on the friction between Jews and Samaritans in the tenure of Oniad high priests, one may surmise that these disturbances did not cease with the death of Jaddua. Rather, one may imagine that they persisted into the term of office of Jaddua’s son and successor, Onias I. Consequently, the note on the troubles with the Samaritans seems to be better placed in the context of Onias I’s term of office, rather than that of Onias II as suggested by Josephus (see Table 1). This provides us with a strong reason to doubt the historicity of Josephus’ assignment of the troubles with Samaritans to the tenure of Onias II, and reinforces doubts concerning the notion that Onias II was passed over in office by two uncles, Eleazar and Manasseh. We recall that, in addition, there is good reason to disbelieve the very existence of an Eleazar in the succession. If a high priest Eleazar did not exist, this of course, seriously contests the veracity of Josephus’ statements in Ant. 12.43 – 44 and 12.157– 158. Recall here my proposal that Josephus identified Eleazar from the Letter of Aristeas with an unnamed brother/uncle of Onias II who appeared in a snippet of an Oniad high priestly chronicle, providing him with the opportunity of “correctly” placing his paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas into the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, Onias’ II contemporary. Adding to this observation, we note that also Manasseh’s tenure is problematic. Although Manasseh was an uncle of Onias I, as emerges from Ant. 11.302, his tenure was misplaced by Josephus in the context of the high priestly succession of Onias II (see Table 1). Both genealogical remarks at Ant. 11.302, and the note on the troubles with the Samaritans, point to the events occurring in the tenure of Onias I and not that of Onias II. It follows that Josephus, here, seems to have merged Onias I with Onias II and their biographies. The assumption that Josephus wrongly inserted material belonging to the historical context of Onias I into that of Onias II, and vice versa, is further supported by two more observations. The first concerns the repetitive note in Ant. 12.157 and § 158 on Onias’ uncle which I pointed out at the beginning of this discussion. The other concerns a linguistic problem in Ant. 12.157. As to the first problem, the repetitive reference that Eleazar was an uncle of “Onias” suggests that Josephus himself was a bit bothered by the admittedly odd note that Onias II was passed over twice by uncles in the priestly succession. The repetitive note on Eleazar’s relation to “Onias” indicates that here Josephus inserted this additional material. As I pointed out earlier, in Ant. 12.44 Josephus claims that: For when Eleazar died, his uncle (ὁ θεῖος αὐτοῦ) Manassas [sic] took over the high priesthood, and, after he departed his life, the office came to Onias, who was the son of Simon, called the Just.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

91

The placement of ὁ θεῖος αὐτοῦ (“his uncle”) appears grammatically awkward since the personal pronoun αὐτοῦ leaves us with the impression that Josephus speaks of Manasseh being Eleazar’s and not Onias’ uncle.¹⁶¹ But because Onias is mentioned immediately thereafter and in the previous paragraph, it is logical to assume that Manasseh was also Onias’ uncle. But this problematic syntax seems to be the result of Josephan editing.¹⁶² Based on my previous assumption that the piece of information concerning Onias II’s uncle was inserted, and really refers to Onias I, we should conclude that it was not Onias II who had an uncle called Manasseh, but Onias I (see Table 1). In a vein similar to this, we have seen in our previous case in Ant. 12.44, that left us unsure about Eleazar’s relation to Onias and Simon, that also there Josephus, quite inelegantly, seems to splice in something into his Oniad genealogy that caused confusion and led him to mistakenly merge the tenures of Onias I with Onias II.

II A Struggle for Justice: The Trouble with Identifying “Simon the Just” Much ink has been spilled on the question of the identity of the high priest “Simon the Just” (‫ )שמעון הצדיק‬and it is not my intent to resurrect this debate.¹⁶³ A brief summary of the main problems and arguments will suffice for the moment. The central problem is that Josephus identifies the high priest “Simon the Just,” to whom he refers twice in his narrative in Ant. 12.43 – 44 and 12.157, with Simon I, based on his internal chronology and genealogical affiliation. Now, a high priest known as “Simon the Just” appears rather frequently in rabbinic texts as well,¹⁶⁴ and he is probably the same individual who is mentioned in the apocryphal sapiential composition Ben Sira (otherwise known as Ecclesi-

 J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 168.  See D. R. Schwartz, “Once Again on Tobiad Chronology,” 150, who discusses the very same problematic phrase in the context of Ant. 12.224– 225.  On the issue of the identity of “Simon the Just” see for instance J. C. VanderKam, “Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 303 – 318. VanderKam defends Josephus’ genealogy and thus identifies “Simon the Just” with Simon I. See also recently, A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (Leiden: Brill, 2013) 199 – 212.  M Pirkei Avot 1:2; T Nazir 4 :1; T Soṭah, 13:6 – 8; Lev Rabbah 21; B Nazir 4b; Y Nedarim 36d; Y Nazir 1,7; Y Yoma 6,3; Y Yoma 1,1, 5,2; Y Yoma 5,1; B Men. 109b; B Nedarim 9b; B Yoma 9a; B Yoma 39b.

92

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

asticus), where a “Simon the high priest” is prominently eulogized.¹⁶⁵ The historical contexts of Ben Sira and of the rabbinical texts, however, suggest a 2nd century BCE context for that Simon the high priest/“Simon the Just” and not a 3rd century BCE context as implied by Josephus.¹⁶⁶ In fact, a later Simon, i. e., Simon II, would qualify as a far better candidate for the identification of “Simon the Just” – as is indeed presumed by the majority of scholars.¹⁶⁷ One must consequently assume, for good reasons, that Josephus erred. Thus, consenting with the communis opinio that “Simon the Just” was Simon II and not Simon I – which I do – requires us to assume that Josephus, just as in the previous example where he confused Onias I with Onias II, also confused the two Simons. This means that the remark in Ant. 12.43 and 12.157 about Onias’ son Simon bearing the moniker “the Just” really refers to Simon II and not to Simon I as Josephus posits, and thus eliminates the Josephan objection to the conclusion, based upon the well-dated evidence of Ben Sira and that of rabbinic texts, that “Simon the Just” is best identified as Simon II.

III Ant. 12.237 – 240 and its Problems Ant. 12.237– 240 is another key text for the identification of Onias IV as the builder of Onias’ Temple. However, Josephus’ confused Oniad genealogy is nowhere more overt than with regard to the succession of Onias III narrated in this pericope. In contradiction to his earlier notes in BJ 1.31– 33 and 7.423, he states in Ant. 12.237 that Onias III had died before Onias IV moved to Egypt. It follows that Onias’ death is the reason why Jason assumed office, rather than in result of a political struggle as Josephus claims to be the reason in his War account, where he remarks that Onias III had to flee to safety to Egypt. It is this contradiction that ultimately led Josephus to revise his War account, adding the information in his Antiquities that Onias III had a son, Onias IV, who was the one who had built the Oniad Temple in Egypt. That is, Josephus now assigns to Onias IV the deeds of his homonymous father whom he had told us about in his War-nar-

 Ben Sira 50:1– 21.  Ben Sira may be cautiously dated to 180 – 175 BCE. Ben Sira was originally written in Hebrew in Palestine and was later translated into Greek – probably in Alexandria – by his grandson. View M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 241– 275; M. Z. Segal, The Complete Book of Ben-Sira (4th ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997) 1– 6 [Hebrew].  See for instance Josephus, Vol. 7 Jewish Antiquities, Books XII-XIV (trans. R. Marcus; LCL; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1943) 732– 736 (Appendix B) and compare J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 147– 157.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

93

rative. To that we add the observation that Jason/Jesus in the Antiquities narrative seems to have replaced Onias III in the War narrative, a detail that emerges when comparing Ant. 12.240 with BJ 1.31– 32. Here, the suspicion immediately arises that Josephus struggled with his sources and that all this confusion is created as a result of an incorrect attribution of historical events to the wrong person. Returning to Jason, when Josephus revised his earlier War narrative for his later narrative in the Antiquities, it is possible that he mistakenly exchanged Onias with his brother Jason, in light of the additional information he obtained from his list of Oniad high priests and his “Menelaus Source”. This means that in Ant. 12.237– 240 Josephus juxtaposed the material from his Oniad family tree (as mainly reproduced in Ant. 12.43 – 44, 157– 158, and 224– 225) with information from another source that mentioned Oniads and dealt with the events on the eve of the Maccabean revolt. The latter source provided Josephus with information on Menelaus and the political vicissitudes in Jerusalem on the eve of the Maccabean revolt. It is a well-known fact that Josephus did not have as a source 2 Maccabees, which mentions Menelaus frequently.¹⁶⁸ Evidently however, Josephus knew about Menelaus as illustrated by Ant. 12.237– 240, 383 – 387, 20.235 – 237. That information came from a source related to 2 Maccabees, perhaps even the same source Jason of Cyrene used for his biography of the early Hasmoneans and his account of the Maccabean revolt of which 2 Maccabees is an abridgement.¹⁶⁹ What nearly all of the references to the Oniad genealogy in Antiquities have in common is the phenomenon that almost all high priests bearing the name “Onias” were deprived of their office for one reason or another. In Ant. 12.44, 157, 237 this reason is the young age of the high priest, in Ant. 12.238 and 20.235 the reason is of a political nature, and in Ant. 12.387 it is a combination of the two.¹⁷⁰ Again, we may explain this and other problems of Josephus’ Oniad

 2 Macc. 4; 5:5, 15, 23; 11:29, 32; 13:3, 7. And see above, n. 86.  Once more, see n. 86. H. Willrich suggested that Josephus’ information regarding Menelaus may have come from the now lost historical work of Jason of Cyrene, the author of the longer work of which 2 Maccabees is an abridgement, cf. H. Willrich, “Berührungen zwischen Josephus und Jason von Kyrene,” 115 – 138.  It is historically unclear at what age one was considered old enough to assume the office of high priest. The Bible is ambiguous concerning the issue and refers to three different ages: Ezra 3:8 prescribes the age of twenty before a priest could serve in the Temple; Num 8:24 gives the age of twenty-five; and according to Num 4:1– 3, the age is thirty. The upper age-limit for a priest (or a Levite) is fifty (Num 8:25). The Community Scroll from Qumran provides us with similar figures: at the age of twenty a man might enter the community and be appointed to a priestly function (1QSa 1.8 – 11), while an age-limit of twenty-five is given for the entry into the ‘council’; one had to be over the age of thirty in order to be entitled to sit in judgement (1QSa 1.11– 13). See also B.

94

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

genealogy (and his confusion) by his predicament of combining sources that mentioned individuals bearing the same name, while simultaneously relying on a fragmentary source. Here, I wish to point out and discuss a few more problems which I have already briefly touched upon above concerning the Oniad priestly genealogy and the issue of the identity of the builder of Onias’ Temple in Josephus’ Antiquities. Let us begin by citing the passage under discussion, Ant. 12.237– 238 reads: About this time the high priest Onias [Onias III] also died, and Antiochus gave the high priesthood to his brother [Jesus/Jason]; for the son [Onias] whom Onias had left was still an infant (νήπιος). Jesus, however, – this was the brother of Onias – was deprived of the high priesthood when the king became angry with him and gave it to his youngest brother, named Onias; for Simon had three sons, and the high priesthood came to all three of them, as we have shown. Now Jesus changed his name to Jason, while Onias was called Menelaus (Ant. 12.237– 238).

Again, what emerges from this passage is that a high priest by the name of Onias passed away and was succeeded by his brother. This occurred, according to Josephus, because Onias (whom we assume to be the same Onias who had died) had an unnamed son who was too young to assume the office of high priest. In the next paragraph, Josephus gives Onias’ brother a name (Jesus) and adds some more information on the turbulent years of Antiochus IV’s reign with respect to the high priestly succession. As such, we learn that Jesus too, was ousted from the high priesthood by his younger brother – who was surprisingly called Onias as well – and that a Simon, who is mentioned in this pericope on the Oniad priestly succession for the first time, had three sons who all were high priests. In the last sentence, Josephus reveals to us that Jesus changed his name to Jason, and Onias changed his to Menelaus and therefore, Josephus can also explain to us how Simon, apparently, could have two sons called Onias.

Gärtner, The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 4– 8. For the Rabbis the eligibility to hold the office was given at the age of twenty (B Ḥullin 24b; B Araḥin 13b). Of note is a well-known incident reported by Josephus in Ant. 15.24– 34 from the days of Herod, who appointed the younger brother of his Hasmonean wife Miriamne I, Aristobulus III, at the age of 16 as high priest. This must have been an exceptional deed however, and should be understood as only being possible in wake of Herod’s general disregard of Jewish custom with respect to the appointment of high priests, i. e. the appointment of high priests at free will. A. Schalit, König Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk (2nd ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001) 108 – 109.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

95

So, apart from the fact that Josephus changed his mind apropos of the identity of the builder of Onias’ Temple in his Antiquities from Onias III (in BJ 1.31– 33; 7.423) to Onias IV (in Ant. 12.237– 240; 13.62; 20.236 – 237), and thereby creating a meaningful contradiction, there are three more notable inconsistencies in this narrative. Namely another contradiction regarding the circumstances of Onias’ III death to which I have referred to above,¹⁷¹ the odd detail that Menelaus was not only Onias’ brother, but also had the same name (!), and finally the notion that Onias IV could not assume the office of high priest due to his infancy which is identical with what we have already heard about his great-grandfather Onias II (Ant. 12.43 – 44), suggesting that we are confronted here with a doublet.

a) Ant. 12.43 – 44 versus 12.237 – 239: Should We See Double? Earlier, I pointed to the astonishing similarity of the contents of Ant. 12.44 and 12.237– 239. For the convenience of the reader, let me cite the relevant passages again: But as he [Simon I], when he died, left an infant son (νήπιον) named Onias, his brother Eleazar, of whom we are now writing, took over the high priesthood, and it was to him that Ptolemy wrote in the following manner…(Ant. 12.44).

This passage presumably relates the fate of Onias II, who was too young to assume the office of high priest and was thus preceded by an uncle of his (Eleazar). Let us recall the contents of Ant. 12.237, approximately 200 paragraphs later, where we read a very similar thing, albeit in a different chronological/historical setting, namely that of Onias III: About this time the high priest Onias [Onias III] also died, and Antiochus gave the high priesthood to his brother [Jesus/Jason]; for the son [Onias] whom Onias had left was still an infant (νήπιος) (Ant. 12.237).

As one can see, the contents of both passages are strikingly similar. Upon consulting Rengstorff’s concordance, one notes the large number of identical words in the two passages.¹⁷² Some of these words occur in other places in

 2 Macc. 4:34– 36 has Onias III assassinated in Daphne (which will be treated in Chapter 2); in Ant. 12.237 he appears to have died a natural death; in the War narrative, he does not die at all.  ἀποθανόντος / ἀποθανόντος; νήπιος / νήπιον; ἀρχιερωσύνην / ἀρχιερωσύνην; ἀδελφῷ / ἀδελφός; καταλελοίπει / καταλιπόντος. K.-H. Rengstorff, A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973 – 1975 – 1979) 1:19 – 23; 1:183 – 185; 1:245; 3:143.

96

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

the Antiquities as well – chiefly in the context of high priestly succession, but they are, on the other hand, only to be found in such high concentration in these two passages (Ant. 12.44, 237). This observation invites the conclusion that the passages are a doublet. Once we accept the working assumption that the two passages comprise a doublet, the contradiction regarding the identity of the temple’s founder too, evaporates. For if the note that the deceased high priest “had left an infant son called Onias” is a doublet and really refers to Onias II, it follows that in the context of Ant. 12.237– 239, there was no Onias IV! This assumption would also explain why Onias III seemingly died a natural death in Ant. 12.237 and that it was this circumstance that prompted Jason to assume the high priesthood (and not a political one as Josephus claims in BJ 1 and BJ 7), although our parallel evidence offers other scenarios of Onias III’s fate.¹⁷³ But the notion that Josephus incorporated doublets into his Oniad genealogy also intimates that Josephus thought that there were more Oniases than there actually were; and his note in Ant. 20.236, with which we opened this analysis, and which claims that Menelaus, who according to Josephus also carried the name Onias, had a son also named Onias (who in turn had an uncle called Onias III) caused Josephus to mix-up the homonymous persons involved and to incorrectly claim that Onias III allegedly had an infant son by the same name. Josephus was obviously confused and seemingly over-challenged in handling so many Oniases. The fact that Ant. 12.44 and 12.237 are a doublet suggests that an Onias IV, son of Onias III, never existed; since it follows that whatever Ant. 12.237– 239 record about Onias III’s fate, in fact, refers to Onias II, which includes the notion that it was the former who was an infant when passed over in the high priesthood and not Onias III’s alleged son, who bore the same name (Onias). Onias IV, however, is not the fruit of Josephus’ imagination, but rather that of his confusion. It follows that in Antiquities Josephus incorrectly attributed the building of the Oniad Temple to a son of Menelaus, and not to Onias III who received this attribution in BJ 1.33 and 7.423.

b) Two Names for Three Sons? Earlier, I have stressed that Ant. 12.238 contains the jarring and discomfiting note that Simon II had two sons, both named Onias. Common sense dictates to us to suspect the veracity of this statement and I suppose that even Josephus himself may have raised his eyebrow while putting this note to parchment (or papy-

 See above, n. 171.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

97

rus).¹⁷⁴ This impression also arises from his pursuant explanation that one of the two Oniases was also known by the Greek byname Menelaus. Perhaps by adding this reference, Josephus intended to smooth over this odd note as much as possible. But the note’s inelegance also suggests that it might be an error, again due to a clumsy effort at combining sources. I shall address this issue in a moment. In the meantime, we note that Josephus, in addition to recounting the unlikely case of two sons having the same name, also claims here that Menelaus was Onias’ (III) brother. This datum is at odds with comparable historical data from 2 Maccabees, where Menelaus is said to have been the brother of “Simon the προστάτης of the Temple” (Onias’ antagonist in 2 Macc. 3 – 4) and of a certain Lysimachus, but certainly not of Onias.¹⁷⁵ In light of this observation, one is left to ponder how Menelaus suddenly appears as Onias’ brother in Ant. 12.238? Several explanations may be (and have been) given in order to explain this gloss and I shall present three of them. Firstly, Rainbow proposed the very interesting hypothesis that Menelaus, or one of his loyal followers, forged the Oniad family tree in order to appear as a member of the legitimate line of Oniad high priests. Josephus then used this bogus document as his source for Ant. 12.237– 240, causing him to confuse the two Oniases.¹⁷⁶ A second possibility was raised  There are two other possible cases which suggest that parents gave an identical name to two of their children. The first is John 19:25 where it is said that “standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.” But it is generally accepted that those Marys are not related. The second case is two ossuary inscriptions discovered in the Qidron Valley. In burial cave 3, one bilingual (Greek and Hebrew) ossuary inscription (no. 2001) mentions a “Salome daughter of Ariston” (ΣΑΛΩΜ[Η] ΑΡΙΣΤΩΝ[ΟΣ] / ‫ )שלום בת ארסטון‬and a second (no. 2002) mentions a “Salome daughter of Ariston” (ΣΑΛΑΜΦΙΝ ΑΡΙΣΤΩΝΟΣ / ‫)שלמציון בת ארסטון‬. At first sight, one is left with the impression that Ariston named his two daughters with the same name, but as T. Ilan has shown, this is not the case; just as in the previous example Mary the wife of Clopas was not Mary Magdalene’s sister. See T. Ilan, “New Ossuary Inscriptions from Jerusalem,” SCI 11 (1991/92): 155 – 156. I owe both references to Prof. Ilan with whom I discussed this issue.  2 Macc. 4:23, 29. It is stated in 2 Macc. 3:4, that Simon was a priest from “the tribe of Benjamin,” which is emended by the large majority of commentators to “Bilgah” based on the reading of the Vetus Latina and Armenian Bibles. See V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 403 – 404. Menelaus, being Simon’s brother, would accordingly be a descendant of a non-Zadokite priestly family and the legitimacy of his holding the position as high priest seriously voidable. See also E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 1:149 (n. 30).  P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 38, 42. We may refer to a similar incident in Ant. 14.9 in this context. Here, Josephus reviles Nicolaus of Damascus for attempting to adulate his boss, Herod the Great, claiming that the latter was a descendant of one of the most illustrious families of returnees from the Babylonian Exile. Nicolaus’ action may have been motivated either by an order of Herod’s, or simply by the same reason as Menelaus, namely to improve his “flawed” (Idumaean in case of Herod) descent. Herod’s Idumaean descent was perceived ignoble by

98

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

by É. Puech, who postulated that the designation ἀδελφός (“brother”) does not necessarily imply consanguinity, but rather some form of collegiality – after all both were probably priests.¹⁷⁷ Consequently, so Puech, Josephus must have misunderstood the note referring to Menelaus as Onias’ brother, even though both were merely fellow-priests (i. e., priestly brothers). In effect, Josephus wrongly inferred familial relations between them.¹⁷⁸ While the above may be reasonable speculations, there remains a third possibility, which is in my view the most compelling, namely that Menelaus married a sister of Onias III and thus appeared as an Oniad in the priestly records or any other related source.¹⁷⁹ We are familiar with a similar case from a later period from the time of Agrippa I, who appointed a high priest named Simon Cantheras. Simon is listed by Josephus in Ant. 19.297 as a member of the Boethus family demost Jews, who deemed him a ἡμιιουδαίος (a “half-Jew”). See Ant 14.403 and Cohen’s comments in Sh. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Hellenistic Culture and Society 31; Berkeley/Los Angeles/London: University of California Press, 1999) 13 – 24.  É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 151– 153. On that issue see also M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 46 [Hebrew]. It is intriguing to observe that the BarKokhba rebels referred to themselves as “brothers,” as becomes evident from the letters discovered in the Judaean desert. See for instance XḤev/Se 8; XḤev/Se 49; XḤev/Se 56; Mur 45 and P. Schäfer, Der Bar-Kokhba Aufstand (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981) 75. Note also that the Jewish mercenaries at Elephantine referred to each other in the same manner, see C 56 (TAD A 4.4) and B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968) 270: “The term ‘brother’ referred not only to an immediate kinsman, but to a member of one’s national group as distinct from the foreigner.” See also 2 Macc. 10:21 (“When word of what had happened came to Maccabeus, he gathered the leaders of the people, and accused these men of having sold their brethren [τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς] for money by setting their enemies free to fight against them.” [NRSV, Italics are mine, M.P.]). On this and additional occurrences of the term in ancient Jewish literature, see D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 385, to whom I also owe this reference.  É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 153.  This has already been suggested by K.-D. Schunck, Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches (Halle a. d. Saale: Niemeyer, 1954) 123 (n. 2) and M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 46 [Hebrew]. For a similar case, see BJ 1.130 // Ant. 14.33, which mention an uncle (θεῖος) of Herod, a certain Phallion or Kephallion. That particular uncle of Herod’s, however, turns out to be the brother of Herod’s mother (or Antipater’s brother-in-law). See D. R Schwartz, “Josephus on Herod’s Uncles,” in Israel’s Land: Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee, ed. by J. Geiger, H. M. Cotton, and G. D. Stiebel (Ra’anana: The Open University / Israel Exploration Society, 2009) 39 – 52. Schwartz argues that Josephus’ use of familial terminology was rather loose and that expressions, such as “uncle” could also refer to one’s mother’s brother (brother-inlaw). Therefore, also his use of the term ἀδελφός (brother) may be a loose one.

12 On Josephus’ Table and the Quagmire of Oniad Genealogy

99

spite all the (genealogical) problems that this placement entails within the narrative.¹⁸⁰ Thus, the suggestion that Menelaus married into the Oniad dynasty turns out to be an attractive solution. If Menelaus indeed married a sister of Onias, he would consequently appear as a brother of both Jesus/Jason and Onias III, and we may imagine that this is the reason why Josephus inferred regular fraternal relations in the generation after Simon II. Yet this solves only half of the problem, namely how the two Oniases can be “brothers,” but not how two of Simon II’s sons could have had the same name. At the outset, we recall that Josephus, by and large, confuses the political players of the period preceding the Maccabean revolt (i. e. Onias, Jason, and Menelaus). For example, BJ 1.31– 33 ascribes specific political events taking place in Jerusalem to Onias, even though they seem to fit Jason much better. This holds true, also for Josephus’ story on the (evil) deeds of Menelaus in Ant. 12.237– 240. In light of the comparable data from 2 Maccabees, we would rather associate these with Jason.¹⁸¹ In both of the above cases I have proposed that Josephus’ confusion arises from splicing two different sources. I assume the same to have happened in the current case of Ant. 12.238. This conjecture is confirmed by the fact that Josephus tells us that both Menelaus and Jason had Hebrew/Aramaic bynames: Onias and Jesus, respectively. This betrays an effort to coordinate a source that referred to Jason using his Greek name (and to Menelaus using his Greek name, respectively) with a source referring to both with their Hebrew/Aramaic names. This means concretely that in Ant. 12.237– 240, Josephus combined his source on the Oniad genealogy – the doublet of Ant. 12.43 – 44 – with his “Menelaus Source” which furnished him the material on Menelaus, including the (counterfeit or not) information that he was an Oniad priest by marriage and thus a “brother” of Onias. Misunderstanding the nature of this kinship, Josephus inferred that Menelaus must have been one of Simon’s (II) sons. More complicated, and admittedly more speculative, is the issue of why Josephus thought that Menelaus was also called Onias (Ant. 12.239, 383; 20.235). Josephus says that Jesus called himself Jason, a piece of information deriving from a different source. But on the other hand, it seems that the same source that he had on his table must also have told Josephus that Menelaus was called Onias. The most likely explanation for this is that the source referred to Menelaus as an Oniad (for example as Onias Menelaus or the like). Again, we seek to ex See D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990) 185 – 189 (Appendix III). Note that only one paragraph later (19.298), Josephus refers to the three sons of Simon II.  Compare 2 Macc. 4:7– 20.

100

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

plain this by Menelaus’ marital connection to the ‘House of Onias.’ Josephus mistakenly thought that Onias was Menelaus’ (Hebrew/Aramaic) byname. It is this mistake that caused Josephus to incorrectly assign historical events and genealogical information to the wrong person in his subsequent narratives on the Oniads. In other words, the incorrect association of Menelaus with Onias III seems to be just one of apparently many items causing Josephus’ confusion and his revision of his previous datum in BJ 1.33 that it was Onias III, the son of Simon, who had built Onias’ Temple in Egypt. Ant. 12.238 and 20.236 should thus be added to our dossier of confused and discrepant passages on Oniad genealogy. This also includes the odd statement in Ant. 12.157 that Onias II was passed over twice by an uncle in the succession to the high priesthood. Josephus’ mistaken association of Menelaus with Onias also leads us to doubt that the former really was a brother of Onias. Perhaps Menelaus was Onias’ brother-in-law. It follows that – even though sons could have the same names as their father¹⁸² – in the case of Onias III, this was not the case. Rather, as we should infer from Strabo’s references apud Josephus, Onias III’s real sons were called Ḥelkias and Ananias.¹⁸³

13 Who Built Onias’ Temple? – Going back to War! After having provided an overview of Josephus’ Oniad genealogy, having pointed out some of its problems, and having suggested what may have caused Josephus to incorporate mistakes into that genealogy, we have seen that, from a bird’s-eye

 Contra the claims of B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 147, 235 – 237; P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 40; É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 155; and more recently D. J. Kaufman, “From Tennes to Leontopolis: A Political and Literary-Historical Study of the High Priesthood in Hellenistic Palestine (350 – 159 BCE),” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 119, who emphasize the custom of papponymy in Onias’ time. These scholars argue against the possibility of the phenomenon of homonymous sons and fathers. With all due respect to this view, I wish to emphasize that avoidance of papponymy, though a custom, is not a law and therefore prone to be ignored. A case in point is in Josephus’ own family. Josephus had a brother called Mattityahu, thus being called Mattityahu ben Mattityahu (see V 8). Other examples are in a tax list from Trikomia in the Arsinoite nome, dated to the 3rd century BCE (254– 231 BCE) that mentions a Simon, son of Simon (P. Vindob. G 40663, col. VIII); Luke’s reference to a certain Zacharias ben Zacharias (Lk 1:59); JIGRE 54 attests a Judas, son of Judas and JIGRE 57 mentions a John, son of John. For cases in rabbinic lit. see B Eruvin 85b (Bonaim ben Bonaim); Y Shabbat 1 (18d), 74 (Yose ben Yose ben Perurah); T Niddah 5:15 (R. Ḥananiah ben Ḥananiah). See also S. Krauss, Talmudische Archäologie (3 vols.; Leipzig: Buchhandlung Gustav Fock, 1911) 2: 13, 440 (n. 131).  Ant. 13.285, 349 – 355.

13 Who Built Onias’ Temple? – Going back to War!

101

view, in the Antiquities too many things happened twice (Onias was passed over twice by two uncles in the succession of the high priesthood; there were two high priests who were infants and hence could not assume office; two sons having the same name), which indicates the existence of doublets, and thus the notion that there actually were less Oniases than Josephus thought there were. By and large, we may explain Josephus’ mishaps in his Oniad genealogy by suggesting that he fell victim to his own efforts of splicing his sources. One should not forget that Antiquities 12 and 13 cover a period of approximately 250 years (roughly from the death of Alexander the Great in 323 BCE until the death of Queen Salome Alexandra in 67 BCE) for which Josephus seems not always to have had sufficient and accurate source material – especially for the period from Alexander the Great’s death onwards until the Hasmonean period. Josephus seems to have known, roughly, which source corresponded to which historical-chronological context, as indicated by remarks such as his more or less accurate statement in Ant. 13.256 about the two-hundred-year duration of the Samaritan Temple. This means that he had an idea how much time had passed from, say the death of Alexander the Great until the rise of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Correspondingly, we should think that Josephus knew how many Oniad priests served during the time-span of roughly 250 years and where to place which Oniad priest, including the bits and pieces of information about them. However, being faced with a long period to cover and a multitude of sources that were not always of the highest quality (either they were fragmentary or contradictory), Josephus is liable to have made mistakes here and there: “to err is human” and just as we, Josephus too, certainly was no computer. Thus, with all these problems in mind, and in particular those regarding the Oniad genealogy listed above, the only secure, yet admittedly frustrating, conclusion to be drawn is that Josephus confused his Oniad genealogy in his Antiquities and that he thought that there were more Oniases than there actually were. As so eloquently expressed by Parker (in the second opening quote to this section),¹⁸⁴ Josephus “botched up the Oniad genealogy beyond recognition,” leaving any attempt of its precise reconstruction futile. What follows from this observation is the fact that the identification of Onias IV with the builder of the Oniad Temple in his Antiquities, as mentioned before, seems to be the fruit of his own confusion, but not of his imagination. But if Onias IV was not the builder of Onias’ Temple, then who was? There are really only two possibilities, namely Onias III and Onias IV. Since we have just eliminated one, namely the latter, this leaves us with the sole option of Onias III. We recall that this is, in fact, what Josephus

 V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien,” 151.

102

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

stated in his Judaean War based, I have argued, on information that stemmed from his “Leontopolis Source.” Consequently, we have good reason to attach credence to this statement. It seems that, after all, Josephus’ testimony regarding the identity of the builder of the Oniad Temple in his Judaean War account is the superior one, and to be preferred over his later statements in his Jewish Antiquities. However, I wish to emphasize that the conclusion that Josephus’ War account is more credible than his later Antiquities account is not based on the utilization of an older source in War, which was chronologically closer to the foundation of Onias’ Temple, as had been suggested in the past.¹⁸⁵ That argument does not hold water. Rather, as I have shown, Josephus used the same source for both of his main narratives on Onias’ Temple in his War and his Antiquities. The root of the contradiction regarding the identity of the builder of this temple in the two works should not be sought in the circumstance that Josephus found new material on Onias or the Oniad Temple for his Antiquities narrative. Rather, in the later work, he incorrectly combined and confused information from his “Leontopolis Source” with information and (at times fallacious or fragmentary) material about various high priests by the name of Onias. To lay the question of the identity of the builder of the Oniad Temple once and (hopefully) for all to rest: Onias III built Onias’ Temple. Let me add that this conclusion will be supported by the results of additional analyses in the subsequent chapters of this study.

14 When Was Onias’ Temple Built? Clarifying who built the Oniad Temple makes it much easier to pinpoint a date for its construction. Based on my findings from the foregoing analysis of the Josephan Onias narratives, I have concluded that one must recognize Onias III as the builder of Onias’ Temple. This conclusion is essentially congruent with the details of Josephus’ War narrative. Since Josephus places Onias III’s escape to

 That assumption is also discussed for instance by S. A. Hirsch, “The Temple of Onias,” 48; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 200; J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie,” 8. It was similarly argued that the Antiquities account is more credible because it used a “newer source” which caused Josephus to “correct” his previous (flawed) report on the history of Onias’ Temple in his War. The list of scholars maintaining this view is exhaustive. Suffice to cite but a few: S. A. Hirsch, “The Temple of Onias,” 47; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 276 – 277; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 190 – 193; J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie,” 6 – 9; and most recently L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 58.

14 When Was Onias’ Temple Built?

103

Egypt in the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175 – 164 BCE),¹⁸⁶ we are inclined to think that Onias’ Temple must have been founded sometime in the course of his reign. To be more precise, Josephus makes it clear that Onias left Judaea for Egypt in the wake of Antiochus IV’s invasion of Judaea.¹⁸⁷ However, it is commonly acknowledged that Antiochus IV invaded Judaea twice: once in 170/169 BCE and again, on his way back from Egypt, a year later in 168 BCE. This leaves us with two possible dates for Onias’ flight.¹⁸⁸ In spite of the small margin of only a year separating the two invasions, the latter date (168/167 BCE) is the more likely possibility for the foundation of the temple, for two reasons. First, Antiochus IV Epiphanes withdrew from Egypt following his first successful campaign in 170/169 BCE, after being convinced that he had ordered his affairs there and had secured his dominance over Egypt.¹⁸⁹ It would make little sense for Onias, who clearly intended to pluck himself from Epiphanes’ jaws in Jerusalem, to find shelter in a territory that had recently come under Antiochus IV’s domination. Eventually, however, Ptolemy VI Philometor prevailed over Epiphanes, who was forced to return to Egypt in 168/167 BCE in order to reinforce his position. In the meantime, Philometor enlisted the support of the Romans and persuaded them to intervene on his behalf. This diplomatic move resulted in Antiochus IV’s well-known (and embarrassing) ouster from Egypt.¹⁹⁰ On his way back from Egypt, the furious Antiochus IV returned to Jerusalem, plundered it, defiled its Temple, and introduced his reli-

 For the date see O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 42– 50.  BJ 1.31– 34, 7.423 and see Ant. 13.62, which I suggest to derive from the same source.  On Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ twofold invasion of Judaea, see 1 Macc. 1:20 – 40 (which refers to Antiochus’ first invasion in 170/169 BCE); 2 Macc. 5:1– 3 (which alludes to Antiochus’ second invasion in 168 BCE), and Dan 11:28 – 30 (which seems to allude to both visits). See also J. C. Dancy, A Commentary on I Maccabees (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954) 68; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 186, 473 – 474 (n. 20); O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 64– 101 (chapters 4– 5); E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 1:152– 153 (n. 37). Antiochus’ twofold invasion of Judaea seems likewise alluded to in a text from Qumran (4Q428). See on this D. R. Schwartz, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, and D. R. Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 45 – 56.  E. R. Bevan, The House of Ptolemy: A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty (London: Methuen Publishing, 1927) 284; W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers, 40 – 81; G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 128 – 134.  This event is better known as the “Day of Eleusis.” Polybius 29.27; Livy 45.12; Diodorus 31.2; see also G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 133 – 134; P. F. Mittag, Antiochus IV Epiphanes: Eine politische Biographie (Klio: Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte Beiheft 11; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006) 214– 224; and more in detail in Chapter 12.

104

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

gious proscriptions.¹⁹¹ The latter context certainly constitutes a much more fitting setting for the flight of Onias to Egypt, for it was no longer under the threat of Seleucid domination, while Jerusalem was. One should also consider that, regardless of the fact that Onias had been deposed from the high priesthood already a few years earlier (around 175/174 BCE), he did not escape to Egypt immediately after his deposition. Rather, it is more likely that he remained in Jerusalem and hoped to regain his former post once the political unrest was over. He appears to have instituted a firm anti-Seleucid front in Jerusalem and established himself as the pro-Ptolemaic partisan, as is indeed suggested by Josephus.¹⁹² The defilement of the Temple should be perceived as the main motive for Onias’ flight to Egypt. And his pro-Ptolemaic reputation certainly assured a favorable hearing of his case in Egypt. The cessation of the cult in the Temple of Jerusalem constituted a grave religious crisis which demanded a response. The Maccabees took up arms in response to the crisis, while Onias (and his followers) sought refuge elsewhere and filled the cultic void by founding a substitute temple fulfilling an ancient prophecy. We will return to this issue at a later stage of this study. For the time-being, it suffices to conclude that a 168/167 BCE dating for Onias’ flight to Egypt is to be preferred.¹⁹³

15 Conclusion Let us briefly summarize our conclusions that emerged from the analysis of Josephus’ narratives on Onias and Onias’ Temple: (1) Josephus had, in all, four sources on his table while penning his Onias narratives: a) the “Leontopolis Source:” a Jewish account of the foundation of Onias’ Temple (presumably of Oniad origin); b) a partial list of Oniad high priests; c) the “Menelaus Source” on pre-Maccabean history; and, d) a Roman military report on the closure of Onias’ Temple in the Roman period (around 73/74 CE). Sources “a” and “b” may have been stored in the Oniad Temple archive and come to Josephus’ attention while he was in Egypt with Titus.

 On the date and Antiochus’ religious persecutions see in particular K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 130 – 132.  BJ 7.423 – 425.  Cf. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 277; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 200; D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 20 [Hebrew]; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 21– 22; L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 58.

15 Conclusion

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

105

Josephus’ source for his longer narrative on Onias and Onias’ Temple in Antiquities 13 does not constitute an independent tradition from Alexandria as is usually maintained. It is based on the same source he utilized for his longer Onias narrative in BJ 7. We have to hold Josephus, the author, alone, accountable for the narratives’ negative twists. Josephus arranged his sources according to his literary needs and his different worldviews when he composed BJ and Antiquities, respectively. Our literary analysis has revealed that this included profound editing of his sources, as we have seen exemplified by his ‘Epistolary Piece’ (Ant. 13.62– 73), which is almost entirely a Josephan creation. In the same vein, we observed that Josephus changed Onias’ motives for the building of his temple according to his own perceptions, making them different in BJ and the Antiquities respectively. In BJ, Onias’ motives are rooted in rivalry with Jerusalem and thus – from a literary perspective – complement Josephus’ main theme of stasis in this composition. We should therefore reject this view of Onias’ motives as accurate historical evidence. Similarly in his Antiquities, Josephus stresses Onias’ unlawful and flawed motives for the erection of his temple. Also in this case, we have seen that Josephus’ accusations of Onias’ actions as “unlawful” and improper conduct are suspiciously congruent with one of the main themes of his Antiquities – namely the importance of proper adherence to the Jewish law. We sought to explain this shift in focus with the fact that Josephus underwent a personal change within the twenty years that separated the composition of his BJ and the Antiquities. Onias’ real motive for building his temple in Egypt was the cessation of sacrifices in Jerusalem and the fear that this would spell the end of the priestly cult. He sought legitimization for his deeds from Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:18 – 19), to which Josephus frequently refers (BJ 7.432; Ant. 13.64, 68), and which seems to have been part of the “Leontopolis Source” – the founding legend of Onias’ Temple. But, also, we could not, and should not, rule out the possibility that Onias, being an observant Jewish priest, believed that Isaiah’s prophecy was being played out and that God had chosen him to save the Jewish religion from extinction. No one could have, at this point, predicted the outcome of the Maccabean revolt. Our literary analysis of Josephus’ Onias narratives has shown that Josephus liked neither Onias, nor his temple-building-project. As a proud Jerusalemite priest and believer in the Deuteronomistic standards of cult-centralization, Josephus was of the opinion that there should only be one Jewish temple, namely that in Jerusalem.

106

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10) (11)

(12)

(13)

Chapter 1 Flavius Josephus and Oniad History

Similarly, Josephus argued that maintaining multiple Jewish sanctuaries evokes dissent among the Jews (next to Ant. 13.67, so he claims at Ant. 11.323 and C. Ap. 2.193). As for the question of the temple-builder, our analysis of Josephus’ Oniad genealogy has yielded the clear conclusion that we should identify the builder of Onias’ Temple with Onias III. The confusion (and contradiction) between BJ (Onias III) and Antiquities (Onias IV) results from the juxtaposition of sources: the list of Oniad high priests and various other sources within Josephus’ string of historical narratives in Books 12 and 13 of the Antiquities, and a confusion of Oniases. Josephus fell victim to his own mistake of getting confused with the Oniad genealogy. How this happened precisely, cannot be reconstructed, but the fact remains that there were less Oniases than Josephus thought there were, and that too many things occurred twice (a high priest who was twice passed over in the succession; the odd claim that two high priests were infants; two sons having the same name), thus creating doublets. It follows that Josephus’ identification of Onias IV as the builder of Onias’ Temple is not reliable and that we consequently have to turn to his War account and to his statement there, that it was Onias III who built the temple in Egypt. An Onias IV never existed and is the fruit of Josephus’ confusion – not his imagination. The garbled genealogy, and the fact that Josephus confused and conflated high priests with the name Onias and assigned to them events that happened in another context under another high priest, also explains the jarring statement that Onias III died of natural causes in (Ant. 12.237), while he is still alive and well in BJ 7.423. It also accounts for various other problems, such as the equally odd note that Simon the high priest had three sons, two of whom bore the same name (Ant. 12.238, 12.383 and Ant. 20.237). The fact that Josephus confused and conflated high priests also helps to solve another persistent scholarly debate: The hitherto open question of the identification of Simon the Just. The correct identity of Simon the Just is thus, as has indeed been suggested by several scholars, the high priest Simon II. Identifying Onias III as the builder of Onias’ Temple allows us to pinpoint a date for the foundation of the temple. Josephus claims that Onias III fled Jerusalem due to Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ invasion (168 BCE) and there is little reason to doubt that – and that dating, to the days in which the Temple service was defiled and stopped in Jerusalem, supplies a proper

15 Conclusion

107

context in which to understand Onias’ desire to build a surrogate temple in Egypt.

Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History 1 Introduction Identifying Onias III with the builder of the Oniad Temple confronts us with the problem of harmonizing this finding with contrary evidence from 2 Maccabees. The abbreviated five-volume history of Jason of Cyrene tells of Onias III’s assassination around the years 173 – 171 BCE in Daphne, a suburb of Antioch (2 Maccabees 4:34– 36) before the construction of Onias’ Temple. We recall that in the Antiquities, too, we hear of the demise of Onias III (Ant. 12.237), even though, as implied by Josephus, due to natural causes and not, as made explicit in 2 Maccabees, in a violent manner. Nevertheless, we recall that the raison d’être of Josephus’ statement on the natural death of Onias III in Ant. 12.237 is his confusion of the life and events of Onias’ grandfather, Onias II, as chronicled in Ant. 12.44. This explains too, why Onias III is well and alive in BJ 1.31– 33 and 7.420 – 436, but not why Onias meets a violent end in 2 Maccabees 4:34– 36. Onias III’s death according to 2 Maccabees is commonly deemed historical based on the general reliability accredited to the composition.¹ 2 Maccabees’ account of the murder of Onias is, thus, oftentimes the “ace up the sleeve” of those scholars, who prefer Josephus’ Antiquities account over that in the War and with that, the identification of Onias IV with the temple-builder.² This constitutes today’s communis opinio. ³ But, and as we have seen, there are good reasons to challenge this consensus and it seems that a clarification of the issue of the founder of Onias’ Temple is duly required, especially in the context of 2 Maccabees as a source depicting the murder of Onias III. This circumstance, therefore, merits the following discussion.

 The credibility of 2 Maccabees as a historical source experienced a change in attitude in modern scholarship. The work was first perceived inferior in comparison with 1 Maccabees, but since Niese (B. Niese, Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher: Nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der makkabäischen Erhebung [Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1900]), who at times exaggerates the historicity of 2 Maccabees, the historical worth of the composition has gained more acceptance. See D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 38 – 44.  Examples for that notion are ample, here but a few: V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 276 – 277; P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 2.162 (n. 302), J. G. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 531, 540, 556; and most recently, L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 58.  See e. g. P. R. Davies, “If the Lord’s Anointed Had Lived,” BI 8 (2000): 153. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-005

2 ‘Who Killed Onias III?’ On Andronicus, Diodorus, and 2 Maccabees

109

A further point worth examining is the Sitz im Leben of the appearance of the high priest Onias in 2 Maccabees on the whole. Much can be learned, I think, about Oniad-Hasmonean relations in the face of the new Hasmonean establishment in Jerusalem and its Temple. Although, the main focus of this part of this study is on the sources and on the history of Onias’ Temple, I will nonetheless include here a discussion of 2 Maccabees from a literary viewpoint and for the purpose of understanding why (and how) Onias III had to die in chapter 4 of that work.

2 ‘Who Killed Onias III?’ On Andronicus, Diodorus, and 2 Maccabees The events of the so-called “Heliodorus affair” in chapter 3 of 2 Maccabees are followed by the narrative of the assassination plot of Onias III in chapter 4.⁴ Chapter 4 picks up the afore-related (3:4) antagonism of Simon, the captain (προστάτης) of the Temple, toward Onias, reporting that Simon continued to blacken Onias’ character at the Seleucid court.⁵ Meanwhile, dramatic changes were taking place in Jerusalem. In the wake of Seleucus IV’s death (ca. 175 BCE), Antiochus IV Epiphanes attained the kingship over the Seleucid Empire and Jason outbid his brother Onias III for the high priesthood.⁶ After three years, however, Jason shared the same fate as his brother Onias when Simon’s brother Menelaus surpassed Jason for the high priesthood in the Seleucid court.⁷ Jason is reported to have escaped to the land of Ammon, i. e. to Trans-Jordan, whereas Onias, in the meantime, fled to Daphne, a suburb of Antioch.⁸ Menelaus, who is relentlessly slandered by the author of 2 Maccabees,⁹ ne-

 On the Heliodorus affair see E. J. Bickerman, “Héliodore au temple de Jérusalem,” in E. J. Bickerman, Studies in Jewish and Christian History (Leiden: Brill, 1980) 2:159 – 191; and more recently D. Gera, “Olympiodorus, Heliodorus and the Temples of Koilê Syria and Phoinikê,” ZPE 167 (2009): 125 – 155; H. Cotton and M. Wörrle, “Seleucus IV to Heliodorus – A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel,” ZPE 159 (2007): 191– 205; U. Rappaport, “Did Heliodoros Try to Rob the Treasures of the Jerusalem Temple?: Date and Probability of the Story of II Maccabees, 3,” REJ 170 (2011): 3 – 19.  2 Macc. 4:1– 6.  2 Macc. 4:7– 10 and O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 137– 139; P. F. Mittag, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 235 – 247.  2 Macc. 4:23 – 25.  Jason’s escape to Trans-Jordan is reported in 2 Macc. 4:26; Onias’ flight to Daphne in 2 Macc. 4:33.

110

Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History

glected to make payments owed to the Seleucid king. In turn, the king ordered Menelaus to travel to Antioch to pay his financial debts. Now faced with the problem of providing a substantial sum of money, Menelaus decided to sell the Temple appurtenances in order to relieve his financial burden.¹⁰ According to the story in 2 Maccabees, Menelaus’ deeds reached Onias’ ears, who made the issue public (4:33). As the king was pre-occupied with settling affairs elsewhere, which thus demanded his absence from Antioch, he left his deputy – a certain Andronicus – in charge of affairs in the capital (4:27– 32). Menelaus, who arrived in Antioch to pay his debts, used the opportunity to rid himself of Onias and coaxed Andronicus to have Onias killed, to which Andronicus complied (4:34). When the king heard of Andronicus’ deed upon his return to Antioch, he “was grieved at heart and filled with pity, and wept because of the moderation and good conduct of the deceased” (4:37). Filled with anger, Epiphanes consequently gave orders to have Andronicus immediately executed.¹¹ Once more, as many scholars would have it, the events described above are to be understood historically. Despite the dramatic value of this story, however, several problems arise that diminish the historicity of the report as noted below. This is not to say that historical events may not, at times, have dramatic outcomes. Suffice it to note here that Antiochus IV Epiphanes was hardly heartbroken upon hearing of the death of a Jewish high priest; even more so when this high priest was one of his political opponents. But this is only a minor problem. A far larger one – and one more significant for our purposes – is the problem that the story of the murder of Onias at the hands of one Andronicus is paralleled elsewhere in a slightly different context. Diodorus Siculus in his Bibliotheca Historica (30.7.2) recounts the murder of a nephew of Antiochus IV and son of Seleucus IV at the hands of Andronicus.¹² As in 2 Macc. 4:38, Antiochus IV has Andronicus punished by ordering his execution.

 See e. g. 2 Macc. 4:25, 50. Menelaus is depicted as one of the arch-enemies of the (pious) Jews, of course next to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and thus oftentimes the target of slander by the epitomizer. See also Chr. Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch, 215.  2 Macc. 4:27– 32.  2 Macc. 4:38.  Diodorus, even though writing in the 1st century CE (as Josephus), is usually considered a reliable source. His account of Andronicus’ assassination of Antiochus’ nephew has also come down to us in a fragment of the 7th century chronicler John of Antioch (FHG IV.558 [1883]). See also D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 129 – 130. Diodorus’ source for this note seems to be Polybius, who was his main source on the Seleucid monarchs. View e. g. E. Schwartz, “Diodorus,” PWRE 5 (1903 – 1905): 688 – 690 and R. Drews, “Diodorus and his Sources,” AJP 83 (1962): 384– 385. At any rate, we are lacking a parallel Polybian account of this event, but this is readily explained by the fragmentary nature of Polybius’ Histories.

2 ‘Who Killed Onias III?’ On Andronicus, Diodorus, and 2 Maccabees

111

It seems rather obvious that the author of 2 Maccabees was well aware of Diodorus’ rendition of this story and transferred it to Onias III.¹³ This assumption moreover coincides with the detail I have referred to above, which questions the highly unlikely claim that Antiochus IV Epiphanes mourned the death of Onias. Epiphanes’ grief suits the murder of his relative much more than it does the murder of one of his opponents. Apart from this observation, moreover, we recall that remorse for one’s evil deeds towards the Jews by foreign rulers occurs frequently in Jewish-Hellenistic literature and to some extent characterizes the genre.¹⁴ These observations, then, should lead us to doubt that Onias was indeed murdered at Daphne as suggested by the narrative in 2 Maccabees. Instead, we have to conclude that Diodorus Siculus’ story about the murder of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ nephew was later dramatized into a spectacular tale of the murder of Onias by 2 Maccabees’ epitomizer, or the final (Jerusalemite) author of the work.¹⁵ The above suggestion may be further advanced by a chronological observation, that is, by means of the date provided by the prefixed letters of 2 Maccabees (chapters 1– 2), which suggest a terminus post quem of 143/142 BCE for the conclusion of the work by the epitomizer.¹⁶ This date roughly corresponds with Josephus’ note on the involvement of Oniad soldiers in the civil war between Cleopatra II and Ptolemy VIII Physcon (ca. 145 BCE).¹⁷ This is also the last recorded appearance of Onias in the sources at our disposal. Specifically, it is highly like-

 See M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” in M. Stern, Studies in Jewish History (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991) 37 [Hebrew]; V. Keil, “Onias III, Martyrer oder Tempelgründer?” ZAW 97 (1985): 223. See also Bunge’s remarks J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Untergangs der Oniaden und des Aufstiegs der Hasmonäer,” JSJ 6 (1975): 1– 46 and compare his desperate efforts to cling to the historicity of the note on Onias’ murder, J. G. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 559; also M. Hengel, who, in a long footnote on the problematic historicity of the datum in 2 Macc., inexplicably concludes that: “ein Argument gegen die Historizität des Daphne-Asyls läßt sich daraus nicht herleiten.” M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 510 n. 134.  See e. g. 1 Macc. 6:5 – 13; 3 Macc. 6:22– 28, etc. D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 38. For more topoi employed by the authors of 2 Maccabees, see Chr. Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch, 190.  On the stages of the development of 2 Maccabees, see D. R. Schwartz, “Introduction,” in 2 Maccabees, 16 – 36. Schwartz suggests three editorial stages: Jason’s original five-volumed work; an epitomized version (to which was added the Heliodorus story [chapter 3], the martyr stories [6:18-end and chapter 7]; a preface, afterword, and some reflections) and who changed the order of chapters 13, 12, 9 to 9 – 13, and other minor changes; a Jerusalemite editor who added 10:1– 8 and the two pre-fixed letters in 143/142 BCE. See D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 36 – 37.  On the dating of 2 Macc. see D. R. Schwartz, “Introduction,” 11– 15 and 2 Macc. 1:7, 9.  See C. Ap. 2.49 – 53.

112

Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History

ly – and not merely because of his already advanced age at this time – that Onias died a short time after his active involvement in the Ptolemaic civil war. Indeed, the subsequent mention of details connected to the Oniads is their continued prominence in the Ptolemaic army in the days of the so-called “War of the Sceptres” (103 – 101 BCE).¹⁸ In fact, none of our sources mention Onias after the Ptolemaic civil war. Most notably, he is absent in the context of the “War of the Sceptres.” It is Onias’ sons, Ḥelkias and Ananias, who are mentioned there, not their father.¹⁹ This suggests that Onias died sometime between the years 145 BCE and 103 BCE. I thus end this discussion with the observation that the report of Onias’ murder, as narrated in 2 Maccabees 4:33 – 36, belongs to the realm of legend.²⁰ As such, I assume that Onias III died in Egypt at a later date, and in a different manner than suggested in the narrative of 2 Maccabees.

3 Why Kill Onias III? What strikes the reader of 2 Maccabees is that Onias III is generally praised throughout the work.²¹ In addition, we note that stories involving the high priest Onias frame the body of 2 Maccabees, i. e., the actual narrative (chapters 3 – 15), without the pre-fixed letters (chapters 1– 2).²² Onias is the hero of chapters 3 – 4

 Ant. 13.349; E. Van’t Dack (et al.), The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103 – 101 B.C.E.: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a “War of Sceptres” (Collectanea Hellenistica I; Brussel: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Comite Klassieke Studies, 1989) 129 – 131.  We may imagine that Ḥelkias and Ananias, being Onias III’s sons – and not those of Onias IV –, were old men by the time of the “War of the Sceptres.” On the chronological question this assumption entails, namely the likelyhood that Ḥelkias and Ananias could and would participate in that conflict at such an advanced age, see Chapter 12 (“The Death of Onias III and the Next Generation of Oniads”), pp. 358– 360.  J. Wellhausen, Über den geschichtlichen Wert, 125 – 127; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in its Cultural Context (Berkeley: University Press of California, 2004) 14.  Onias’ piety and hatred of wickedness is mentioned in 3:1, see also 3:33, and 15:12, where Onias is praised as “a noble and good man, of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence…” View also Hengel, who notes that in 2 Maccabbees: “… wird der einzige rechtmäßige zadokidische Hohepriester Onias III. als Heiligengestalt dargestellt.” M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 180.  See D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 17– 21 [Hebrew] and his 2 Maccabees, 12– 15. Schwartz takes the positive depiction of Onias III in the narrative in 2 Maccabees as indicating the specific time of the composition of the original work by Jason, namely prior to the building of Onias’ Temple, which he dates to the 50s of the 2nd century BCE.

4 Onias’ Asylum at Daphne

113

and reappears in chapter 15. If the murder of Onias is purely fictional, as I have argued, and Onias is a hero of the work, we are inclined to ask, why would the author of 2 Maccabees allow one of his heroes to suffer such a violent death? On a strictly literary level, the murder of Onias III functions as another martyr story within the composition. The murder of Onias as a form of martyrdom fits well into the overall theme of the book.²³ The world of 2 Maccabees required martyrs, who fulfill a critical role in the composition by facilitating the restoration of the previous order and by achieving through their sacrifice that “God’s wrath will turn into mercy,” as stated in 2 Macc. 8:5. We encounter this notion toward the end of the Heliodorus story in 2 Macc. 3:33, where God’s angel speaks to Heliodorus and advises him to thank Onias for the fact that “for his sake [i. e. Onias’] the Lord has granted you your [i. e. Heliodorus’] life.” This verse implies that it is Onias’ piousness and goodness that convinced God to change his mind, allowing Heliodorus to live. But Onias’ death is also linked to another passage in 2 Maccabees at 15:12– 17. Here, Onias appears in Judas Maccabaeus’ dream, a scene I wish to discuss here. Suffice it to conclude here, however, that the death of Onias III is not extraneous to the overall narrative and Tendenz of the work.

4 Onias’ Asylum at Daphne Linked to the story of Onias’ death is the odd detail of Onias’ escape to safety to a sanctuary in Daphne (2 Macc. 4:33), which most scholars regard as a pagan shrine.²⁴ That Onias sought shelter somewhere is certainly no problem, but the choice of a pagan shrine is certainly not becoming for a pious Jewish high

 See 2 Macc. 6:18 – 31 and especially chapter 7. For martyrs as a theme in 2 Maccabees, see J. Wellhausen, Über den geschichtlichen Wert des zweiten Makkabäerbuchs im Verhältnis zum ersten (Aus d. Nachrichten d. K. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Heft 2; Göttingen, 1905) 127; J. W. van Henten, The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 & 4 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 17– 57. See also D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 33 and S. Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochus IV (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014) 1, 66.  So e. g. M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 191; J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie,” 4 (n. 6) ; M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 36 [Hebrew]; F. Parente, “Le témoignage de Theodore de Mopsueste sur le mort d’Onias III et la fondation du temple de Leontopolis,” REJ 154, (1995): 429 – 430, 433; See also the discussions of R. Vilk, “Onias’ Asylum in Daphne,” Sinai 108 (1991): 285 [Hebrew] and D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 236; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 149.

114

Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History

priest.²⁵ I therefore agree with the view promoted by these scholars that this detail should be taken cum granum salis. This notwithstanding, we add that the text nowhere explicitly states that Onias’ place of sanctuary was indeed a pagan shrine. Instead, we read that Onias fled to a place of sanctuary (εἰς ἄσυλον τόπον) in order to save his own life.²⁶ This place, in fact, could have been located anywhere in the city. The view that Onias found shelter in a pagan temple is largely based on the assumption that the right of asylum was usually granted to pagan places of worship.²⁷ And indeed, Daphne (a suburb of Antioch) is associated with a wellknown temple dedicated to Apollo.²⁸ That it does not befit a pious Jewish high priest to find shelter in a pagan shrine has occasionally led scholars to suggest alternative accounts of Onias’ refuge. One such alternative narrative, for instance, contends that he hid in the Antiochian synagogue;²⁹ other accounts attempt to “white-wash” Onias’ choice of shelter by proving that if one’s life is in peril, one may indeed resort to pagan places of worship.³⁰ It has been put forward too that Onias’ chosen place of refuge, the temple of Apollo at Daphne, is not coincidental.³¹ Apollo was the patron deity of the Seleucid house. The dedication to that deity at Daphne was refurbished by Antiochus

 See on that issue R. Vilk, “Onias’ Asylum in Daphne,” 285 – 287 [Hebrew] and S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 149. Note that Tcherikover too, seems to have been troubled by that detail and argued that Onias fled to the synagogue of Antioch and not to a pagan shrine. Cf. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 469 n. 39.  2 Macc. 4:33. Note also the translations of F.-M. Abel, Les livres des Maccabées 2 (La Sainte Bible; Paris, 1951) 123 who has “s’être retire dans le lieu inviolable de Daphné voisine d’Antioche”; D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 132 [Hebrew]: “‫שנמלט למקום מקלט‬,” and his English translation: “Onias, after ascertaining what had happened, first took refuge in the asylum site in Daphne, outside of Antioch.” D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 209.  K. J. Rigsby, Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996) 1– 4.  See Strabo Geographica 16.2.6; Flavius Philostratus The Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.16 and Chr. Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch, 1:221. On Onias’ flight to the Temple of Apollo in the context of asylum, see K. J. Rigsby, Asylia, 496 – 499 (especially 497).  This is discussed by R. Vilk, “Onias’ Asylum in Daphne,” 287 [Hebrew] and V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 469 n. 39. The synagogue of Antioch is attested in John Chrysostom Contra Judaeos 1.6; C. H. Kraeling, “The Jewish Community at Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932): 140 – 141. G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961) 206.  That is Vilk’s conclusion. R. Vilk, “Onias’ Asylum in Daphne,” 285 – 287 [Hebrew].  S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 149 (n. 74).

5 The High Priest Onias III in 2 Maccabees

115

IV as part of his benefaction plan.³² Johnson claims that this fact explains the peculiarity with which we perceive the sheltering of a pious Jew in a pagan temple. Onias’ flight to the pagan sanctuary is intended not only to keep him from physical harm; it also implies an appeal to the protection of Antiochus IV’s divine patron. Onias is thus represented as being capable of considerable political acumen.³³

5 The High Priest Onias III in 2 Maccabees It becomes abundantly clear that the details regarding the life and death of Onias III as we read them in 2 Maccabees are almost entirely fictional, though they have been intelligently and carefully integrated into the larger historical framework of the work. It seems that those details on Onias’ life and death are separate oral or written traditions that have been incorporated into the text. The Heliodorus affair, as we can see according to its parallel in 3 Maccabees, was one of them.³⁴ Let us begin our discussion of Onias’ image in 2 Maccabees by noting that Onias is greatly praised there.³⁵ He is referred to as a pious hater of wickedness in 2 Macc. 3:1, and in 2 Macc. 15:12, he is praised as “a noble and good man (ἀνήρ), of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence…” It has been argued that Onias’ biography in 2 Maccabees functions to convey how pious Jewish leaders should interact with Greek kings and generals, as opposed to such figures as Jason, Simon, or Menelaus, who violated Jewish law.³⁶ Onias is thus depicted as an accomplished diplomat who could easily mediate between,

 E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus (London: Edward Arnold, 1902) 2:150 – 151; O. Mørkholm Antiochus IV of Syria, 119 – 122; P. F. Mittag, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 144– 145.  S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 149 (n. 74).  S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 39 – 40; D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 23 and there, n. 16 [Hebrew]; U. Rappaport, “Heliodorus,” 15 – 17. Cf. Goldstein conjectured that the Heliodorus story, much as other parts of 2 Maccabees, derive from a biography of Onias III written by his son, Onias IV. J. A. Goldstein, “Tales of the Tobiads,” in Christianity; Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. by J. Neusner (3 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 85 – 123.  2 Macc. 3:1– 3; 3:4– 20; 3:35; 4:4– 6, 33; 4:33 – 38; 15:12 and M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus 3, 180; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 16, 38 – 39; D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 18 [Hebrew]. See especially G. Gardner, “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century B.C.E.,” JBL 126 (2007): 327– 343.  See in particular S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 40.

116

Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History

and move comfortably in both the Jewish and Greek worlds.³⁷ Therefore, Onias’ attempts to appeal to the Seleucid king are generally successful. One may hence speculate that it is likely this fact that causes Menelaus to fear that Onias might accuse him in front of the king, and hence seek to kill him.³⁸ The fact that Onias is presented as an idealized figure of cooperation between the Greek and the Jewish worlds suggests that the notion of opposition between Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees is not all that severe after all.³⁹ This in mind, we turn to the illustrative passage at 2 Macc. 15:11– 17, which describes the appearance of Onias in Judas Maccabaeus’ dream prior to Judas’ hostile engagement with the Seleucid general Nicanor. In Judas’ dream, Onias appears next to Jeremiah the prophet. Jeremiah endows Judas with a golden sword made by God Himself, by means of which Judas shall devastate the Seleucid forces and thus save the holy city of Jerusalem and its Temple.⁴⁰ 2 Maccabees depicts Onias in an arguably angelic image and associates him with important Jewish figures such as the prophet Jeremiah.⁴¹ That a Jewish high priest appears in a dream vision of a conquering general with a promise of victory has parallels elsewhere, for example in the story of Jaddua the high priest and Alexander the Great. Josephus (Ant. 11.333 – 336) and its

 Something of this kind is subtly implied by the way he is described in 2 Macc. 15:12, namely in accordance with classical standard traits of a Greek/Hellenistic gentlemen, rather than with emphasis on his piety, for instance. Note also, that in this instance 2 Macc., despite referring to Onias’ “profession” as priest, speaks of him as a “man” (ἀνήρ). This universalizing tendency characterizes literary works of the Jewish Diaspora. See D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 36.  S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 149.  See e. g. 2 Macc. 6:9; 11:23 and see on this issue M. Himmelfarb, “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” Poetics Today 19 (1998): 19 – 40; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 40.  Intriguingly, Jeremiah is described in 2 Macc. 15:13 in a fashion reminiscent of the “ancient of days” in Dan 7:9 with messianic connotations. On the “ancient of days,” see J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998) 101.  See Nehemiah’s mention in the prefixed letters to the composition in 2 Macc. 1:18, 20 – 21, 23, 31, 33, 36. On the mention of Nehemiah in 2 Macc., see A. Büchler, “Das Sendschreiben der Jerusalemer an die Juden in Ägypten in II Makkabäerbuch 1,11– 2,18,” MGWJ 31 (1897): 491– 500, 524– 539; R. Doran, Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 12; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981) 3 – 12; D. R. Schwartz, “On something Biblical in 2 Macc.,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 226. Biblical figures seem to feature prominently in the composition. Apart from Nehemiah, Jeremiah is mentioned in 2:1, 5, 7; 15:14– 15 and Moses at 2 Macc. 1:29; 2.4, 8, 10 – 11; 7:6, 30.

5 The High Priest Onias III in 2 Maccabees

117

rabbinic parallel in B Yoma 69a, relates the epiphany of the Jewish high priest Jaddua in a dream of Alexander the Great.⁴² Although Jaddua foretells Alexander’s victory in battle, the story’s point is to aggrandize the Jewish God. After all, it is He who is responsible for sending Alexander, His agent, to defeat the Persian overlords of Judaea.⁴³ A similar parallel may be found in 2 Maccabees, where Onias and Jeremiah appear in Judas’ dream, and, presenting Judas with God’s golden sword, bestow God’s assistance on Judas. As part of God’s overall plan, Judas is supposed to defeat the Seleucids in order to pave the way for the purification of His Temple.⁴⁴ Thus, Judas, like Alexander the Great in the stories of Josephus and the Talmud, becomes God’s agent. In turn, Onias and Jeremiah function as harbingers of God’s message to Judas. The story of Onias and Judas in 2 Maccabees bears yet another important dimension, one of political nature. We discern that the story relating Onias’ appearance in Judas’ dream implies that Onias embraces and accepts Judas’ mission to defeat the Seleucid enemy, to conquer Jerusalem, and to purify its Temple. Thus, Judas, the self-proclaimed warrior and defender of Jewish faith, is represented as the rightful heir of the legitimate high priest Onias.⁴⁵ Moreover, the passage suggests that Onias came to terms with the new political reality in Jerusalem in the aftermath of the Maccabean revolt and the restoration of the cult in the Jerusalem Temple. The result of this coming to terms was Onias’ acceptance of Judas and his brethren as the new and legitimate rulers of Jerusalem.⁴⁶

 See E. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 192, 196 – 197.  See E. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 197.  On this episode, see J. W. v. Henten, “Judas the Maccabee’s Dream (2 Macc. 15:11– 16) and the Egyptian King’s Sickle Sword,” Zutot 4 (2007): 8 – 15, who argues that this episode is an extrabiblical tradition originating in native Egyptian priestly circles. He emphasizes that the episode as depicted in 2 Maccabees does not convey that Judas is the new legitimate leader of the Jews, but that the bestowal of God’s golden sword is a symbolic for Judas’ victory over Nicanor. See also S. Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes, 153 – 156.  This is also D. Gera’s conclusion, “Onias III and the Legitimacy of Judas Maccabaeus,” in XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010, ed. by M. K. H. Peters (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010) 105 – 126. Van Henten remarks that, correspondingly, the conclusion of the book at 15:37 leaves the reader with the impression that it was Judas who restored the status-quo-ante of an independent Jewish temple-state. J. W. v. Henten, “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation,” in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land, ed. by M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, and D. R. Schwartz (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003) 67.  This is also Honigman’s conclusion; S. Honigman, Tales of High Priests and Taxes, 90, 153 – 156. Johnson argues that Onias’ role in 2 Maccabees functions as an exemplum for the Jewish people in general and for the Hasmonean state in particular. It seeks to convey a positive paradigm for the newly independent Hasmonean state. The manipulation of the fictional details of the historical life of Onias III in 2 Maccabees is both entertaining and affecting, but its purpose,

118

Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History

In the context of the discourse on the legitimization of Jerusalem’s new rulers, we discern that 1 Maccabees, for instance, solves this problem quite differently, namely by avoidance. Onias is mentioned only in passing in a correspondence between him and the Spartans,⁴⁷ while other high priests frequently mentioned in 2 Maccabees (i. e. Jason and Menelaus) are omitted in 1 Maccabees altogether.⁴⁸ Thus, as already noted by Wellhausen, 1 Maccabees’ lack of interest in the high priests prior to the Hasmoneans’ assumption of power in Jerusalem is “…als ob die Hasmonäer sich auf einen leerstehenden Stuhl gesetz hätten, als ob unter Epiphanes und Eupator überhaupt keine Hohepriester in Jerusalem gewesen wären.”⁴⁹ That we encounter such an approach in 1 Maccabees is hardly surprising. We recall that the work’s purpose was to function as the mouthpiece of the Hasmonean dynasty and, as such, it sought to legitimize Hasmonean rule over Jerusalem and its Temple.⁵⁰ Therefore, an elaborate mention of Onias, Onias’ Temple, and/or Oniad history in 2 Maccabees, just as in 1 Maccabees, would certainly have been counterproductive.

6 The Forensics of Onias’ Murder: On Philip, Onias III, and the Escape to Egypt Earlier, I claimed that (a) the murder of Onias III recorded in 2 Maccabees is fictitious and (b) it was purposefully introduced by the epitomizer or the Jerusalemite editor of the book in order to make a martyr of Onias, who then (c) later reemerges in order to sanction Judas Maccabaeus’ (and his dynasty’s) legitimacy to rule over Jerusalem and the Temple. We remember that Onias’ alleged murder at Daphne narrated in 2 Maccabees sharply contradicts Josephus who tells of Onias’ escape to safety to Egypt (BJ 1.31– 33; 7.423 – 425). The nature of the contradiction in the two narratives is admittedly quite crass, especially in light of

clearly, goes well beyond sentimental entertainment. See S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 40 – 41.  1 Macc. 12: 7– 8, 19 – 20. That correspondence is paralleled in Josephus Ant. 12.225 – 228. Onias appears in 1 Maccabees in the context of the Jewish correspondence with the Spartans somewhat as a “relic of the past.” His persona is not introduced and elaborated upon, and it is merely stated that he used to be a high priest.  In Bunge’s words: “ein bewusstes Schweigen.” J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie,” 25.  J. Wellhausen, Über den geschichtlichen Wert, 159.  See J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990) 2– 3 and U. Rappaport, The First Book of Maccabees, 48 – 50 [Hebrew].

6 The Forensics of Onias’ Murder: On Philip, Onias III, and the Escape to Egypt

119

the fact that the epitomizer or final (Jerusalemite) editor of 2 Maccabees purposefully ignored Onias’ III flight to Egypt and instead, has him killed quite dramatically in the course of the book’s narrative. However, even though 2 Maccabees defines itself clearly as a work of Hellenistic historiography, it employs a great deal of historical fiction, which entails certain flexibility with respect to historical accuracy, or, to put it differently, it provides much room for poetic license.⁵¹ At the same time, however, we should acknowledge that both Jason of Cyrene and the epitomizer and/or the final editor used sources for their composition/ re-working of the book(s). I shall argue here, that either 2 Maccabees’ epitomizer, or its final editor, indeed, knew about Onias’ flight to Egypt.⁵² Hence, I will point to one particular passage in 2 Maccabees, which in my view, still contains traces of Onias’ flight to Egypt. A prominent problem for commentators on 2 Maccabees (9:25) is the determination of the identity of a certain Seleucid official (σύντροφος) named Philip.⁵³ A Philip is mentioned five times in 2 Maccabees and of those five references, two are of special interest to us:⁵⁴ a) 2 Macc. 13:23 – 26, where a Philip is mentioned in the context of Lysias’ second campaign in Judaea;⁵⁵ and b) a few chapters earlier, in 9:29 where a Philip escorts Antiochus IV’s body from the East to Antioch, but abandons his mission because of his fear of the newly instituted king, Antiochus V Eupator. It is then reported that Philip seeks refuge with the Egyptian king Ptolemy VI Philometor.⁵⁶ With the sole exception of the latter passage (9:29), all references to Philip in 2 Maccabees seem to refer to one and the same person, namely a high Seleucid official  S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 50, 54, 115.  On the sources of 2 Maccabees, see K.-D. Schunck, Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches, 117– 128; J. G. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 206 – 329.  Philip besieged Antioch and thus forced Lysias to abort his siege of Jerusalem in 163 BCE. See also 1 Macc. 6:55 – 63. Cf. Ant. 12.379 – 383 and 386, where Josephus adds the information that after his troops had occupied Antioch, Philip was executed by the king (Antiochus V Eupator).  2 Macc. 5:22; 6:11; 8:8; 9:29; 13:23. In the first three instances, Philip is the governor of Judaea and instituted by Antiochus IV Epiphanes to oversee the implementation of Antiochus’ anti-Jewish laws.  This information is paralleled in 1 Macc. 6:55 – 63. In 1 Macc. 6:14, Philip is introduced as “one of the king’s friends (ἕνα τῶν φίλων),” indicating his elevated status within the Seleucid administration.  This is believed to be historical by B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea (3 vols.; Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes A.G., 1893 – 1903) 3:243 and there, n. 3; M. Zambelli, “La composizione del secundo libro dei Maccabei e la nuova cronologia di Antioco IV Epifane,” Miscellenea Greca e Romano 1 (1965): 232; J. G. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 58.

120

Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History

who was intimately linked with Antiochus IV Epiphanes. Once more, we are left with the same impression from our complementary sources, 1 Maccabees and Josephus, which mention a Seleucid official called Philip in conjunction both with the death of Antiochus IV and Lysias’ second campaign against the Jews. Therefore, the note in 2 Macc. 9:29, which suggests that a different Philip accompanied Antiochus’ IV body to Antioch, but decided to find asylum in Egypt, seems awkward.⁵⁷ For, instead of assuming that 2 Maccabees narrates the same historical circumstances, but refers to two men named Philip, it seems more reasonable to assume that both Philips were one and the same person, as is indeed suggested by parallel evidence. Moreover, both Philips, that of 1 and that of 2 Maccabees, are designated as the king’s “friend” and chief minister,⁵⁸ which indicates that both books shared a common source.⁵⁹ Since 2 Maccabees, as noted, introduces Philip as a different individual, the assumption of a shared source of 1 and 2 Maccabees, however, requires us to decide which of the two books preserves the more credible account. D. Gera gives preference to 1 Maccabees, in this instance, a view to which I consent.⁶⁰ The version of the story in 2 Maccabees should thus be viewed as a result of the epitomizer’s/Jerusalemite editor’s reworking of the original account by Jason of Cyrene; and that view is supported by additional evidence from Babylonia, which suggests that Philip, in fact, completed his mission and escorted Epiphanes’ body to Antioch.⁶¹ As noted, this leaves us with the conclusion that, on the one hand, 2 Maccabees’ epitomizer or final editor deliberately tampered with Jason’s original text – a fact that is well known and hardly surprising – and on the other hand, it follows that there was only one Philip.⁶² It remains to be asked why the epitomizer or final editor of 2 Maccabees transformed Philip into two separate people. Gera suggests seeking the explanation in the attitude displayed by the epitomizer/final editor, who is at pains to blacken the arch-enemies of the pious Jewish people: Jason and Menelaus. Accordingly, both are punished for their misdeeds by dying outside their homeland

 D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 256.  1 Macc. 6:14– 15 and 56; 2 Macc. 9:29, 13:23; Cf. Ant. 12.360, 379.  D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 256 – 258.  D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 257.  BM 41670; 41840; 41915; 422239, see A. J. Sachs and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (3 vols.; ADRT; Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988 – 1996).  D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 259.

6 The Forensics of Onias’ Murder: On Philip, Onias III, and the Escape to Egypt

121

and being denied burial in their ancestral tombs.⁶³ By analogy, the assertion that Philip aborted his mission to escort Antiochus IV’s corpse to Antioch but fled to Egypt instead, signals to the reader that Antiochus, too, was punished by not being buried in his homeland. Therefore, depicting the events of 163 BCE, the epitomizer or final editor was forced to find an alternative solution for Philip and his mission and simply made Philip a different person in 2 Macc. 9:29. It has been noted that Philip’s flight bears a marked resemblance to Onias’ escape to Egypt, where he found shelter with the same king (Ptolemy VI Philometor).⁶⁴ Gera posits that the story of Philip’s search for asylum in Egypt is a doublet of the story of Onias’ flight and that the story of his murder in 2 Macc. 4:36 – 38 is “in all likelihood fictitious.”⁶⁵ That suggestion is interesting mainly for two reasons: firstly, it bolsters the notion that the epitomizer or the final editor deliberately re-worked the biography of Onias III in Jason’s original work with a rather heavy editorial hand. Secondly, it tends to confirm the assumption that Onias III indeed fled to safety in Egypt as suggested by other extant sources, chief among them Josephus’ BJ. I have claimed earlier, in agreement with several other scholars, that Onias’ alleged murder at the hands of Andronicus really was modeled after the murder of Antiochus IV’s nephew according to Diodorus 30.7.2. This was done by the epitomizer or final editor in order to present Onias as a martyr, to emphasize the wickedness of Menelaus (one of the Jews’ arch-nemeses in the composition) by pinning the blame for Onias’ murder on him, and to instrumentalize Onias to sanction the legitimacy of Hasmonean rule over Jerusalem and the Temple by having him appear in Judas’ dream-vision. Once more, the epitomizer/final editor achieves all this by having Onias die rather early in the narrative. I suggest that, much as the epitomizer/final editor interchanged Antiochus IV’s nephew with Onias III in 2 Macc. 4:36 – 38 and faked Onias’ assassination, he also exchanged Philip with Onias III in the story of the escape to Egypt in 2 Macc. 9:29 and thus faked Philip’s flight to Egypt. In other words, the epitomizer/final editor seems to have been familiar with the details of Onias’ III biography including the latter’s flight to Egypt and used those details and events in order to make them conform to his own Tendenz and narratological purposes. Hence, I propose that the epitomizer/final editor recycled the information of Onias III’s flight to Egypt for his story on Philip and his abandonment of Antiochus IV’s corpse, and that he could only do so because he earlier exchanged Antiochus’ nephew with Onias in the

 D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 258 and 2 Macc. 5:9 – 10; 13:4– 8.  D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 257.  D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 258.

122

Chapter 2 The Second Book of Maccabees and Oniad History

story of the former’s murder as narrated by Diodorus. Therefore, it is attractive to conclude that the story on Philip’s flight to Egypt in 2 Macc. 9:29, in fact, constitutes a trace of the original story of Onias’ III flight to Egypt.⁶⁶

7 Conclusion Our discussion of 2 Maccabees has yielded the following conclusions regarding Onias III and the subsequent history of Onias and Onias’ Temple: (1) We have discerned that the details of Onias’ III death in 2 Macc. 4:36 are legendary and based on a story preserved in Diodorus Siculus 30.7.2. Diodorus’ version of the story recounts the assassination of the son of Seleucus IV by the Seleucid official Andronicus. 2 Maccabees’ rendition of the story simply exchanged Andronicus’ victim with Onias III, thus portraying him as one of Judaism’s martyrs, who fulfill a crucial task in the composition as a whole. (2) It is likely that Onias died a peaceful death around the years 145 – 143/142 BCE. The epitomizer or the Jerusalemite editor, who edited the previously abbreviated version of Jason of Cyrene’s 2 Maccabees, purposefully or not, introduced the note that Onias III was murdered at Daphne near Antioch. He should also be held responsible for exchanging Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ nephew with Onias III as Andronicus’ victim. (3) Contrary to the view held by some scholars, no hostility or polemics against the Oniads and their temple are evident in the work.⁶⁷ Conversely, Onias is depicted and praised in the highest tones, which suggests that the initial version of 2 Maccabees by Jason of Cyrene was written prior to the Hasmonean takeover of power in Jerusalem.⁶⁸ We discern too, that the figure of Onias fulfils the purpose of legitimizing Hasmonean rule in the narrative of 2 Maccabees.

 This conclusion has ramifications for the assumption of a gap in 2 Macc. 4:6 – 7, as suggested first and foremost by I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 91– 92, who believed that the gap contained the information of Onias’ flight to Egypt. See also F. Parente, “Onias’ III’s Death,” 82 and F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 434.  On the notion of anti-Oniad tendencies in 2 Maccabees, see E. J. Bickerman, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v.Chr. (II Macc. 1:1– 9),” ZNW 32 (1933): 250; J. G. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 527– 617; Chr. Habicht, 2. Makkabäerbuch, 1:170, 186, who deems the work an “Agitationschrift;” J. A. Goldstein, II Maccabees (Anchor Bible 41 A; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983) 161– 163; R. Doran, Temple Propaganda, 11– 12, 17– 18 and see also on the issue of polemics, D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 12– 14 [Hebrew].  D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 12– 14.

7 Conclusion

123

(4) The positive depiction of Onias in 2 Maccabees, and the attempts to convey that he approved of Hasmonean rule of Jerusalem and the Temple, we believe, served as a tool to equally convince the Jews of the Diaspora to accept the Hasmoneans as Judaea’s new legitimate rulers. (5) The story of Philip’s flight to Egypt (2 Macc. 9:29) was modeled after Onias’ flight by the epitomizer or the Jerusalemite editor who created “another Philip” in this story in order to convey that the arch-villain Antiochus IV Epiphanes was not buried with his ancestors as a punishment for his misdeeds against the Jews. The epitomizer/Jerusalemite editor, thus, was familiar with the story of Onias’ flight, but had him deliberately killed in 2 Macc. 4:36 – 38 and used the story of his flight in the historical context of Philip. Hence, the possibility remains that there indeed is a narratological gap in 2 Macc. 4:6 – 7 that may have contained the information on Onias’ flight which was later remodeled by the epitomizer/Jerusalemite editor.

Postscript: Theodore of Mopsuestia In the framework of a discussion of the history of Onias’ Temple, and with particular regard to the question of the identity of the temple’s builder, we now turn our attention to the intriguing case of the 4th-5th century Church Father, bishop, and contemporary of Jerome, Theodore of Mopsuestia (ca. 350 – 428 CE).¹ In his Commentary on the Psalms 54(55), which refers to the events surrounding Onias III and his temple-building project, Theodore makes an astonishing deviation. The individual commentaries on each Psalms are preceded by a short proverbium – an introduction or summary, so to speak, which serve to provide a general (historical) background for the reader to enable him or her to properly understand the subsequent, more detailed, verse-by-verse commentary.² The Latin name of that foreword is argumentum psalmi and it is in the argumentum of Psalm 54(55), just as in the previous argumenti, that Theodore meticulously recounts (and rephrases) the contents of 2 Maccabees 3 – 4.³ However, and precisely where 2 Maccabees is about to inform us on the assassination of Onias III at Daphne (2 Macc. 4:34 – 36), Theodore discards his source and introduces another one, which recounts the flight of Onias III to Egypt, where he established a temple. It seems that Theodore, here, purposefully introduces additional material, probably, because he thought this “new” material to be superior to his previous source.⁴ It has been suggested that this new source was Josephus’ Onias narrative in his Judaean War (BJ 1.31– 33; 7.423),

 Who is otherwise known as Theodore of Antioch. On Theodore see R. Devresse, “Le Commentaire de Theodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes,” RB 37 (1928): 340 – 366; R. Devresse, Essai sur Théodre de Mopsueste (Studi e testi 141; Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948); C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese (Theophaneia 23; Köln/Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1974); K.-G. Wesseling, “Theodor von Mopsuestia,” in BiographischBibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL), ed. by F. W. Bautz and T. Bautz (14 vols.; Hamm/Herzberg: Bautz, 1996) 11:885 – 909; R. C. Hill, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on Psalms 1 – 81 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006).  F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 430.  R. Devresse, Le Commentaire, 351.  That Theodore combines two different sources is commonly acknowledged, see e. g. F. W. A. Baethgen, “Siebzehn makkabäische Psalmen nach Theodor von Mopsuestia,” ZAW 6 (1886): 277– 278; C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen, 90; F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 433 – 434. Also Schäublin notes that Theodore abandoned the narrative of 2 Maccabees right at the moment when we expect to hear on the assassination of Onias and splices in Josephus’ War-account – probably relying on BJ 7.423 – 436. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-006

Postscript: Theodore of Mopsuestia

125

but that assumption is disputable.⁵ In view of that, we must ask two questions: Why did Theodore change his previous source and what could that new source have been? The first question, namely why Theodore substituted his previous source for another, is best explained by the fact that he simply held his new source as the superior. As to the second question on the origins of that source, some scholars have argued that Theodore, perhaps, did not abandon his main source (2 Maccabees) at all and that he was in possession of Jason’s of Cyrene original, unabridged version of 2 Maccabees.⁶ Let me add here that much of this argument depends on the assumption of a hiatus in 2 Maccabees 4:6 – 7 – an assumption that is by and large contested.⁷ Another possibility is that Theodore’s version of 2 Maccabees simply did not include the story of Onias’ death for one reason or the other.⁸ Yet, we find ourselves in the unfortunate position of not being able to verify either one of those two conjectures. If Theodore did not dispose of Jason’s original 2 Maccabees, or a laconic version thereof, then two other possibilities remain: first, Josephus’ report on the flight of Onias in his Judaean War, and second, a Jewish tradition akin to that preserved in rabbinic literature (the baraitot in Y Yoma 6, 3 [43c-d]; B Menaḥot 109b). Theodore, who, like so many other Fathers of the Church, was certainly familiar with Josephus’ writings and thus could have been induced to abandon 2 Maccabees in favor of the Josephan accounts.⁹ On the other hand, it has been noted too that, Josephus, although a revered source for the Antiochian

 R. Devresse, Le Commentaire, 353.  R. Devreesse, Le Commentaire, 353; M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 47– 48 [Hebrew]; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 303; F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 429 – 436. This assumption holds that the epitomizer of Jason’s original composition was responsible for the editing of the original, while having Onias III killed in Antioch for polemical reasons. See our discussion in Chapter 2. Parker holds the opposite view, namely that Theodore only had a partial version of 2 Maccabees on his table that lacked, for some reason, information about the subsequent fate of Onias, coercing Theodore to consult a supplementary source, namely Josephus. Compare V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien,” 150 – 151. However, that suggestion is little convincing.  See for instance I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 91– 92; F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 82, 96; F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 434– 435.  This would once more raise the issue of why one would invent the story of Onias’ death in the first place. On this issue, see the previous chapter (Chapter 2), pp. 108 – 123.  H. Schreckenberg, “The Works of Josephus and the Early Christian Church,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987) 315 – 324; J. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 303; I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 94; M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:270, 406.

126

Postscript: Theodore of Mopsuestia

school,¹⁰ seems not to have been on Theodore’s table in this case.¹¹ Rather, Theodore seems to have obtained this piece of information from the very same tradition the Rabbis made use of later (Y Yoma 6:3 [43 c-d]; B Menaḥot 109b), which ascribes the foundation of Onias’ Temple to the son of Simon the Just, i. e., Onias III.¹² This assumption, however, raises the question of how, and from where Theodore would have attained information of this kind?

 S. Castelli, “On Josephus’ Reception in Medieval Syriac Literature.” Paper given on February 11th, 2011 at the Düsseldorf conference on the subject: “Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur in ihrem interkulturellen Kontext.” On Josephus’ role at the Antiochian exegetical school, see also C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen, 89 – 90.  There are several problems with the assumption that Theodore used Josephus as a source for his commentary on Psalm 54(55). One is that Theodore explicitly cites Josephus as a source only three times in his commentary (Psalms 34, 13b [184,10] and 65,3b [422,1]), which does not necessarily mean that apart from those three instances, he ceases to quote Josephus altogether. But, as Schäublin has noted, Theodore deviates quite extensively from the Josephan text which could have two reasons: (a) that he had a different manuscript of Josephus, or (b) that he simply cites him with no great precision. C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen, 89. Note too, that Theodore refers to Josephus’ writings as Historia Iudaica in his Commentary on 2 Timothy (4:10). Which work he may have referred to is unclear, but the name suggests the Antiquities (C. Schäublin, Untersuchungen, 89 – 90), which pertains to another problem, namely that, given the contradictory nature of Josephus’ Onias narratives in BJ and Antiquities with respect to the identity of the temple builder, Theodore was obliged to decide between one or the other. He obviously chose BJ, as was common in the Antiochian school of exegesis (see our previous note and F. Baethgen, “Siebzehn makkabäische Psalmen,” 280 – 283).  Contra Baethgen who maintains that Theodore’s commentary on the Psalms is void of any Jewish influences. Compare F. Baethgen, “Siebzehn makkabäische Psalmen,” 268 – 269. Also Parente concedes not to identify Josephus as Theodore’s source, see F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 433 – 434. He notes that: (1) Theodore passes over the expulsion of the Tobiads, which is a crucial part of Josephus’ narrative in BJ 1.32; (2) Theodore could not have used BJ 7.432, which gives another sequence of events than in BJ 1.31– 33; (3) Theodore could have had access to material of another Jewish historian, similar to Josephus, who was revered in the Christian milieu; (4) Theodore refrains from providing any theological reasons for Onias actions, such as the lack of the remark that Onias violated Deuteronomistic law (Deut 12) which prohibits the establishment of sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem. Nevertheless, Parente, too, rejects the possibility that Theodore based his report on a source shared by him and the Rabbis. He opts for a source that was used by Jason of Cyrene and once filled the presumed hiatus in 2 Macc. 4:6 – 7. See F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 434– 435. On that note, we should perhaps remark that Parente misunderstood M. Stern’s conclusions (“The Death of Onias III,” 35 – 50 [Hebrew]). F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 431– 433. Parente refers to the problems of the historicity of 2 Maccabees’ report on Onias’ death discussed by Stern, but believes that Stern too, eventually, favors to identify Onias III with the founder of the temple. Stern, however, concludes that Onias IV built the Oniad Temple.

Postscript: Theodore of Mopsuestia

127

It is no secret that the Fathers of the Church had much contact with the local Jewish communities in whose midst they resided. Origen for instance, is known to have been a frequent attendee of the local Caesarean synagogue services and was thus familiarized with many Jewish traditions and hermeneutics;¹³ and similarly so Eusebius.¹⁴ Returning to Theodore, we recall that he was a resident of Antioch, which, apart from being an important center of Christianity, was host to a sizable and thriving Jewish community as well.¹⁵ Theodore was thus enrooted in an environment that provided profound exposure to Jewish traditions, which could have influenced him and thus found their way into his works. Therefore, an oral tradition that negated the information provided by his main source (2 Maccabees) could certainly have been sufficient evidence for Theodore to change his narrative. In addition, it is intriguing to note that at Antioch itself – Theodore’s city of residence and the location of Onias’ III alleged murder – nothing seems to have been known of Onias’ assassination contrary to what we may expect.¹⁶ The lack of a local tradition of the murder of Onias at Antioch, however, is hardly surprising in light of the assumption that this event simply never took place. In sum, the fact that Theodore deliberately chose to discard the information on the murder of Onias III and his substitution of the story with an alternative tradition, strengthens my hypothesis to identify Onias III with the founder of the Oniad Temple and to reject the historicity of 2 Maccabees with respect to this event.

 See e. g., N. R. M. De Lange, Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976) and D. J. Halperin, The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988) 324– 325.  H. W. Attridge and G. Hata, “Introduction,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. by W. Attridge and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992) 33.  On the Jewish community in Antioch see C. H. Kraeling, “The Jewish Community at Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932): 130 – 160; W. A. Meeks and R. L. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (SBL 13; Missoula, 1978); G. Downey, A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961); J. H. W. G. Liebeschuetz, Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972).  One may ponder whether Theodore inquired with local Jewry if there existed a local tradition confirming the Onias’ assassination at Daphne, as chronicled in 2 Macc. 4:33 – 36.

Chapter 3 The Book of Daniel 1 Introduction In the words of E. Bickerman, the Book of Daniel comprises one of the “four strange books of the Bible.”¹ It is also the Hebrew Bible’s only apocalyptic composition.² In fact, it is so exceptional – to use a better term than strange – that the canonizers of the Hebrew Bible chose to place Daniel in the section of the Writings and not in the section of Prophets, as it is in the Christian Bibles. What distinguishes apocalyptic literature (i. e. revelatory literature) from prophetic literature is that a certain individual, mostly a very pious man, experiences a “revelation of the things to come,” mainly via mediation of an angel.³ Yet, prior to the revelation of things to come, an apocalyptic vision usually refers to certain historical events of the recent past, clothed in symbolic and cryptic language, and continues from there to make its predictions. These allusions to historical events allow historians to determine a more or less accurate dating of apocalyptic compositions, because the points where the apocalyptic vision ceases to be historically sound constitute termini post quem for the composition. This method has allowed scholars to determine the date of the composition of the Book of Daniel to ca. 165 BCE, a view that has become the communis opinio. ⁴ Given the Maccabean date of the composition of the Book of Daniel, and because of its replete historical references and allusions to the eve of the Maccabean re-

 E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther (New York: Schocken Books, 1967) 53 – 138. The literature on the Book of Daniel is extensive. For an overview of various secondary literature and commentaries on the Book of Daniel, see K. Koch, Das Buch Daniel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980) XI-XVI.  J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 85.  J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 1– 42.  There still persists a debate about the unity of the book, which for obvious reasons bears on the question of the time of its composition. Most scholars believe that the Book of Daniel essentially comprises two parts; one older stratum of stories on the figure of Daniel (Dan 1– 6) which was perhaps compiled and written down in the Persian period; and one later stratum (Dan 7– 12) written in the Hellenistic period, specifically around the eve of the Maccabean revolt. See e. g. E. Bickerman, Four Strange Books, 54; J. J. Collins, Daniel with and Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (FOTL XX; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984) 30; J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994) 324; K. Koch, Das Buch Daniel, 8 – 12, 55 – 77. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-007

2 Daniel 9:26

129

volt,⁵ it has been argued that the book must hence contain references to the Oniad high priestly dynasty, too, in particular, with regard to two verses: Dan 9:26 and Dan 11:22.⁶ Let us elucidate both references.

2 Daniel 9:26 When discussing the references in the Book of Daniel to Onias III, most scholars take the following verse to refer primarily to Onias.⁷ ‫ ְוַעד ֵקץ‬,‫ ְוִקצּוֹ ַב ֶשֶּׁטף‬,‫קּ ֶדשׁ ַי ְשִׁחית ַעם ָנ ִגיד ַה ָבּא‬ ֹ ‫ יִ ָכּ ֵרת ָמ ִשׁי ַח ְוֵאין לוֹ; ְוָהִעיר ְוַה‬,‫ְוַאֲח ֵרי ַה ָשֻּׁבִעים ִשׁ ִשּׁים וּ ְשׁ ַניִם‬ ⁸.‫שֵׁממוֹת‬ ֹ ‫ ֶנֱח ֶרֶצת‬,‫ִמְלָחָמה‬

The verse predicts that an “anointed one will be cut down” and that the holy city of Jerusalem, as well as its sanctuary, will be laid to waste and that war will ensue. With our knowledge of the historical events on the eve of the Maccabean revolt we are inclined to interpret this prophecy to mean that the “anointed one,” i. e. a high priest, will be “cut down” (‫ )יכרת‬during the Antiochic persecutions and invasions of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes in the years 168 and 167 BCE.⁹ In the wake of those invasions and the ensuing battles between the pro-Seleucid and the pro-Ptolemaic partisans in Jerusalem (to the latter of whom Onias was affiliated), the city experienced a fair amount of damage. As a result of this confrontation, the Temple was desecrated and it is this event to which both Daniel (in this verse) and, most prominently, the Books of the Maccabees, refer to.¹⁰ Thus, we should understand the Danielic verse (9:26) in the context of the desecration of the Temple and the civil war that befell Jerusalem.

 Especially Dan 7 and 11.  See the subsequent note.  See the discussions by the following scholars: M. Beek, “Relations entre Jérusalem,” 123; I. L. Seeligman The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 94; M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 50 [Hebrew]; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 191; J. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 558 – 559; V. Keil, “Onias III, Martyrer oder Tempelgründer?” 221– 232; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 20; F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 88 – 94; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 302; and more recently, P. R. Davies, “If the Lord’s Anointed had Lived,” 151– 160.  “After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war (NRSV).”  Regarding the twofold invasions of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, see Chapter 1, p. 103, n. 188.  1 Macc. 1:29 – 64; 2 Macc. 4:7– 22; 5:11– 21.

130

Chapter 3 The Book of Daniel

The reference regarding the “anointed one” is somewhat more complex to grasp. Some scholars understood it to mean that the reigning high priest of the time, Onias III, was killed. That assumption is usually based on the interpretation of the verb ‫כרת‬.¹¹ While this meaning of the word works in certain other contexts and occurrences, in this case however, it by no means denotes the death of Onias III (or death in general). Rather, the word ‫ כרת‬as it is employed here means “to cease” or “to cut off” (as is indeed rendered in most translations).¹² Assuming that Onias III is being alluded to here, this interpretation makes all the difference with regard to its historical understanding since it merely refers to the abrupt end of the Zadokite/Oniad high priesthood that had been installed for centuries.¹³ Therefore, we should reject the assumption made by several scholars that Daniel 9:26 alludes to the death of Onias III. This also has ramifications for the treatment of our other extant sources for the history of the Oniad Temple, specifically on 2 Maccabees (4:34– 36) and on the relevant passages in Josephus. We recall that 2 Maccabees 4:34– 36 tells us about the murder of Onias III in Antioch around 171 BCE. We remember too, that the note on Onias’ demise is at odds with Onias’ fate recorded by Josephus in BJ 1.31– 33 and BJ 7.420 – 435 and his later reports (in the Antiquities) that Onias III had died a natural death – perhaps even later than 171 BCE.¹⁴ Now, in the context of the debate about the founder of Onias’ Temple, it is not coincidental that the very same scholars who argue for the historicity of the datum on Onias’ death in 2 Maccabees and for the superiority of Josephus’ Antiquities accounts vis-à-vis his account

 See J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1927) 381– 382, 451; J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 356, 382. Christian tradition sees here a reference to the murder of Jesus Christ, whereas later Jewish interpreters, such as Rashi, understood the verse to refer to Agrippa I. Pseudo-Saadia, in line with our understanding, saw here a reference to the cessation of the priestly line. See J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 356 and there, nn. 90 – 91. Collins comments that “Modern critics generally recognize here a reference to the murder of the high priest Onias III, recorded in 2 Macc. 4:23 – 28” and likewise connects this verse with Dan 11:22, J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 356, 382. Church Fathers such as Jerome, who cites Eusebius’ Chronicon, saw here a reference to the death of Hyrcanus II, the last high priest of the Hasmonean line, whereas Jerome himself referred the passage to the death of the Messiah, see J. Braverman, Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978) 106 – 107.  See e. g. Dan 9:26 (NRSV) and even already in the King James Edition of the Bible. See also M. Beek, “Relations entre Jérusalem,” 123.  See e. g. 1Sam 2:27– 36; 1Kings 2:27, 35; 1Chron 15:11– 12.  Cf. Ant. 12.387; 13.62– 73; 20.235 – 236.

3 Daniel 11:22

131

in the Judaean War, are the same scholars who read Daniel 9:26 as a reference to Onias’ death.¹⁵ We should also consider that the Danielic piece of information belongs to the genre of prophetic/apocalyptical literature and not to historiography, which somewhat diminishes its historical value. This notwithstanding, it still remains one of our sources and demands our attention. The fact still remains that Daniel 9:26 does not allude to the violent death of Onias III, but alludes to his removal from office and to that of his dynasty. This observation is thus in line with our previous findings that undermine the assumption that Onias IV was the builder of Onias’ Temple. Let us now discuss a second possible reference to the death of Onias III in Daniel.

3 Daniel 11:22 This verse is embedded into the broader context of Daniel’s vision of the historical events prior to and during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel. It relates the events of the so-called Syrian Wars between the Seleucids and Ptolemies and their struggle over Judaea.¹⁶ In the context of the Ptolemaic-Seleucid political struggles, Dan 11:21 directly alludes to the ascension of Antiochus IV to the Seleucid throne and slanders him as an illegitimate usurper.¹⁷ The subsequent verse, the one which is of our concern here, anticipates the outcome of Antiochus IV’s reign, and continues with the prediction that all resistance met by the king will be futile, because he will eventually prevail over all opposition. This also includes the opposition of the so-called “prince of the covenant” (‫)נגיד ברית‬, who is mentioned in the verse somewhat in passing:¹⁸ ¹⁹.‫ ְנ ִגיד ְבּ ִרית‬,‫ ְויִ ָשֵּׁברוּ; ְו ַגם‬,‫וּ ְזר ֹעוֹת ַה ֶשֶּׁטף יִ ָשְּׁטפוּ ִמ ְלָּפ ָניו‬

 See e. g. M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 191; J. Bunge, Untersuchungen, 558 – 590; M. Stern, “The Death of Onias III,” 50 [Hebrew]; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 20 (and there, n. 3).  On the Syrian Wars, see G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 111– 134.  J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 382.  The ‫ נגיד‬can denote a “prince,” a “leader,” a “ruler” (1Sam 9:16; 10:1; 13:14; 2Sam 6:21; 7:8; 1Kings 1:35; 14:7), or even a “military leader” (1Chron 13:1; 2Chron 32:21).  “Armies shall be utterly swept away and broken before him, and the prince of the covenant as well (NRSV).”

132

Chapter 3 The Book of Daniel

The reference is rather vague, as is the understanding of the designation of the ‫“( נגיד‬prince”, or “leader of the covenant”).²⁰ Thus, it is unclear if the high priest (Onias III) is actually being referred to here. We may only infer this from the circumstance that the high priest, beginning with the Second Temple period, became the de facto leader of the nation and the state-official. Therefore, it would make sense to identify the nagid with the supreme state official. All that Dan 11:22 states, however, is that the nagid’s power has been broken, just as in case of the “anointed one” in Dan 9:26. Nothing, in fact, is said about the nagid’s death.²¹ Nonetheless, as in case of Dan 9:26, some modern scholars have discerned a reference to the death of Onias in this verse (i. e. Dan 11:22). True, the historical context in which Dan 11:22 is embedded belongs to the life time of Onias III, but it seems that the verse alludes to a later point in Antiochus IV’s reign.²² Taking this into consideration, we are still left with only a vague reference, if any at all, to Onias III in Dan 9:26 and 11:22. Those verses could likely allude to Onias’ loss of power in the wake of Antiochus IV Epiphanes accession and his ensuing invasion of Judaea. The assumption that both verses necessarily refer to Onias’ death is therefore impossible to establish.

 Collins translates: “the ruler of the covenant;” J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 382.  See also F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 94; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 302.  See J. A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, 451 and J. J. Collins, Daniel: A Commentary, 382.

Postscript: The Silence of the Lambs: The ‘Animal Apocalypse’ and the Death of Onias III (1 Enoch 90:8) Next to the Book of Daniel, it was postulated that the Animal Apocalypse, too, contains an alleged reference to the death of Onias. The composition not only shares its apocalyptical genre with the Book of Daniel, but also the date of its composition.¹ The Animal Apocalypse belongs to the Book of Dreams (1 Enoch 83 – 90) that delineates two of Enoch’s dreams. Enoch’s first dream (1 Enoch 83 – 84) concerns the deluge (Gen 6:9 – 8:22). The second dream (85 – 90) constitutes a compendium of world history from creation until the messianic era. In contradistinction to other apocalyptical compositions, the author of the Animal Apocalypse creatively projects his historical allusions into the animal world. The first verses of Chapter 90 cover the period of Alexander the Great to the Maccabean revolt, which is roughly the same period covered by the author(s) of Daniel’s apocalypse (Dan 7– 12).² It has thus been contended that the following verse of the Animal Apocalypse alludes to the death of Onias III:³

 On the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, see P. A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SBL, Early Judaism and its Literature 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993); G. W. E. Nickelsburg and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004) 3 – 84; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 67– 70; B. Ego, “The Hellenistic Crisis as Reflected by the Animal Apocalypse: Aetiological and Eschatological Aspects,” in Judaism and Crisis: Crisis as a Catalyst in Jewish Cultural History, ed. by A. Lange, K. F. D. Römheld, and M. Weigold (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) 75 – 87.  See e. g. R. H. Charles, “The Book of Enoch,” in Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. by R. H. Charles (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 2:170 – 171; J. T. Milik (with M. Black), The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) 44; P. A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 61– 82; L. T. Stuckenbruck, “‘Reading the Present’ in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85 – 90),” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. by K. De Troyer and A. Lange (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 91, 94– 95.  See e. g. R. H. Charles, “The Book of Enoch,” 2:257; J. T. Milik, The Books of Enoch, 43; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 20 (and there, n. 3), and more carefully I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 94; J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 302; J. J. Collins, The Apocalyptic Imagination, 69. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-008

134

Postscript: The Silence of the Lambs

And I saw in the vision how the ravens flew upon those lambs and took one of those lambs, and dashed the sheep in pieces and devoured them.⁴

This rather cryptic text states that the “ravens” picked one victim amongst the “lambs” and slayed it. The “ravens” stand for the Seleucids, while the “lambs” are usually identified with high priests. We recall that the larger historical context of this verse is the eve of the Maccabean revolt and therefore, it has been suggested that this verse be read as a reference to the death of Onias III around the year 171 BCE.⁵ But as I concur with Parente, the verse hardly refers to the assassination of Onias as it is narrated in 2 Maccabees. Rather, the verse describes the indiscriminate killing of a random victim, not a specific one – even if we accept that the “lambs” represent high priests in this context. 1 Enoch 90:8, for that matter, may allude to the murder of other high priests during the period of the Maccabean revolt and there is an array of candidates other than Onias we may think of, for instance Menelaus.⁶ Hence, just as in the cases of Dan 9:26 and 11:22, also in case of 1 Enoch 90:8, we cannot conclude that this is any clear-cut reference to the death of Onias III. Consequently, we should discard the texts as sound historical evidence attesting to the death of Onias III prior to his escape to Egypt.

 Translation: R. H. Charles, “The Book of Enoch,” 2:257.  L. T. Stuckenbruck, “’Reading the Present’,” 96.  The death of Menelaus is narrated at 2 Macc. 13.3 – 7; see also Ant. 12.285, 387; 20.235. Note in that context Tiller’s emendation of the text of our passage in Enoch, which introduces a plural reading: “seized those lambs.” P. A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 349 and his comments on the more usual singular reading, P. A. Tiller, A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse, 353 – 354. Parente neglects the evidence altogether and comments that the passage has nothing to say specifically, but rather refers to the general slaughter that ensued during the capture of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV Epiphanes. He also refers to events in Jonathan’s time as a possible background to this allusion. See F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 94– 95.

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias Viele beklagten sich, daß die Worte der Weisen immer wieder nur Gleichnisse seien, aber unverwendbar im täglichen Leben und nur dieses allein haben wir (Franz Kafka, Von den Gleichnissen, 1922).

1 Introduction: Some Methodological Remarks Before delving into the analysis of the rabbinic foundation story of Onias’ Temple, some methodological remarks are in order. Firstly, although the Temple of Onias is mentioned in several places in the vast corpus of rabbinic literature, not all of these instances pertain to, or more precisely, purport to pertain to the history of the Oniad Temple.¹ Therefore, I will focus solely on a baraita (a ruling or tradition of oral nature that is not included in the Mishnah) that is preserved in the Palestinian Talmud (Yerushalmi; Y Yoma 6,3 [43 c-d]) and its parallel in the Babylonian Talmud (Bavli; B Menaḥot 109b) that tells us about the circumstances of the foundation of the Temple of Onias. Secondly, and at the heart of the matter, stands the issue of how to approach rabbinic texts from a historical perspective; for rabbinic texts are infamous for their notorious a-historicity.² Attempting to extract historical data from rabbinic texts is difficult, if not impossible. In the past, rabbinic literature was read as if everything said there indeed happened, but recent scholarship has distanced itself from this view and postulates a “new historical approach” to rabbinic texts. This approach demands a more careful reading of rabbinic texts, meaning that they reflect the (historical) social and cultural context of its authors, rather than that of a given text’s purported (historical) context.³ In other words, rabbin-

 Onias’ Temple, or ‫בית חוניו‬, as it is referred to there, is mentioned in M Menaḥot 13:10; T Men. 13:12– 15; B Men. 109a-b; Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d); B Megillah 10a and B Avodah Zarah 52b.  P. Schäfer, “Die Geschichtsauffassung des rabbinischen Judentums,” JSJ 6 (1975): 167– 188; M. D. Herr, “The Conception of History among the Sages,” in Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 6 (3 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977) 3:129 – 142 [Hebrew]; M. Bergman, “Past and Present in Midrashic Literature,” HAR 2 (1978): 45 – 59. For a more nuanced view, see E. E. Urbach, “Halakha and History,” in Jews, Greeks, and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity; Essays in Honor of William D. Davies, ed. by R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 112– 128.  This is the main assumption of the “new historical approach” in rabbinic studies and championed by scholars such as J. Neusner, Beyond Historicism, after Structuralism: Story as History in https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-009

136

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

ic texts/stories which are placed by the Rabbis into a Second Temple context, for instance, reproduce the socio-historical setting of their authors and not necessarily that of the Second Temple. Accordingly, to return to our subject, Onias’ Temple, we should assume that although the baraitot in Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d) and B Menaḥot 109b tell us about the circumstances of the temple’s foundation, they really are stories about that episode as the Rabbis imagined it to have happened in their Palestinian or Babylonian setting of late antiquity. They are thus highly polished creations influenced by the immediate social and cultural context of their authors and do not convey unequivocal historical facts.⁴ Ancient Judaism (The 1980 Harry Spindel Memorial Lecture, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, Oct. 5, 1980; Portland: Anthoensen Press, 1980) and first and foremost by D. Boyarin, Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995) 1– 30, 227– 245. See also Sh. Friedman, “Historical Aggadah in the Babylonian Talmud,” in Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume, ed. by Sh. Friedman (New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993) 1– 46 [Hebrew]. One should add here, that the scholars adhering to the “new historical” approach, oftentimes undermine the existence of a historical kernel in rabbinic texts too, which represents the other extreme. See e. g. J. Neusner, Beyond Historicism, 24. For more nuanced views, see D. Goodblatt, “Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History,” in History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years, ed. by B. M. Bokser (Brown Judaic Studies 21; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981) 31– 44; S. J. D. Cohen, “Parallel Historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature,” in Proceedings the Ninth World Congress Jewish Studies (Division B; Vol. I: The History of the Jewish People [From the Second Temple Period until the Middle Ages; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986]) 7– 14 (= Studies in Jewish History of the Second Temple Period, ed. by D. R. Schwartz [Jerusalem: The Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1995] 117– 124); A. I. Baumgarten, “Rabbinic Literature as a Source for the History of Jewish Sectarianism in the Second Temple Period,” DSD 2 (1995): 14– 57.  With regard to the Talmudic accounts of Onias’ Temple, Y. Brand, for instance, makes a case for the historicity of the Talmudic accounts on Onias and his temple and accordingly takes their contents at face value. Compare Y. Brand, “On the Episode of Onias’ Temple,” Yavneh 1 (1939): 77 [Hebrew]. For the notion that the Rabbis were an a-historical community, see R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources of the Second Temple Period in Rabbinic Compilations of Late Antiquity,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. by P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 3:52. A good example of the negligent rabbinic attitude towards history is the story of the rift between the Pharisees and the Hasmonean king Alexander Yannai in B Kiddushin 66a. Whereas the Rabbis place the event into the reign of Yannai, Josephus, who preserved the same story in Ant. 13.292– 297, places it into the reign of John Hyrcanus I. This discrepancy has sparked an intense scholarly debate over Josephus’ or the Rabbis’ credibility. For a discussion of this issue see, D. R. Schwartz, “On Pharisaic opposition to the Hasmonean Monarchy,” in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, ed. by D. R. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 44– 56; M. J. Geller, “Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisee Rift,” JJS 30 (1979): 202– 211; J. Efron, Studies on the Hasmonean Period (Leiden: Brill, 1987) 161– 175. What is usually overlooked is an episode narrated in B Beraḥot 29a, which rather freely and comfortably substitutes Hyrca-

2 The Mishnah: M Menaḥot 13:10

137

Nonetheless, even though I intend to apply a “new historical” reading, I too, shall draw attention to the fact that the Rabbis drew on earlier (oral) material in order to create their stories and we should acknowledge that these sources provide some crumbs of information we may deem historical, regardless of what the rabbinic authors/editors made of them later.⁵

2 The Mishnah: M Menaḥot 13:10 The first thing one is taught about the Talmud is that it is comprised of two elements, the Mishnah and the Gemara. Thus, when discussing the Talmud one cannot (and should not) divorce one from the other. A discussion of the Talmudic passages on Onias’ Temple prescribes a succinct discussion of the Mishnah that the Gemara it corresponds to. That having been said, let us have a look at the broader context in which the debate about Onias’ Temple is embedded in rabbinic literature, namely in the tractate Menaḥot. The latter is concerned with the proper manner in which cereal offerings ought to be offered in the Temple and it is therefore related to the tractate Sevaḥim with which it shares some

nus with Yannai. Thus, the attribution of certain events to certain historical figures is rather flexible in rabbinic literature and not really of much concern to the Rabbis. The latter datum epitomizes, in my view, the Rabbi’s attitude towards history, namely general aloofness. Concerning the “rabbinization” of historic events and their connection to Josephus’ writings see S. J. D. Cohen, “Parallel Historical Tradition,” 120 – 122. Recently, R. Kalmin has emphasized that the modern scholarly perception of the Rabbis and historicity should not be portrayed in such “black-and-white” manner. He opts for a much more nuanced approach, meaning that – depending on the case – the historicity of rabbinic accounts varies. R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 52.  D. Boyarin, Carnal Israel, 1– 30, 227– 245; R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 17, 52; See also Sh. Friedman, “Historical Aggadah in the Babylonian Talmud,” 1– 46 [Hebrew]. See also L. I. Levine’s discussion in The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000) 165 – 168, and more specifically related to our topic, R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishnah and Talmud Period: Studies in Honour of Shmuel Safrai, ed. by I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, and M. Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1993) 111 [Hebrew]. R. Kalmin states that “It bears emphasizing that the rabbinic accounts are of very limited historical significance regarding the period they purport to describe. They do provide, however, significant information about the attitudes and polemical preoccupations of the Rabbis themselves.” R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 40. See also his Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006) 77.

138

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

parallels.⁶ M Menaḥot 13:10, the section which discusses the Temple of Onias (‫בית‬ ‫)חוניו‬⁷ notably concludes the whole tractate.⁸ The Mishnah discusses whether the Temple of Onias was a legitimate sanctuary with all its cultic implications and Rabbi’s (R. Yeudah haNasi) Mishnah measures this according to three key aspects: the whole offering, the Nazirite vow, and the priesthood. The reader of the Mishnah is initially impressed by the ambiguity displayed by the Rabbis concerning Onias’ sanctuary. That is, whereas one anonymous opinion voices its opposition towards Onias’ Temple in reference to one aspect or the other, another endorses it. For example, the Mishnah presents two opposing opinions on the Nazirite vow expressed by the anonymous voice, which is then resolved by the negative opinion of Rabbi Shimon (R. Shimon bar Yoḥai), who is, as we take note, really the only person mentioned by name in the text. He has the final verdict on the issue (i. e., the validity

 Ch. Albeck, The Six Orders of the Mishnah: Order Kiddushin (Mossad Bialik: Jerusalem, 1958) 59 [Hebrew].  The Rabbis refer to Onias’ Temple as a “house” ‫( בית חוניו‬and not as ‫ מקדש חוניו‬for example), just as they do in case of the Jerusalem Temple (‫)בית‬. Therefore, there is no reason not to assume that they perceived Onias’ Temple as a sanctuary. Compare Yankelevitch, who emphasizes that only Josephus, in fact, speaks of the Oniad Temple whereas the Rabbis only know of an altar (‫)מזבח‬, or speak of the “House of Onias” (‫)בית חוניו‬. R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” 107 [Hebrew]. Wasserstein, considers the reference to the altar (‫ )מזבח‬as evidence for the performance of sacrifices at Onias’ Temple, A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias,” 124. I concur with Wasserstein and do not see any reason why Onias’ Temple should not have been a proper functioning temple.  The text reads as follows: A: “Behold! I shall sacrifice a whole offering.” He shall sacrifice it in the Temple [i. e. the Jerusalem Temple]; and if he sacrificed it in the Temple of Onias – he did not fulfil his obligation. If I [he] shall sacrifice it at the Temple of Onias – I [he] have [has] fulfilled my [his] obligation. B: Rabbi Shimon says: ‘This cannot be considered a whole offering [then].’ C: “Behold! I am a Nazir” – he shall shave [his hair] at the Temple [in Jerusalem]; and if he shaved [his hair] in the Temple of Onias – he did not fulfil his obligation. When I [he] shall shave [my/his hair] at the Temple of Onias – he shall shave it in the Temple [of Jerusalem]; and if he shaved it at the Temple of Onias – he fulfilled his obligation. D: Rabbi Shimon says: ‘He cannot be considered a Nazir.’ E: The priests that served at the Temple of Onias, shall not serve in the Temple [of Jerusalem], and it is unnecessary to add another matter [i. e., “it is unnecessary to add that priests, who served an idol are disqualified,” M.P.]: ‘The priests of the high places, however, did not come up to the altar of the LORD in Jerusalem, but ate unleavened bread among their kindred [2Kings 23:9, transl. NRSV]’ – Since they are [considered to be] like bearers of imperfection: [They] share [the offerings] and eat them, but [they] do not perform sacrifices.” The translation and division of the text are my own, M.P.

2 The Mishnah: M Menaḥot 13:10

139

of whole offerings and the Nazirite vow) and speaks in clear opposition to the legitimacy of Onias’ Temple.⁹ The Mishnah concludes its ruling in the anonymous voice, stating that priests who served in Onias’ Temple are unfit to perform their duties in the Jerusalem Temple. The Mishnah even goes one step further by equating priests who served in Onias’ Temple with priests bearing impediments, which, according to biblical law (Lev 21:21), renders them unfit for service in the Jerusalemite Temple. This on its own is quite a harsh statement. But there is more. In order to sustain their verdict, the Rabbis cite a biblical verse from the Book of Kings (2Kings 23:9) that notably appears in context of Josiah’s cultic reforms and refers to priests of “high places” who are unfit to serve in the Jerusalem shrine. Thus, by rabbinic standards, Onias’ Temple has the same status as a “high place” (‫במה‬/‫)במות‬, even though, under certain circumstances, offerings and vows may be considered valid there.¹⁰ What we may conclude here is that the Mishnaic debate on Onias’ Temple (which was composed long after the Jerusalem and the Oniad Temples were functional) is, by and large halakhic and thus mainly academic in character.¹¹

 J. Labendz suggests that the Mishnaic addition of R. Shimon’s datum has its roots in his parallel rulings on whole-offerings (‫ )עולה‬and Nazirite vows in the Tosefta. Discussing a parallel in T Ḥullin 2:26, she argues that a vow to bring a whole-offering in a place where such an offering ought not to be made (i. e. in any other place outside of Jerusalem) cannot be considered a whole-offering. R. Shimon, in fact, says nothing on the sacrificial status of Onias’ Temple or the sacrifice, but is rather concerned with the status of the person making the sacrifice or taking the Nazirite vow. His ruling is thus to be seen in light of the laws on whole-offerings and Nazirite vows, and are here applied to the example of Onias’ Temple. J. Labendz, “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature,” (Unpublished Manuscript, 2003) 15 – 17. I am much obliged to Dr. Labendz for agreeing to let me use her study for my purposes.  View also M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 203 and in particular S. A. Hirsch, “The Temple of Onias,” 60, 64, 77– 78 and the subsequent note (n. 11). See also A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 214– 216.  It is thus mainly concerned with the proper handling of worship and whether Onias’ Temple was a legitimate Jewish shrine or a bamah (‫)במה‬. This has been noted by others as well; see e. g. S. A. Hirsch, “The Temple of Onias,” 64, 70, who adds that were it not for the Halakhah, the Rabbis would probably not have mentioned Onias’ Temple at all. See also A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias,” 123, 126; J. Labendz, “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature,” 14; R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” 111– 112, 114 [Hebrew]. According to the latter, the Rabbis also discuss Onias’ Temple against an ideological background. In other words, they contrast Onias’ Temple with the Jerusalem Temple. R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” 112 [Hebrew]. He notes that for the Rabbis, the centrality of Jerusalem as a religious center was of utmost importance and it is on account of that notion that Onias is depicted somewhat shady in the Talmud, R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” 114 [Hebrew].

140

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

Some Rabbis appear to have been quite comfortable with the existence of places of worship outside of the Land of Israel, on the condition that those were dedicated to the Jewish God, and thus not idolatrous, and as long as its servants did not interfere with the cult in Jerusalem.¹² In other words, Onias’ Temple was not treated as an idolatrous Temple, but as one inferior to that in Jerusalem.¹³ The most important point to stress here, though, is that the Tannaim were obviously aware of the existence of the Oniad Temple which was active several centuries prior to the edition of the Mishnah. This fact alone, in my opinion, implies that Onias’ Temple must have been a known and significant Jewish religious center.

3 The Talmudic Stories on the Foundation of Onias’ Temple There are two major rabbinic discussions of Onias’ Temple, one in each of the two Talmudim, in B Menaḥot 109a-b and in Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d), and two additional minor ones in the Bavli (B Megillah 10a and in B Avodah Zarah 52b). Although the two minor debates on the temple in the Bavli provide interesting insights into the overall rabbinic attitude towards the Temple of Onias, they unfortunately contribute little to what we may deem “historical.” For that reason, they are not included in our examination of rabbinic texts on the temple. Only the two major discussions of Onias’ Temple in B Menaḥot 109a-b and Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d), as I have noted above, pertain to – or better: purport to pertain to – the history of Onias’ Temple, i. e., the circumstance of its foundation. The

 J. Labendz, “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature,” 8. See also Appendix 3 on this issue.  Note that the Tosefta is far harsher in its treatment of Onias’ Temple and the people offering sacrifices therein: A: “Behold! I shall sacrifice a whole offering.” He shall sacrifice it in the Temple [i. e. the Jerusalem Temple]. and if he in the Temple of Onias – he did not fulfil his obligation. B: And if he sacrificed it in the House [i. e. Temple] of Onias, he has not carried out his obligation C: and he is liable for his sacrifices [offered therein] to extirpation [‫( ]כרת‬T Men. 13:12). And: A: [He who says] “Lo, I am a Nazirite” shaves in the sanctuary and thereby fulfils his obligation. B: And if he shaved in the House of Onias, he has not carried out his obligation C: and he is liable for his sacrifices [offered therein] to extirpation [‫( ]כרת‬T Men. 13:13). The translation from the Hebrew original is mine, M.P. The Tosefta, adds here the punishment of excision (‫)כרת‬, which is in line with M Keritot 1:1 that prescribes the ‫ כרת‬punishment for offering sacrifices outside of Jerusalem. See J. Labendz, “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature,” 10.

4 Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d) and B Menaḥot 109b: A Textual Overview

141

rabbinic story about the foundation of Onias’ Temple is handed down to us in form of a baraita, and believed to be ancient and thus compulsorily historical. I shall discuss how each of the Talmudim reworked the baraita and will illustrate the differences. Then, I shall attempt to disclose the sources of the baraita and discuss its contents against the background of parallels in the writings of Josephus. In the conclusion, I shall address the question of whether those Talmudic stories preserve any valuable information for the history of the Temple of Onias.

4 Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d) and B Menaḥot 109b: A Textual Overview For the convenience of the reader, I cite the texts in my English translation: Y Yoma , (c-d) ¹⁴

B Menaḥot  b¹⁵ A: “Since it is stated here [i. e. in the Mishnah]: ‘needless to say another matter…[‫אין צריך לומר‬ ‫]דבר אחר‬,’ it follows that the House of Onias [‫ ]בית חוניו‬was not an idolatrous shrine¹⁶. There is a Tannaitic teaching that concurs with the one who says that: ‘[The worship in] the House of Onias is not idolatrous.’ A: “As it is taught: For forty years Shimon the B: As it is taught [in a baraita]: The year that Righteous served Israel in the high priesthood, Shimon the Righteous died, he said to them, and in the last year he said: ‘This year I will ‘This year I will die.’ They said to him, ‘How do die.’ you know?’ C: He said to them, ‘Every Day of Atonement an elder meets me, wearing white and wrapped in white. He enters with me and leaves with me. This year an elder met me dressed in black and wrapped in black. He entered with me but did not leave with me.’ D: After the holiday, [Shimon the Righteous] was sick for seven days and died, and his

 I followed the Hebrew text as published in The Talmud Yerushalmi: According to Ms. Or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2001) 590.  The translation is based on the text as it appears in Babylonian Talmud = Talmud Bavli (Vilna: Romm, 1880 – 1886).  The printed edition based on MS Vilna reads here “sorcery” (‫)עבודת כוכבים‬, while MS Vatican (Bibliotheca Apostolica, Ebr. 120 – 121) and MS Munich (Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Hebr. 95) read “idolatrous shrine” (‫)בית עבודה זרה‬.

142

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

brothers the priests refrained from blessing with God’s name. B: They said to him, ‘Whom shall we appoint E: At the time of his death, he said to [the other after you?’ [Shimon] said to them, ‘Behold, priests], ‘Ḥonio [‫ ]חוניו‬my son will serve in my Neḥunion [‫ ]נחוניון‬¹⁷ my son is before you.’ place.’ C: They went and appointed Neḥunion and F: Shimei [‫]שמעי‬, [Ḥonio’s] brother, was jealous [Shimon] his brother was jealous. of him, for [Shimei] was two and a half years his senior [‫]שהיה גדול ממנו שתי שנים ומחצה‬.¹⁸ C: [Shimon] went and dressed [Neḥunion] in a G: [Shimei] dressed [Ḥonio] in a (under‐)gardress [‫ ]אנקולי‬and girded him with a girdle ment [‫ ]אונקלי‬and girded him with a girdle [‫]צילצול‬. [‫ ]צילצול‬and stood him next to the altar. D: [Shimon] said to them, ‘Look what [NeḥH: [Shimei] said to his brothers the priests, union] vowed to his lover. He said to her, ‘See what vow [Ḥonio] fulfilled for his lover:’

 Concerning the name “Neḥunion,” see below n. 65.  This expression is not one of its kind in the Bavli. It seems to designate an era. See e. g. B Sanhedrin 20a; B Sanhedrin 97b; B Eruvin 13b; B Yevamot 64b; B Ketubot 103b and N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple: The Historical Meaning of a Rabbinic Story,” Zion 78 (2013): 449 and there, n. 30 [Hebrew]. I am indebted to Dr. Hacham for providing me with the manuscript of this paper prior to its publication.  On the “King’s Mountain (‫)הר המלך‬,” see below, n. 32.  Note that the Rabbis do not place Onias’ Temple – as we do – somewhere in the Eastern Nile Delta, but in Alexandria. This should not trouble us for two reasons: (a) like history, geography too is of little relevance in rabbinic literature; Halakhah on the other hand, is. Accordingly, we should not expect accuracy regarding the exact location of Onias’ altar in the first place, which directly leads us to our second point, namely (b): that it is known that “Alexandria” in rabbinic literature, stands, in a symbolic manner, for all of Egypt. The reason for this, so we may surmise, is simply the fact that Alexandria was the most famous city in Egypt and it was a known fact that Alexandria was located in that country. See more recently N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 452 (n. 41) [Hebrew], but also S. A. Hirsch, “Temple of Onias,” 72 and P. Schäfer, “From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small,” 139 (n. 54). Schäfer suggests that the Rabbis deliberately placed the Oniad Temple in Alexandria in order to avoid referring to Leontopolis, which, in their view, was a place of ill-reputation. Furthermore, they sought to portray a contrast between Alexandria and Jerusalem. According to Schäfer, this notion is echoed in the Talmudic correspondence (in B Sanhedrin 207b and parallels) he discusses in his article that refers to Alexandria as “the small,” versus Jerusalem “the great.” He stresses that not the actual sizes of the cities are meant, but rather that the reference here is to the Temples of Onias and Jerusalem, denoting the latter as “the great.” As much as this suggestion sounds appealing, the link between the text Schäfer discusses and B Men. 109b is based on conjecture and not on facts. We therefore have no means to sustain such a claim. A. Wasserstein maintains that the Rabbis confused Alexandria with Leontopolis because in the Byzantine period, Alexandria is often called Leontopolis. A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias,” 125 (and there, n. 34); see also V. L. Parker, “Historische Studien,” 151 n. 33. Moreover, Wasserstein emphasizes that the Rabbis treat the subject of Onias’ Temple on a purely academic level and drew on their memory while composing the accounts and thus confused the two places. A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias,” 126.

4 Y Yoma 6,3 (43 c-d) and B Menaḥot 109b: A Textual Overview

‘When I serve as high priest, I will wear your dress and gird myself with your girdle.’ E: They investigated [the matter], but did not find [Neḥunion, or the report to be true]. F: They said, ‘[Neḥunion] fled from the altar to the King’s mountain [‫]הר המלך‬¹⁹. From there he fled to Alexandria²⁰ where he built an altar and applied to it the verse: “On that day there will be an altar to God in the land of Egypt” [Isa :]. G: And behold it is an a fortiori argument [‫קל‬ ‫]וחומר‬. If this one [Neḥunion], who fled from office, see how he sought for it in the end, one who took the office and left, how much the more so [will he be seeking for it].

143

The day on which I serve as high priest I will wear your dress and gird myself with your girdle.’ His brothers the priests wanted to kill [Ḥonio]. He ran from them and they ran after him. He went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and offered idolatrous²¹ [sacrifices].

I: And when the Sages heard about the matter [‫]וכששמעו חכמים בדבר‬,²² they said, ‘If this one [Ḥonio], who did not take office, [acts] in this fashion, one who takes office, all the more so [will he act in this fashion].’ [These are] the words of R. Meir. H: It is taught: These are the words of R. Meir. J: R. Yehudah said to [R. Meir], ‘That wasn’t how it happened. Rather, Ḥonio did not accept R. Yehudah says, ‘No, rather they appointed Shimon and Neḥunion his brother was jealous. [the high priesthood] upon himself, for Shimei [Neḥunion] went and dressed him in a dress his brother was two and a half years his senior. and girded him with a girdle. [Neḥunion] said And even so, Ḥonio became jealous of his brother Shimei. to them, ‘Look what he vowed to his lover,’ [Ḥonio] said to [Shimei], ‘Come and I will teach etc., everything as aforementioned [‫כול’ היך‬ you the proper way to serve.’ ‫]קדמייא‬.²³ K: And [Ḥonio] dressed [Shimei] in a (under‐) garment and girded him with a girdle and stood him next to the altar. L: [Ḥonio] said to his brothers the priests, ‘See what vow he fulfilled for his lover:’ The day on which I serve as high priest I will year your dress and gird myself with your girdle.’ M: [Shimei’s] brothers the priests wanted to kill him. [And Shimei] told them the whole story. [But] they [still] wanted to kill Ḥonio. He ran from them and they ran after him. [He] ran to the palace [‫ ;בית המלך‬lit. House of the King].

 See above, n. 16.  According to Kalmin, this rabbinic phrase is a Babylonian addition that constitutes the effort of the Babylonian Amoraim to convince us that the Rabbis were important political and social agents already in the remote past. See R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 48 – 54. I shall return to that issue below.  This seems to be a later addition according to R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 38 (n. 67). Note here, that the expression is in Aramaic and not in Hebrew as the rest of the text. It is therefore quite obvious that the abbreviation (and the expression) was introduced later by the Palestinian editor.

144

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

[And] Everybody who saw [Ḥonio] said, ‘This is the one! This is the one!’ He went to Alexandria of Egypt and built an altar there, and he offered up [offerings] for the sake of heaven, as it is said, ‘On that day there will be an altar to God in the land of Egypt and a monument near its border to God (Isa :).’ N: And when the Sages heard about the matter I: And behold it is a fortiori argument [‫קל‬ [‫]וכששמעו חכמים בדבר‬, they said, ‘If this one ‫]וחומר‬. If one who did not take the office [Ḥonio], who fled from [office, acts] in this [Neḥunion], see how he compelled Israel to fashion, one who seeks [office], how much the worship idols, the one who took it and left, how much the more so [will he compel Israel to more so [will he act in this fashion]?’ worship idols].’

5 The Older the Better? The two versions of the rabbinic story of the foundation of the Oniad Temple in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli are similar, but far from identical. Indeed, they differ in singular instances and details which I shall discuss in due course. For now, it is important to note that in their quest for the most reliable historical account of the foundation of Onias’ Temple (if there indeed is one) most scholars seek to discover which of the two versions is the oldest; the one that preserves the source or the historical kernel closest to the events.²⁴ Before I tackle that question we observe that the baraitot (themselves) claim to be Tannaitic and, thus, ancient.²⁵ The notion of the antiquity of the stories is furthermore reinforced by their historical context (i. e., the time of the plot), which is set in the Second Temple period, its setting (i. e., the place of the plot), namely the Temple (of Jerusalem), and its protagonists, who all are high priests (or high priests to be) and belong to the aforementioned historical setting of the Second Temple period. Thus, the historical context, the setting of the stories, as well as their protagonists, all belong to the remote past. But the fact alone that the rabbinic accounts of the foundation of Onias’ Temple are baraitot, namely (oral) traditions in Hebrew, indicates that we are dealing with material that is older.²⁶

 See for instance R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 17.  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 38. Labendz casts doubt on the Tannaitic origin of the baraitot and conjectures that they may be rabbinic pseudepigraphy. J. Labendz, “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature,” 22.  Baraitot are usually introduced by the rabbinic formula “‫תני‬,” which attributes the subsequent saying or story to the Tannaim and the Tannaitic period.

5 The Older the Better?

145

Dating these texts and thus proving their antiquity, however, is notoriously difficult. And besides, we note that not all of the baraitot bear historical references, although some baraitot have parallels in the writings of Josephus.²⁷ Perhaps it is not that the Yerushalmi necessarily preserves the more original baraita than the Bavli, but that the latter has the tendency to tamper with his sources to a much greater degree than the former.²⁸ The Bavli reveals a tendency to exaggerate the importance of the Sages, which may be demonstrated by the fact that twice in the version of the Bavli (in I and N), the Babylonian editors employ the phrase “and when the Sages heard about the matter…”, a phrase that imputes to the Sages a far greater role, influence, and power, than we should assume they indeed had in the Second Temple period (for instance vis-à-vis the priests and/or in the Temple).²⁹ It thus becomes evident that the Bavli is a much more embellished version of the Yerushalmi and I therefore surmise with Kalmin, that the Yerushalmi preserves the more original (less-edited) version of the two. This assumption is sustained by two additional observations.³⁰ The first concerns the getaway stop to which Neḥonion / Ḥonio escaped before finally arriving in “Alexandria” (i.e., Egypt). While the Yerushalmi tells us that Neḥonion had ran off to the “King’s Mountain” (‫)הר המלך‬, in the Bavli we hear that Ḥonio ran off to the “King’s House” (‫ ;בית המלך‬presumably, the palace, or the royal treasury)³¹. Now, the Yerushalmi refers to a specific and apparently well-known geographical location in the Land of Israel that was called ‫הר המלך‬ and was located somewhere in the Judaean hills, perhaps in the area of Hebron. The toponym appears elsewhere in Palestinian rabbinic traditions.³² The Babylo See in particular S. J. D. Cohen, “Parallel Tradition,” 117– 124; R. Kalmin, Jewish Babylonia, 149 – 172, and more recently, T. Ilan and V. Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2017).  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 39.  The phrase is employed by the Babylonian Amoraim elsewhere in the Bavli (see B Eruvin 21b; B Bekhorot 51a; B Shabbat 121a; B Yoma 38a; B Sukkah 56b; B Rosh Hashanah 18b; B Menaḥot 109b-110a-b; B Baba Qamma 50a), notably when they introduce material purported to be ancient (baraitot) that involves priests and the priesthood. The intention is here clearly to underscore the importance of the Rabbis in the remote past. See R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 49 and there, nn. 100 – 102.  See also below, n. 37; and recently A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 186.  The term ‫ בית המלך‬occurs, although in an unclear reading, in a 3rd century BCE Aramaic papyrus (CPJ 526 = TAD D1.17; frag. 2, l. 8) from Apollinopolis Magna (Edfu) where it designates the royal Ptolemaic (!) treasury. It seems to be the Aramaic equivalent of the τὸ βασιλικόν, which is also attested in other Jewish papyri; see CPJ 25, l. 9; CPJ 46, l. 18; CPJ 565, ll. 15, 40.  The exact location of the “King’s Mountain” is still disputed. See on this issue Z. Safrai, “The King’s Mountain: An Enigma without a Solution,” Teva VeAretz 22 (1980): 204– 205 [Hebrew]; R. Yankelevitch, “The King’s Mountain – Herodion,” Cathedra 20 (1981): 23 – 28 [Hebrew]; Y. Sha-

146

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

nian editor of the story, obviously, did not know what to make of that reference, presumably due to his poor knowledge of Palestinian geography, and thus changed it to something that made more sense to him. It follows that he used the Yerushalmi as a source and thus, the latter must preserve the original version of the story. The second observation concerns a plus in the Bavli that is not in the Yerushalmi, namely the reference to an active involvement of “the priestly brothers” of the main protagonists of the story, Ḥonio and Shimei.³³ The reference to the “priestly brothers,” has a distinct social bearing and appears in opposition to the Sages, who purport to take an active role in the story too (H and M) as we have seen (see n. 29).³⁴ As convincingly argued by Kalmin, and as I have stressed before, the reason for that is a tangible surge on the side of the Babylonian Amoraim to introduce and to portray rabbinic Sages as the leaders of Jewish society in the distant past. The approach fosters their own claims to lead Jewish society in the present.³⁵ This sits well with the general ambivalent attitude towards the priesthood exhibited by the Babylonian Rabbis, which is epitomized in their struggle with the priesthood on the literary level in our story. Although many Babylonian Rabbis associated themselves with the priesthood, by claiming for themselves priestly ancestry and thus enhancing their social status, priests were one of the groups competing with the Rabbis for the leadership of Jewish society in Babylonia.³⁶ This then, serves to explain the application and addition

char, “The King’s Mountain – A Solution to an Enigma,” Zion 55 (2000) 275 – 306 [Hebrew]; Z. Safrai, “The King’s Mountain: Still an Enigma,” Meḥkerei Yehudah VeShomron 19 (2010): 69 – 82 [Hebrew].  The other plus in the Bavli that is omitted by the Yerushalmi is the phrase: “…and when the Sages heard about the matter…,” which I just have discussed.  R. Kalmin and T. Ilan have drawn attention to the literary value of the phrase, which in her opinion creates an element of irony in the story. Ḥonio’s priestly brothers, notably, are the ones who seek to kill him and Ilan underlines the notion that family (by normal standards) should do quite the opposite, namely to harbor love and support. See R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 41 and T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” in Josephus and the Rabbis, ed. by T. Ilan and V. Noam (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2017) 1:217 [Hebrew]. I am much obliged to Prof. Tal Ilan for sharing her work with me prior to its publication. I am not sure, however, whether the phrase indeed conveys real familiar relations between Ḥonio and his “priestly brothers.” Rather, the phrase – which appears in other Second Temple texts too – functions as a social marker and establishes a connection between members of the priestly caste. The term “brother,” here designates a “fellow” or “companion.” See on this issue Chapter 1 (p. 98, n. 177) and B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 270: “The term ‘brother’ referred not only to an immediate kinsman, but to a member of one’s national group as distinct from the foreigner.”  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 49.  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 49.

6 The Differences Between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli

147

of the phrase in our “priestly” story.³⁷ Of course, Rabbis were far from influential during the time depicted in our baraita, namely the Second Temple period. This assumption may be sustained by the fact that the original source for the baraita is concerned with priests and does not feature any Rabbis, as we may observe in the earlier version of the story preserved in the Yerushalmi that omits that phrase. All this is to say that I assume that the Yerushalmi indeed preserves the older source and I am not alone in that opinion.³⁸ It follows that we, as historians, would naturally rely on the version preserved in the Yerushalmi in order to gain “historical” information from the baraita. However, and as we shall see later on, not much history may de facto be gained from the baraita. Thus, whether we concentrate on the version of the story preserved in the Yerushalmi, or in the Bavli does not really matter.

6 The Differences Between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli The story of the foundation of the Temple of Onias is told twice in each of the two Talmudim; once by R. Meir and once by R. Yehudah. But, as I have mentioned before, both Talmudic accounts nevertheless contain intrinsic differences.³⁹ Perhaps, the most obvious one is the names of the protagonists of the story. The high priest we would naturally identify with Onias based on the Josephan accounts, is called “Neḥunion” in the Yerushalmi, while the same individual is called “Ḥonio” in the Bavli. ⁴⁰ Similarly, “Shimon” (here with his full name)  See R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 49 – 50.  Not only Kalmin (“Jewish Sources,” 48) claims that, but independently also A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 186. Here, we should refer to Hacham’s astute attempt to reconstruct the original text of the baraita that is preserved somewhat garbled in the Yerushalmi (MS Leiden). Hacham argues that a mistake (or a series of them) occurred during the copy-editing process of the baraita in the Yerushalmi (MS Leiden). See N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 443 – 444 [Hebrew].  On account of the many differences in the Talmudic versions, some scholars have deemed the rabbinical stories full of mistakes. Cf., for instance M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 190. Nevertheless, Delcor remarks that there are rabbinic accounts that convey Jerusalemite attitudes towards the Oniad Temple, such as M Men. 13:10, e. g. M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 202.  Note that two MSS of M. Men. 13:10, MS Kaufmann (Budapest 50) and Parma 138, refer to the man who erected the altar in Egypt as ‫ נחוניון‬and so do additional two passages in the Yerushalmi (Y Nedarim 6,8 [40a] and Y Sanhedrin 1 [19a]). R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” 114 and there, n. 45 [Hebrew], maintains that “Neḥoniah” was a pure literary figure who had never actually existed. Of note is, in his view, that he was later exchanged with “Ḥonio” in the Bavli version. He holds the Yerushalmi version for the original one.

148

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

who is Neḥunion’s brother in the Yerushalmi, appears as “Shimei” (a shortened version of the name) in the Bavli. I will propose an explanation for this change of the names by the Bavli below, but in the meantime, we will turn our attention to the other differences in the two versions of the story. Another quite obvious difference is that the Yerushalmi (heavy-handedly) shortens R. Yehudah’s version of the story of the foundation of Onias’ Temple with the words: “etc. everything as aforementioned (‫ ”)…כול’ היך קדמייא‬and also to this issue, I shall return below. A more serious discrepancy is that the Bavli-version reverses the opinions of R. Meir and R. Yehudah on the legitimacy of Onias’ Temple as found in the Yerushalmi. In other words, the Bavli exchanges R. Meir’s positive verdict on Onias and the nature of the worship at his “altar” [‫ ]מזבח‬in the Yerushalmi with that of R. Yehudah – most probably in order to make his opinion conform with that of the Mishnah.⁴¹ Thus, in the Bavli-version of the story, R. Meir’s opinion differs from R. Yehudah’s in two distinct ways. Firstly, according to R. Meir, it was Onias who was appointed high priest and had to escape to Egypt at his brother’s instigation. According to R. Yehudah, on the other hand, it was Onias, who was jealous and conspired against his brother and was therefore obliged to flee to Egypt because his plot was unveiled. Secondly, according to R. Meir, Onias’ Temple (or altar to be more precise) was idolatrous, while R. Yehudah, on the other hand, argued that it was not. In order to add authority to his argument, R. Yehudah cites a prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 19:18 – 19) on the erection of an altar devoted to God in Egypt, which we already are familiar with from Josephus.⁴² The Yerushalmi-version of the story is much more convoluted,⁴³ which is one of the reasons why we should assume that the Bavli-version is the later of the two, since it is much smoother and more sophisticated. Thus, instead of provid-

 R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 43 and T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” in Josephus and the Rabbis, ed. by T. Ilan and V. Noam (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2017) 1:224 [Hebrew].  BJ 7.432 and Ant. 13.64, 68, 71.  There is, for instance, the gnawing detail in R. Meir’s version of the story in the Yerushalmi that Onias is acquitted of wrong-doing, yet still flees to Egypt and there are several other problems linked to this detail. Namely, we note too in that context that R. Yehudah’s verdict about “the one who did not take the office” will compel the other to take up idolatrous ways. But the other “who took the office, but left it” makes much more sense when put in R. Meir’s mouth, since it is in his version that Onias receives the office (power), but flees from it. Lastly, we take note that the application of Isaiah’s prophecy, which predicts the erection of a shrine devoted to God (!), to someone who seeks to incite Israel to worship idols is more than a bit awkward. On this and more illogical points in the narrative, see R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 42; N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 442– 443 [Hebrew], and T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:211– 215 [Hebrew].

6 The Differences Between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli

149

ing two (full) versions of the (same) story, the editor of the Yerushalmi, as we recall, obviously felt compelled to economize a fair part of R. Yehudah’s version of the story. Here, according to R. Meir, it was Neḥonion who was appointed high priest and who was forced to flee to Egypt at his brother’s instigation, while according to R. Yehudah, Neḥonion was the one who was jealous and acted against his brother. This version matches its Babylonian counterpart. Things look different however, in the next version of the story. Here it is R. Meir, as noted above, who declares that Onias’ Temple was not idolatrous, but was dedicated to God/ Heaven. Notably, R. Meir too is of the opinion that upon Neḥonion’s flight to Egypt, it was he himself who applied Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:19) on himself – an ego-hermeneuticism, so to speak. Since R. Yehudah’s verdict was mutilated by the Palestinian editor of the story, common sense dictates that he argued against R. Meir’s view and maintained that Onias’ Temple was idolatrous. But again, this is only implied here and not explicitly articulated. The conclusion of the sugya contains the verdict that Neḥonion seduced all Israel to idolatrous worship because of his deeds, which confirms the notion that R. Yehudah indeed believed in the illegitimacy of Onias’ Temple according to the Yerushalmi. The differences between the narratives already become evident in the very opening sections of the Talmudim. It is noteworthy that the Bavli describes at some length how Simon the Righteous came to make his choice of appointment in the first place. For that purpose, it seems that the editor of the Bavli appended a separate baraita on the circumstances of Simon the Righteous’s passing that has parallels elsewhere.⁴⁴ The Yerushalmi, on the contrary, contents itself with the brief note that Simon, prior to his death, settled the appointment of his successor. It is usually assumed that the editor of the Bavli added the baraita on Simon’s death. But as T. Ilan has shown, it seems to have belonged to the original version of the story from the outset and that it was the editor of the Yerushalmi (and not that of the Bavli) who detached the episode from the original version of the story.⁴⁵ Kalmin has noted that the baraita on Simon’s the Righteous death seems misplaced, for its general spirit is quite positively inclined towards him and the priesthood, while the whole point of the story in the Bavli, according to Kalmin, is to show that the concept of priestly succession is problematic and is generally viewed negatively by the Rabbis.⁴⁶ T. Ilan has drawn attention to the fact that the Bavli uses the same baraita elsewhere (in B Yoma 39a) and in a different context. The Babylonian editor of the Bavli apparently did not

 T Sotah 13:7– 8; B Yoma 39a.  T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:220 – 225 [Hebrew].  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 37.

150

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

feel compelled to save himself the trouble of citing the baraita in full detail twice. The editor of the Yerushalmi, on the other hand, also cites the baraita twice, but notably in the same tractate and only a few pages before (Y Yoma 5,2 [42c]).⁴⁷ The second time, however, he cited an abbreviated version of it. Thus, it seems that the editor of the Yerushalmi saw no need to write out anew the same baraita he had cited just a few pages before and thus summarized it in one meagre sentence. Concerning the baraita about Simon’s the Righteous death, we discern another difference in the narratives. Namely, in the Yerushalmi Simon suggests appointing Neḥonion as his successor, whereas in the Bavli, he orders it. That subtle difference is quite significant, for the Bavli seeks to stress the fact that the wrong appointment of Ḥonio had led to catastrophic results and therefore, the Babylonian editor highlighted this detail.⁴⁸ Moreover, it is only in the Bavli that we learn that Shimei was older than his brother (“by two and a half years,”)⁴⁹. This additional note fulfils two functions: for one, it explains the brothers’ jealousy of one another in each of the two versions better than in the Yerushalmi. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, it re-emphasizes Simon’s poor choice of appointing Ḥonio, since Simon forcefully ignored the custom of primogeniture. Had Simon chosen Shimei instead of Ḥonio in the first place, so the Bavli intimates, things would have turned out different.⁵⁰ On a broader level, the rabbinic story of the foundation of Onias’ Temple appears in different literary contexts in the two Talmudim and thus serves different literary purposes. A thorough literary analysis of the Talmudic pieces has been conducted by A. Tropper, N. Hacham, and T. Ilan, and since our focus here is on history and not necessarily on literature, I shall but summarize their findings.⁵¹ The Yerushalmi places the foundation story of Onias’ Temple in the tractate Yoma (Yom Kippur) and into the context of the dispatch of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Y Yoma 6,3 [43c]). The Yerushalmi appends to this a string of traditions about things that ceased to exist, or happened in the wake of the death of Simon the Righteous. The Yerushalmi is interested in making the point that up until Simon’s death, the worship in the Temple of Jerusalem

 T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:220 [Hebrew].  See also R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 40 – 42 and N. Hacham, “Neḥonion, Shimei, and the Foundation of Onias’ Temple,” 449 [Hebrew].  On this expression, see above, n. 18.  See also A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 190 – 195.  A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 157– 197; N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 439 – 469 [Hebrew]; T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:197– 230 [Hebrew].

6 The Differences Between the Yerushalmi and the Bavli

151

went its proper way. But that, obviously, was bound to change with Simon’s death; suddenly, offerings were not accepted anymore and signs predicting doom and destruction suddenly appeared.⁵² I have noted that the prologue of our story is a separate tradition based on a baraita found in T Sotah 13:8 and there, too, the baraita speaks of things that ceased to happen in the wake of Simon’s death.⁵³ And in that grim spirit, the rabbinic editor appended our story of the foundation of Onias’ Temple, which too, unfolds on the backdrop of Simon’s death. Thus, the dubious altar of Onias was erected because of the bad outcome of a fraternal scuffle over the high priesthood and power, and the whole discussion about the foundation of Onias’ Temple, we recall, is centered on the question of proper worship and the legitimacy of the shrine.⁵⁴ In that light Onias’ Temple, too, is perceived here as a sign of deterioration and doom.⁵⁵

 It is intriguing to note that Josephus applies a similar literary structure in order to convey the notion of deterioration in his narrative on the Hasmoneans in the Antiquities (Book 13), where he tries to make the point that the Hasmonean dynasty deteriorated after the death of John Hyrcanus I. See on that M. M. Piotrkowski, “Josephus on Hasmonean Kingship,” in Antimonarchic Discourse in Antiquity, ed. by H. Börm (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015) 249 – 267.  Namely: “After Simeon the Righteous died, his brethren the priests forbore to pronounce the Name in the priestly benediction” (T Sotah 13:8).  The notion that improper worship was performed in Onias’ Temple is underlined by the episode of Onias’ cross-dressing. The heart of this episode is the note that, as part of the scheme, one brother dresses the other up in an ‫ אנקולי‬and a ‫צלצול‬. See D. Weisberg, “Clothes (un)Make the Man: bMenahot 109b,” in Introduction to Seder Qodashim: A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud V, ed. by T. Ilan, M. Brockhaus, and T. Hidde (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 193 – 211 and T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:218 [Hebrew]. The ‫ אנקולי‬seems to have been an under-shirt (ἀγκάλις or ἀνακαλώς) that one would usually not wear in public, since it did not cover the body completely (see also M Megillah 4:8; T Niddah 7:1; B Shabbat 120a; B Moed Qatan 24a; B Megillah 24b; Y Megillah 4,9 (74c) and M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature [London: Luzac & Co., 1903] 30). D. Weisberg has pointed out that the ‫ אנקולי‬was a unisex garment (D. Weisberg, “Clothes (un)Make the Man,” 203 – 204), but both items (the ‫ אנקולי‬and the ‫ )צלצול‬were worn by women (concerning the wearing of the ‫ צלצול‬by women, see M Sotah 1:6; Esther Rabbah 3:13; B Sotah 8b; B Shabbat 62b and 105a; B Pessaḥim 55a; B Eruvin 103b-104a; B Zevaḥim 19a and M. Jastrow, A Dictionary, 1285 – 1286). Weisberg has argued that the ‫ צלצול‬is usually associated with illicit behavior and prostitution and thus bears a negative connotation. D. Weisberg, “Clothes (un)Make the Man,” 204– 206. See also A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 189 and T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:218 [Hebrew]. Since Onias is accused of wearing (illicit) women’s clothing during the worship in the Temple, it has been suggested that the Talmudic passage polemicizes against unorthodox forms of worship at Onias’ Temple. Since Plutarch refers to priests of Hercules wearing women’s clothing during worship (Quaestiones Graecae 58 [304c]) it has been argued that Onias was a Hellenizer who sought to introduce Hellenistic elements into the Jewish cult. His efforts earned him the scorn of his fellow priests who consequently sought to kill him. He therefore

152

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

The literary context of our baraita in the Bavli is somewhat different from that of the Yerushalmi, and is chiefly concerned with the exposition (Gemara) of the corresponding Mishnah (Men. 13:10). This circumstance certainly stands behind the exchange of names of the main protagonist of the story, viz. from Neḥonion to Ḥonio.⁵⁶ The story is connected to the Mishnaic ruling on the question whether priests who served in the Temple of Onias were fit to serve in the Jerusalem Temple too.⁵⁷ The Gemara in B Men. 109b here is particularly concerned with the interpretation of the phrase: ‫“( ואין צריך לומר לדבר אחר‬needless to say another matter…”), which implies that an improper (idolatrous) form of worship was conducted at Onias’ Temple (‫)עבודה זרה‬. And this is the main halakhic concern of the baraita and of R. Meir’s and R. Yehudah’s discussion, namely the question of the idolatrous or non-idolatrous status of Onias’ Temple. Ultimately, the Rabbis agree that Onias’ Temple was not an idolatrous shrine, but, the Aggadic story, by means of which the Rabbis arrive at this conclusion, seems to ful-

was forced to flee Jerusalem and came to Egypt where he founded a temple of his own, in which he could conduct his idolatrous worship (‫)עבודה זרה‬. Cf. B.-Z. Luria, “Who is Ḥonio?” Beit HaMikrah 12 (1967): 69, 73, 80 – 81 [Hebrew]; H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” 229 [Hebrew]. Tchernowitz conjectured that the Hellenistic custom of worshipping in women’s clothing alluded to in the baraita was forgotten over time and therefore, the note strikes us as strange (H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” 229 [Hebrew]). The remark about worship in female attire has evoked the assumption that Onias was open to an active involvement of female priests in the worship in his temple. Thus, P. Richardson and V. Heuchan, have interpreted the Talmudic reference to women’s clothing and drew a connection to JIGRE 84 that mentions a “Marin the priestess” in the context of “Land of Onias” and thus with Onias’ Temple. P. Richardson and V. Heuchan conjecture that the Talmudic passage preserved a hint of rabbinic opposition to an unorthodox practice of the cultic in Onias’ Temple. Cf. P. Richardson and V. Heuchan, “Jewish Voluntary Associations in Egypt and the Roles of Women,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. by J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson (London: Routledge, 1996) 238. However, as Schäfer in my view correctly posits, the Talmudic episode merely conveys polemic and not historical facts. See P. Schäfer, “‘From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small,’” 134. The hypothesis that women took an active part in the cult at Onias’ Temple, thus, holds no water.  See T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:218 – 219 [Hebrew] and N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 455 – 456 [Hebrew].  Since the Babylonian editor of the story connected the baraita on the foundation of the altar in Egypt with the Mishnah concerning ‫בית חוניו‬, he changed the name Neḥonion accordingly to Ḥonio. Shimei, who is not mentioned in the Mishnah, but a Shimon is in the Yerushalmi, we may surmise that the Babylonian editor took the name from there and abbreviated it to Shimei. Ilan argued that the editor of the Yerushalmi most probably did not make the connection between the baraita on the “idolatrous” altar in Egypt and the Mishnah on “the House of Ḥonio,” and therefore stuck with the name Neḥonion. See T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:219 – 220 [Hebrew].  See above, n. 8, and there, section E.

7 The Sources of the Talmudim

153

fill another purpose too. I noted that the interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:18 – 19) in the story of Onias and Shimei, serves the purpose of legitimizing the establishment of places of worship outside of Jerusalem. Hence, the question whether one may establish a proper religious center outside the boundaries of the Land of Israel seems to have been of relevance for the Babylonian Amoraim too. Indeed, that kind of notion is manifested in the rabbinic discussions that immediately follow our story of Onias and Shimei (B Men. 110a) and conclude the whole tractate of Menaḥot. There, the Amoraim expound the biblical/prophetic verse of Malachi (1:11) that permits offerings “in every place.” Remarkably, the Rabbis acquiesce to the notion that one may indeed offer sacrifices “in every place,” but at the same time, we observe that they equate sacrifices with Torah study. In other words, Torah study substitutes for sacrifices and Torah study may be done everywhere. A subsequent datum by Rabbah states that sacrifices, on the whole are superfluous, and that it behooves to study Torah instead. Hacham has demonstrated that the Babylonian Amoraim were interested in diminishing the importance of the Temple (which includes the Temple of Onias) in order to aggrandize the ideal of Torah study. This is, at its base, characteristic of Diaspora Judaism and matches the context of Babylonia in Talmudic times.⁵⁸

7 The Sources of the Talmudim The comparison of both baraitot in the Yerushalmi and the Bavli, indicates that the latter either edited and revised the version found in the Yerushalmi, or edited and revised the source used by it. Once more we recall that the actual plot, superficially seen, revolves around high priests who quarrel about the office of the high priesthood and about high priestly succession.⁵⁹ Thus, the Yerushalmi’s source reveals a particular interest in priests and the priesthood and such interests in most cases, reflects a corresponding milieu of the author. Therefore, I argue, that the author of this source was in all likelihood a priest as well.⁶⁰ I remark in that context too, that these events and figures are portrayed in negative light. Although, as we have seen, this anti-priestly notion is characteristic of the Babylonian Amoriam, we discover the same notion already in the Yerushalmi. And all the while the Yerushalmi, too, may exhibit a Tendenz of animosity to N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 457– 458 [Hebrew].  It is intriguing to note here that the dispute between R. Meir and R. Yehudah in our baraita is written in dialectical form which mirrors the dispute between the two priestly brothers over the high priesthood.  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 39, 44.

154

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

wards priests and the priesthood, so this anti-priestly Tendenz was in all likelihood already part of the Yerushalmi’s (and Bavli’s) source. The story of the foundation of the Temple of Onias, for that matter, is not the sole incident in which the Rabbis seem to have used anti-priestly source material. Another, perhaps more known, incident is B Pessaḥim 57a-b, a series of traditions ridiculing the prominent high priests of Jerusalem. As D. R. Schwartz has pointed out, this material has parallels in Josephus’ Antiquities (20.179 – 181 and §§ 206 – 207) and most probably stems from an infuriated and frustrated Jerusalemite priest, “who was caught in the middle between the high priests (appointed by Agrippa) and the Levites.”⁶¹ Returning to our case of the cantankerous priestly brothers of the baraita, T. Ilan recently proposed that the source used by the Rabbis was an anti-Zadokite source designed to blacken the Zadokite dynasty – and most probably for the purpose of aggrandizing the Hasmonean dynasty.⁶² For reasons I shall discuss in the following sections, I tend to agree with the view that the anti-priestly source used by the Rabbis was not necessarily an anti-Zadokite one, but indeed part of a collection of stories and (oral) traditions about rogue high priests. Previously, I have drawn attention to the fact that the editors of the Talmudim have merged the story of the foundation of Onias’ Temple with another story about the last days of Simon the Righteous.⁶³ The latter is depicted as the father of both cantankerous brothers. Even though it is quite obvious that the rabbinic authors were responsible for amalgamating the two stories, they must have had an incentive to do so. Namely, they either encountered a corresponding note in the original source that taught them about the fact that a son of the legendary Simon the Righteous fled to Egypt and erected an alternative altar there, or the Rabbis themselves knew about that circumstance and thus connected the two stories.⁶⁴ Returning to the issue of the variation of the names of the main protagonists, we should assume that the Neḥunion of the Yerushalmi should be identified with

 D. R. Schwartz, “‘KATA TOYTON TON KAIPON’,” 262– 263, and also 262– 268.  See T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:229 [Hebrew]. According to Ilan, that source must not have been necessarily a priestly one.  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 41 and A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, 180 – 181.  Note that Josephus claims the same thing in BJ 7.423. On Simon the Righteous in rabbinic literature see A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, passim; but also Ben Sira 50 and J. C. VanderKam, “Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom, ed. by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 303 – 318.

7 The Sources of the Talmudim

155

our high priest Onias (III), as is also elucidated by the parallel in the Bavli. ⁶⁵ Attempts have been made to identify Onias’ brother Shimei (or Shimon) with Simon, the captain of the Temple (προστάτης τοῦ ἱεροῦ) – Onias’ nemesis in 2 Maccabees 3:4– 12.⁶⁶ The problem with that identification, however, given that we accept the historicity of the Talmudic account, is that Simon, as we learn from 2 Maccabees (4:23), was not Onias’ brother, but a fellow priest holding an important position in the Temple. Therefore, this assumption remains unfounded. Instead, I have argued that the association of Onias (III) with the Ḥonio of the Bavli was made by the Babylonian editors, who connected the baraita on the quarrel of the priestly brothers and the resulting foundation of an altar in Egypt with the corresponding Mishnah that mentioned the “House of Onias (Ḥonio).” The Mishnah fails to mention a Shimon, but a character of that name appeared in the baraita and thus became Ḥonio’s / Onias’ brother in the Bavli. It therefore remains problematic to identify the Shimon / Shimei of the baraitot with Simon, the captain of the Temple of 2 Maccabees. Therefore, all we are left with is a story about the quarrel over the high priesthood in the days of Onias III, which resulted in the flight of the latter to Egypt and the foundation of the Oniad Temple that, in its original form, probably portrays these events from a Jerusalemite priestly view-point.

 Ḥonio (‫)חוניו‬, or Ḥonia (‫ )חוניה‬is a shortened rendition of the name Yoḥanan (‫)יוחנן‬, or Ḥananyah (‫ )חנניה‬and the Hebrew version of the Greek Onias (Ὀνίας). See T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I: Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE (4 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 1:378. The shortened version, Ḥonio, is rendered in Greek as Onias (Ὀνίας). Neḥunion (‫ )נחוניון‬may be a Palestinian Aramaic form of Ḥonio, or Ḥonia. See also R. Yankelevitch, “Neḥunion Aḥiah – On the Question of his Identity in the Story of Ḥananyah, the Nephew of Rabbi Yehoshua,” Milet 2 (1984): 137– 141 [Hebrew] and T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:219 – 220 [Hebrew].  Y. Brand, “On the Episode of Onias’ Temple,” 79 – 80 [Hebrew]. Schäfer is of the conviction that the Talmudic tradition confuses the Simon of 2 Maccabees with Jason and “hence telescopes the two quarrels – the original struggle of Simon the Benjaminite against Onias, regarding the markets, and the later one of Jason, the brother of Onias, for the high priesthood – into one.” P. Schäfer, “‘From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small’,” 134 (n. 28). See also L. Finkelstein, Pharisaism in the Making: Selected Essays (2 vols.; New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1972) 74– 75 (= L. Finkelstein, “Pre-Maccabean Documents in the Passover Haggadah,” HTR 35 [1942]: 324– 325).

156

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

8 Did the Rabbis Read Josephus? On the Relationship between Josephus and the Talmudim (Y Yoma 6,3 [43 c-d] and B Menaḥot 109b) The similarity of the baraita on the foundation of the Temple of Onias and details in Josephus’ accounts on the same subject and others has often been noted.⁶⁷ The stories are in fact so similar to each other that they are allocated a chapter in a study by T. Ilan and V. Noam on literary parallel accounts in Josephus and rabbinic literature.⁶⁸ Despite the similarity of both stories, T. Ilan argued that we cannot speak about a proper parallel per se. Rather the stories on the foundation of the Temple of Onias are independent accounts that all seem to stem from similar groups that perceived the existence of Onias’ Temple in much the same way.⁶⁹ And, while we indeed cannot speak about a direct literary dependence of the Rabbis on Josephus, I would like to suggest here that the Rabbis had access to priestly source material (most probably oral traditions), akin to that used by Josephus, which helped to shape their narratives; not only of our story, but that of other stories too.⁷⁰ In that context, three suggestions concerning the affiliation of the baraita on the foundation of Onias’ Temple with Josephus have been made: (1) Already in 1939, in an effort to disclose several historical layers in the Talmudic accounts on the foundation of Onias’ Temple and thereby attempting to prove their historicity and value as a historical source, Y. Brand suggested that what stands at the heart of the baraita is a story preserved by Josephus in Ant. 11.297– 301.⁷¹ That story involves two priestly brothers, one Yoḥanan (John) and one Yeshu (or Yehoshua [Jesus]), who fought over the high priesthood because of the jealousy of one of the brothers of the other. The scuffle escalated and Yoḥanan killed Yeshu in the heat of the moment. Punishment follows in § 301, but what is more important here are the literary elements of the story

 BJ 1.31– 33; 7.422– 424; 7.432 and Ant. 13.64, 68. On the affiliation of the rabbinic material with Josephus, see e. g. S. A. Hirsch, “The Temple of Onias,” 70 – 76; Y. Brand, “On the Episode of Onias’ Temple,” 80 – 84 [Hebrew]; S. J. D. Cohen, “Parallel Historical Tradition,” 120; R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 39 – 44; N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 459 – 460 [Hebrew].  T. Ilan and V. Noam, Josephus and the Rabbis, 197– 240 [Hebrew] and see also S. J. D. Cohen, “Parallel Historical Tradition,” 120 – 122.  T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:229 – 230 [Hebrew].  Hacham rejects the view that the Rabbis and Josephus shared the same source. See N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 461– 466 [Hebrew].  Y. Brand, “On the Episode of Onias’ Temple,” 81 [Hebrew].

8 Did the Rabbis Read Josephus?

157

that bear similarity to our baraita, namely the element of two priestly brothers fighting over the high priesthood, the element of jealousy, and the intent to kill. Brand has, additionally, drawn attention to the phonetic similarity of the names of the protagonists of the stories: Yoḥanan/Honio and Yeshu/ Shimei.⁷² Of course, there are many differences in both stories too, but it suffices here to concentrate on the similarities. (2) A few decades later, in 2002, R. Kalmin proposed a different passage in Josephus as the baraita’s source, notably one that directly follows the passage suggested by Brand: Ant. 11.302– 311, 321– 324.⁷³ That story is about the foundation of another temple altogether, namely that of the Samaritans. What the story shares with the rabbinic baraita are the following plot threads: (a) a conflict between two priestly brothers (Jaddua and Manasseh) who compete for the office of the high priesthood; (b) the involvement of a woman who plays a significant role in that conflict;⁷⁴ (c) a father(‐in-law) who handpicks his son(in-law) for the office of high priest; (d) a familial conflict which has consequences for the entire Jewish nation, because it results in the establishment of rival cultic centers outside of Jerusalem.⁷⁵ (3) Recently, N. Hacham enumerated similarities of our baraita with Josephus’ narratives on Onias (mainly) in Ant. 12.237– 241 and has shown that that passage too, deals with the struggle of two priestly brothers – notably two sons of Simon the Righteous – over the high priesthood.⁷⁶ One of the sons is called Onias/Menelaus, as is Simon’s son in the baraita. Both in Antiquities 12 and in the Talmud, the two Oniases are portentous characters: in Antiquities 12, he is too young to take office and hence unworthy of it, while in the baraita he simply evades from taking it. Ant. 12.240 reports that Onias/Menelaus escapes to Antiochus IV and correspondingly, the baraita has Ḥonio flee to the “king’s house” (his palace?).⁷⁷ We recall that the whole point of the Talmudic debate about Onias’ Temple is its halakhic status and the question whether it was an idolatrous shrine. At the forefront of that discussion, logically, stands the accu-

 Y. Brand, “On the Episode of Onias’ Temple,” 81 [Hebrew].  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 43 – 44. See also his Jewish Babylonia, 79 – 80.  See Ant. 11.308 – 309 (Nicaso, Sanballat’s daughter) and the anonymous “beloved (‫”)אהובתו‬ of Onias in the baraita, to whom he pledges to wear women’s attire during the performance of the cult.  See R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 43.  N. Hacham, “Neḥonion, Shimei, and the Foundation of Onias’ Temple,” 459 – 460 [Hebrew].  I have noted however, that this note is problematic on the grounds of a misunderstanding by the Babylonian editor of the original source that mentioned that Onias fled to somewhere in the Judaean Hills to a place called the “King’s Mountain.” See above, n. 32.

158

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

sation that Onias/Ḥonio did something that would raise suspicion of idolatrous conduct.⁷⁸ Josephus claims something very similar in Ant. 12.240 – 241, where he tells us that Onias/Menelaus petitioned the king to change of the laws and customs (τοὺς πατρίους νόμους) of his country. In addition, it is said there that Onias/Menelaus advocated the building of a gymnasium in which he himself and his partisans would perform naked (§ 241) and thus transgress Jewish law. Perhaps the most obvious similarity is that all sources report Onias’ flight to Egypt. Hacham points out too, that Josephus on the whole, like the baraita, links his Onias narratives with Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:18 – 19) predicting the erection of an altar to God in Egypt, but he oddly refrains from doing so in Antiquities 12. In spite of this rather long list of similarities, Hacham concludes that these similarities do not outweigh the differences and therefore, we cannot speak about a literary dependence and I concur with his view.⁷⁹ It is useful to illustrate some of the above similarities in a chart: Narratological Element

baraita

Ant. . – 

Ant.  – Ant.  . – 

Names of the protagonists

Ḥonio / Neḥonion Shimon / Shimei

Yoḥanan / John Yeshu / Jesus

Jaddua Onias / MeManassah nelaus Yeshu / Jesus

Quarrel of two priestly brothers over the X high priesthood

X

X

X

Violence in the Temple

X

X

_

_

Escape to a foreign land and foundation X of a temple

_

X

X

Isaiah’s Prophecy

X

_

_

_

Involvement of a woman

X

_

X

_

 For example the episode of Onias’ cross-dressing.  N. Hacham, “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple,” 461 [Hebrew]. Hacham lists the following differences: (1) the identity of the individuals who escape to Egypt is different (according to Ant. 12.237 it is Onias IV, Simon the Righteous’ grandson; in the Talmud it is the latter’s son); (2) the nature of the dispute between the priests is described differently in Josephus (it is of political nature) and in the Talmud (it comes in the wake of Simon’s last will); (3) the struggle for the high priesthood did not begin in wake of the death of the father (Simon the Righteous) as in the Talmud, but in wake the death of the brother (Onias); (4) Josephus has no recollection of a testament or last will that would fix succession of either one of the sons.

159

8 Did the Rabbis Read Josephus?

Continued Narratological Element

baraita

Ant. . – 

Ant.  – Ant.  . – 

Names of the protagonists

Ḥonio / Neḥonion Shimon / Shimei

Yoḥanan / John Yeshu / Jesus

Jaddua Onias / MeManassah nelaus Yeshu / Jesus

Son of Simon

X

_

_

X

What this chart illustrates is that there are indeed points of contact between the baraita and various stories preserved by Josephus. None of them, however, is sufficiently close to the story of the baraita to convince us of a literary dependence – not even the story about the foundation of the Samaritan Temple (Ant. 11.302– 311) proposed by Kalmin, which seems to be the best candidate for literary dependence. What do we make of this situation? Here, we remember our previous working-hypothesis that Josephus used some priestly material that provided him with stories (mostly pejorative gossip) on high priests and the high priesthood that stands behind his narratives in Ant. 11.297– 301 and 302– 311. In the first Chapter (on Josephus) I have identified the “Menelaus Source” as the source for Josephus’ narrative in Ant. 12.237– 241. This too, deals with priests. Whether these stories were independent oral traditions, or came in a compilation (or chronicle) as suggested by Williamson, cannot be determined for sure.⁸⁰ What seems to be the case here though is that the author(s) of our baraita had access to a source, which served as the inspiration for the story of the foundation of the Oniad Temple. In my opinion, the Rabbis juxtaposed the element of violence in the Temple in the wake of the quarrel between two priestly brothers about the high priesthood as related in Ant. 11.297– 301 with literary elements of the story in Ant. 11.302– 311 summarized by Kalmin⁸¹ – certainly for the purpose of increasing the dramatic momentum in the story. In addition to this cocktail, the rabbinic author added the story about a son of Simon the Righteous called Onias who founded an altar in Egypt due to a dispute about the high priesthood. In my

 H. G. M. Williamson, “The Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities XI.297– 301,” 56. See also T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:226 – 229 [Hebrew].  R. Kalmin, “Jewish Sources,” 43. Note that Josephus brings the two stories on John and Jesus and on Jaddua and Manasseh successively, which points to the fact that they appeared like that in his source.

160

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

view, this is the historical kernel of the baraita and the only historical information we may gather from it altogether.⁸² That the foundation story of Onias’ Temple seems to have been a closed (exegetical) and perhaps independent unit emerges from the fact that it is attached to Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:18 – 19) predicting the erection of an altar devoted to God in Egypt.⁸³ The assumption that this tradition seems to have been a known one, is sustained by the fact that Josephus too makes the connection between Onias’ Temple and Isaiah’s prophecy in various instances. Again, this is not to say that Josephus necessarily used the same source as the Rabbis. Rather, the latter had access to material akin to that used by Josephus. This may indeed have been some form of priestly gossip, as suggested by Kalmin, which circulated within Judaean society. That the Rabbis were aware of a combined exegetical tradition linking Onias’ Temple with Isaiah’s prophecy may further be established by fact that they cite related material right after our baraita. Namely, in B Men. 110a, the Babylonian Amoraim present another baraita that relates to the question of how R. Meir expounded Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:18 – 19). The baraita tells us about Ḥezekiah who meets some princes (‫ )בני מלכים‬sitting in their golden carriages after the unsuccessful siege of Sanncherib. Ḥezekiah urges them to abandon idolatry and the princes come to Egypt, where they built an altar dedicated to the Jewish God. To their action the Rabbis apply Isaiah’s prophecy, which also refers to the founding of five cities speaking the Canaanite (i. e. Hebrew) language. The baraita is followed by the note that one of those cities is the “City of Destruction/ the Sun” (‫)עיר החרס‬, which the Talmud takes up to initiate a discussion of the meaning of the word (pun on) “sun/destruction” (‫ הרס‬/‫)חרס‬. It states that that city was Beth Shemesh (the “City of the Sun”). Then the Talmud cites the tradition from the Targum of Isaiah (19:18), that Bet Shemesh is destined to be destroyed (‫)קרתא דבית שמש דעתיד למירחב‬.⁸⁴ This goes to show that the Rabbis were well aware of the traditions regarding Onias’ Temple and the debates surrounding its legitimacy.⁸⁵

 R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” 108 [Hebrew]; J. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 300.  I have argued that Josephus (or the Jewish source he made use of for this report), knew this Oniad founding legend and used it in his/their slander against Onias’ actions. In a similar vein, Wasserstein notes with “interest” that the Rabbis juxtaposed Isa. 19:19 with Onias, but refrains from elaborating. See A. Wasserstein, “Notes on the Temple of Onias,” 124. See recently T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:209 – 210, 225 – 226 [Hebrew].  See B. D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes (The Aramaic Bible 11; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1987) 39.  T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:226 [Hebrew].

9 Conclusion: How much (Oniad) History is in the Talmud?

161

9 Conclusion: How much (Oniad) History is in the Talmud? My examination of the two baraitot in the Yerushalmi and in the Bavli has yielded that the Bavli either edited and revised the version found in the Yerushalmi, or edited and revised the source used by it. Therefore, I argued that the Yerushalmi, in fact, preserves a version of the story closer to the original source. The differences and later additions of the Bavli, which I noted in course of our study, become explicable in light of the Bavli’s Sitz im Leben and the reality in which the Babylonian Rabbis were living. First and foremost, I have singled out the Bavli’s tendency to introduce Sages as influential agents in the remote past and their efforts to marginalize the priesthood. As for the Talmudic source for the baraita, I have argued that it stems from some form of (oral) tradition(s) (or a collection thereof) concerned with prominent priests and the priesthood. Since that source takes an obvious (though negative) interest in the priesthood, it behooves us to assume that its origin is priestly too. What is more, the source is akin to sources used by Josephus and we have discovered that the baraita employs literary elements of stories about the priesthood preserved in Ant. 11.297– 301; 302 – 311 and Ant. 12.237– 241. This material served as the source of inspiration for the rabbinic story of the foundation of Onias’ Temple in Egypt. The Talmudic editor combined the elements of those stories with a separate tradition of the death of Simon the Righteous (T Sotah 13:8) and – most importantly – with an oral (or written) tradition of the foundation of Onias’ Temple, that must already have included the hermeneutical reference to Isaiah 19:18 – 19.⁸⁶ It seems too, that the Rabbis were well aware of the polemics against Onias’ Temple which surfaces in their reference to the pun on the “City of the Sun” and the “City of Destruction” in B Menaḥot 110a. Even though we should acknowledge that the rabbinic foundation story of Onias’ Temple in B Menaḥot 109b and Y Yoma 6,3 (43c-d) is nothing but a story, a literary creation based on several sources, such as William Shakespeare’s Richard III, or Antony and Cleopatra, it contains elements we may deem historical. I have argued that the historical kernel of the baraita is a story of a son of Simon the Righteous by the name of Onias (Ḥonio or Neḥonion), who was obliged to flee to Egypt on account of a dispute over the high priesthood. There he founded a Jewish sanctuary. In light of this, it is of much significance to learn that the builder of Onias’ Temple was a son (and not the grandson!) of Simon

 So too, T. Ilan, “The House of Onias,” 1:209 – 210, 225 – 226 [Hebrew].

162

Chapter 4 The Rabbis and the Temple of Onias

the Righteous.⁸⁷ This piece of information, of course, constitutes one of the most important insights in the context of the question of the Oniad Temple’s founder. Thus, the rabbinic baraita, in my view, echoes the evidence that we attained from the other sources I had discussed earlier, which associate the foundation of the temple with Onias III – chief among them Josephus’ Judaean War (7.423). What is equally noteworthy is the fact that the Rabbis, on the whole, preserved the memory of Onias’ Temple in their halakhic and Aggadic material, even though the subject was not a particularly popular theme in rabbinic literature.⁸⁸ This shows that Onias’ Temple was not a backwater sanctuary somewhere in the Egyptian “outback,” but a considerable and prominent Jewish religious institution of the Jewish Egyptian Diaspora.

 Also Parente and Schäfer came to that conclusion, F. Parente, “Le témoignage,” 430; P. Schäfer, “‘From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small’,” 134. Schäfer, however, thinks that this is a mistake and that the Talmudic tradition skips one generation of high priests and considers – well in line with the communis opinio – that Onias IV was the founder of the Oniad Temple. P. Schäfer, “‘From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small’,” 134. Against the overall historicity of the piece, see H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” 129 [Hebrew]. Nevertheless, Tchernowitz acknowledges that the only thing we may learn from the piece is that the Rabbis had differing opinions regarding Onias’ Temple (H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” 129 [Hebrew].). He moreover adopts a rather curious approach to solving the question of the temple’s builder: He argues that because the names of Onias III and Onias IV are the same and thus interchangeable, the chronological difference of the date of the temple’s foundation is minimal (only a few years). Hence, it could well be that Onias III planned the building of the temple, while it was Onias IV who actually built it (H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” 131 [Hebrew].). This is an interesting suggestion, but as I have stressed in previous chapters of this study, Tchernowitz’s harmonistic assumption is unfounded.  The references to Onias’ Temple are relatively few considering the overall scope of this corpus of literature.

Chapter 5 Archaeology and the Temple of Onias 1 Introduction Dealing with the history of Onias’ Temple entails a fair share of grappling with a paucity of sources. To our greatest regret, archaeology is one of those sources missing in our dossier. This situation is particularly irksome for historians since one is barred from resorting to so-called hard evidence that can verify, or negate, comparable literary evidence on the temple. True, some argue that there is archaeological evidence of Onias’ Temple, but this claim should be reexamined.

2 Previous Research: Tell el-Yahoudieh and the Temple of Onias The site of Onias’ Temple is commonly identified with Tell el-Yahoudieh, an artificial mound located in the Eastern Nile Delta some 20 miles (34 km) north of Cairo.¹ Tell el-Yahoudieh is located in the vicinity of the modern villages of Shibin el-Qanater, Kalyub and Tukh. The site aroused the interest of archaeologists rather early, but not necessarily in connection with Onias’ Temple.² This connection was drawn later. Initially, the site was identified with a Hyksos encampment, which also featured many remains from the Ramesside period.³ But the site also yielded finds from the Hellenistic (Ptolemaic) period. The site is an artificial hill on top of which vestiges of a structure were discovered that were believed to be the remains of a sacred building (temple).⁴ In addition, E. Naville and F. Griffith discovered there several funerary stelae from the Hellenistic or early Roman periods, whose origin was assumed to be Jewish. They consequently linked the

 (30°17′ N, 31°20′ E). See in particular the often-cited study by the “father of Egyptology,” Sir W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities (London: British School of Archaeology, University College; Quaritch, 1906) 20 – 27, but also earlier studies by E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1890) and E. Brugsch-Bey, “On et Onion,” RecTrav 8 (1886): 1– 8.  See for instance H. T. Lewis, “Tel-el-Yahoudeh,” TSBA 7 (1882): 177– 192.  See H. T. Lewis, “Tel-el-Yahoudeh,” 177– 192 and W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 3 – 19.  W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 23 – 24. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-010

164

Chapter 5 Archaeology and the Temple of Onias

site to a Jewish settlement in those periods.⁵ That the site was inhabited by Jews in antiquity is likewise indicated by the toponym Tell el-Yahoudieh, meaning the “Mound of the Jews.” Already in the 19th century, these observations led Naville & Griffith (as several other archaeologists later as well) to the conclusion that the temple site on top of the artificial hill is the remains of Onias’ Temple, which was shut down by the Romans in 73/74 CE.⁶ What seems to speak for this assumption is that one of the funerary epitaphs discovered at the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh (JIGRE 38) refers to the “Land of Onias” (’Ονίου γᾶ), which would thus connect the location to Onias and his temple.⁷ But it was predominantly Petrie, who championed the view that Tell el-Yahoudieh was the site of Onias’ Temple. It is also known as Leontopolis according to Josephus’ specification in Ant. 13.65, 70. Comprehensively relying on Josephus’ accounts, Petrie sought to prove the identification of the site with Onias’ Temple/Leontopolis. His main arguments were: 1) that the toponym, Tell el-Yahoudieh, clearly denotes a Jewish settlement; 2) the discovery of lion-busts representing the cat/lion-goddess Bubastis (Josephus records in Ant. 13.66, 70 that Onias’ built his temple on the site of a ruined Egyptian shrine of Bubastis);⁸ 3) the discovery of a Jewish cemetery in the near vicinity of the site; 4) the discovery of a tripartite temple-structure; 5) the building material (in particular the burned brick-material) which resonates with Josephus description of the outside walls of Onias’ Temple (BJ 7.430); 6) the approximate congruence of the distance between Tell el-Yahoudieh and ancient Memphis (Josephus gives 180 stadia [BJ 7.426], equalling 22.5 Roman miles); 7) some charred cylinders containing remains of lamb-bones unearthed by Petrie, which he interpreted as the remnants of the sacrificial cult conducted at Onias’ Temple.⁹

 E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 15 – 19. For the discussion of the inscriptions from Tell el-Yahoudieh and a relevant bibliography, see Chapter 6.  See above, n. 4. For a more recent claim, see Sh. Adam, “Recent Discoveries in the Eastern Delta (Dec. 1950 – May 1955),” ASAE 55 (1958): 301– 324.  That the country (or chora) of Onias’ Temple was known as such finds confirmation from a brief note preserved by Strabo apud Josephus in Ant. 14.131, where it is mentioned that certain Jews lived in a country named after Onias (’Ονίου χώραν).  W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 18, 20.  W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 22, 26. Petrie interpreted his findings of the lambbones as an indication of the Passover sacrifices.

2 Previous Research: Tell el-Yahoudieh and the Temple of Onias

165

8) the resemblance of the artificial hill with the topography of the site of the Jerusalem Temple. Until recently, these eight points were considered compelling evidence for the identification of Tell el-Yahoudieh with the site of Onias’ Temple (Leontopolis). However, there are several good reasons to challenge that view.¹⁰

Fig. 1: Tell el-Yahoudieh (Photography courtesy of Dr. Zsuzsanna Szántó)

 The most detailed refutation of Petrie’s identification is that of G. Hata, “Where is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” 177– 191. See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 27– 29 and the even earlier reservations of Comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Comte rendu sommaire d’une mission à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” BIFAO 29 (1929): 155 – 178; Comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Le temple d’Onias el le camp d’Hyksôs à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” BIFAO 35 (1935): 59 – 71.

166

Chapter 5 Archaeology and the Temple of Onias

3 Problems Concerning the Identification of the Location of the Temple of Onias The major problems with the identification of Tell-el-Yahoudieh as the site of Onias’ Temple are as follows: a) Ancient Leontopolis has recently been identified with Tell Muqdam, ruling out its identification with Tell el-Yahoudieh. ¹¹ Moreover, with regard to the Jewishness of Tell el-Yahoudieh, one may add two observations: True that the toponym signifies a Jewish settlement, but this location was certainly not the only Jewish settlement in the area. In fact, the entire Nile Delta was speckled with Jewish settlements.¹² Secondly, as I was personally told in a private conversation with an Egyptian archaeologist, apparently, there exist three locations known as Tell el-Yahoudieh in the area.¹³ Onias’ Temple could have stood at any of these locations. b) The discovery of Bast/Bubastis statues at Tell el-Yahoudieh is not sufficient evidence for the identification the site with the location of Onias’ Temple, since the cult of Bubastis was wide-spread in the area – in particular at Tell Basta, which is located not far from Tell el-Yahoudieh. ¹⁴ c) Similarly, the construction of walls and buildings with burnt bricks is common and wide-spread in the area and not something distinct as claimed by Petrie.¹⁵

 C. A. Redmount, and R. F. Friedman, “Tales of a Delta Site: The 1995 Field Season at Tell ElMuqdam,” JARCE 34 (1997): 57– 83. See also J. Yoyotte, “Sites et cultes de Basse-Egypte: les deux Léontopolis,” Annuaire – Ecole pratique des hautes études. Section des sciences religieuses 97 (1988 – 89): 669 – 83.  See V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” in Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, ed. by V. Tcherikover and A. Fuks (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957) 1:3 – 9.  Personal conversation with Dr. Ayman el Masry, who nevertheless failed to provide me with the specifics of the locations of the other Tell el-Yahoudieh known to him. The existence of several other places called Tell el-Yahoudieh was also assured to me by Prof. G. Hata in a personal correspondence (E-mail, 13. 2. 2014). Also Prof. Hata was not given any further data regarding other Tell el-Yahoudieh in the area, such as their exact locations, or how many of them exist.  On Tell-Basta see in particular H. E. Naville, Bubastis (1887 – 1889) (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1891) and G. Hata, “Where is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” 177– 191.  Petrie claimed that burnt brick only became a fashionable building material in Roman times (Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 21 and W. M. F. Petrie, Egyptian Architecture [London: Brititish School of Archaeology in Egypt and Quaritch, 1938] 3 – 13), which might be true in case of its wide-spread use in the Roman Empire, however, it was a common building material in Egypt already since biblical times. See Exod 1:14; 5:7– 8; 5:14– 19; Jer 43:9. Current finds from the vicinity of Tell el-Yehoudieh have yielded brick-wall-structures that were dated even earlier than the Hellenistic period. See C. A. Redmount and R. F. Friedman, “Tales of a Delta Site,” 70, 73. Sim-

3 Problems Concerning the Identification of the Location of the Temple of Onias

167

d) The space on top of the artificial hill at Tell el-Yahoudieh does not suffice to contain both a temple and a city as described by Josephus.¹⁶ e) The distance from Tell el-Yahoudieh to ancient Memphis (the measured distance to the city gates of Memphis is 186 stadia = 46.66 km /29 miles) is not identical with the figure supplied by Josephus in BJ 7.426 (180 stadia = 33 km/ 22.5 miles). Although the difference may appear marginal, the nature of Josephus’ source, a Roman military report, as I have argued in Chapter 1, makes this figure most reliable. This implies that the discrepancy in distance should be taken seriously.¹⁷ f) Despite the fact that one funerary inscription from Tell el-Yahoudieh refers to the “Land of Onias” and therefore connects the site with Onias’ Temple, the phrase implies that Onias was lord of a substantial territory. This, in turn, means that even though Tell el-Yahoudieh may indeed have been an Oniad settlement – and thus part of the “Land of Onias” – this observation does not necessarily place Onias’ Temple at this location. g) The identification of a tripartite temple-structure on top of the artificial hill by Petrie was convincingly challenged by R. du Mesnil du Buisson.¹⁸ But even if the remains of the alleged temple structure on top of the hill were tripartite, tripartite temple-structures were common in Egyptian temple architecture as well and not necessarily a distinct feature of Jewish sacred architecture.¹⁹

ilarly, Porten too has noted that the housing of the Jews residing at Elephantine – around the 6th5th century BCE – was made of sun-dried mud-bricks. B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 101. A Demotic ostracon (O. Petrie 24) discovered by Petrie on top of the mound (W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 26. and Pl. XXIV) dated to the 2nd century BCE, lists two brick-suppliers who, on account of their names, may have been Jewish (a certain Abram and a Shabtai); see Zs. Szántó, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Demotic Piece of Evidence,” in Miscellanea Historiae Antiquitatis: Proceedings of the First Croatian-Hungarian PhD Conference on Ancient History, ed. by Gy. Németh and D. Bajnok (Budapest and Debrecen: Kódex Könyvgyártó Kft., 2014) 79 – 88. Whether these individuals supplied bricks for the building of Onias’ Temple, as it is suggested, is speculative and cannot be substantiated.  Compte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Comte rendu,” 63 – 66; Compte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Le temple d’Onias,” 175 – 176.  Cf. W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 20; E. Brugsch-Bey, “On et Onion,” 6. BrugschBey calculated a discrepancy of ca. 8 km between the specifications rendered by Josephus and the real-time data based on modern calculations. But, see G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 29 (n. 49) who argues against the marginalization of the difference in distance between Tell el-Yahoudieh and Memphis as well.  Comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Le temple d’Onias,” 158.  See e. g. the temple of Dendra. R. H. Wilkinson, The Complete Temples of Ancient Egypt (Cairo: The American University of Cairo Press, 2005) 149 – 151.

168

Chapter 5 Archaeology and the Temple of Onias

h) The burnt cups, or cylinders discovered by Petrie, which he interpreted to be a sign of burnt-offering at the site, seems in fact to have been simple bred-ovens, as argued by R. du Mesnil de Buisson.²⁰

Fig. 2: View of the slope of Tell el-Yahoudieh (Photography courtesy of Zsuzsanna Szántó)

4 Conclusion In view of the points assembled above, the hypothesis that Tell el-Yahoudieh was the site of Onias’ Temple/Leontopolis, as championed by Petrie and others, holds no water. Consequently, until real vestiges of Onias’ Temple are undiscovered, Josephus’ account of the location of the Oniad Temple remains the only reliable source on the subject.

 W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 22; Comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Comte rendu,” 62.

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community 1 Introduction: the Funerary Epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh Despite the dispute about the identification of Tell el-Yahoudieh as the site of Onias’ settlement and Temple, it is generally accepted that a Jewish community settled there.¹ This is confirmed by the discovery of a Jewish cemetery in the vicinity of the site identified by Sir W. M. F. Petrie as the temple compound of Onias. The cemetery has yielded several revealing inscriptions which will be the focus of this chapter. However, an all-encompassing examination of the entire collection of the Tell el-Yahoudieh funerary epitaphs would exceed the scope of this chapter, and I therefore limit my overview to those inscriptions which provide us with insight into the organization and Ideenwelt of the Oniad community.²

 It is usually assumed that Onias’ Temple stood in near proximity to the cemetery. This view, as I have noted, is challenged in today’s scholarship. Additional excavation is impossible, since the remains have, by today, vanished. That the cemetery belonged to the Leontopolitan community can be undoubtedly inferred from JIGRE 38 that mentions the “Land of Onias,” which I will discuss below. See W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis nach den Inschriften,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, ed. by M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 118.  The inscriptions from Tell el-Yahoudieh, as well as those from near Demerdash are collected and commented in W. Horbury and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) 51– 196 and have recently been commented upon anew and translated into Italian by L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 171– 198. For further discussions on the inscriptions see E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 15 – 19; C. C. Edgar, “More Tomb-Stones from Tell el Yahoudieh,” ASAE 22 (1922): 7– 16; D. Lietzmann, “Jüdisch-griechische Inschriften aus Tell el Yahudieh,” ZNTW 22 (1923): 280 – 286; A. Momigliano, “Un documento della spiritualità dei Guidei Leontopolitani,” Aegyptus 12 (1932): 171– 172; D. M. Lewis in Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964) 3:145 – 163; U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW 44; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978) 237– 242 (Chapter 5.2.3, “Der Jenseitsglaube in den Inschriften von Tell-el-Yahoudieh”); D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. by J.-W. van Henten and P. Van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 162– 182; J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1995) 129 – 133; A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985) 122– 132; T. Ilan, “The https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-011

170

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

The Date of the Cemetery The funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh are commonly dated to the 1st century BCE – 1st century CE. Most of the inscriptions are dated and feature an Augustan regnal year (e. g. the 11th year, 16 BCE). For this reason, scholars are inclined to date the entire corpus of funerary epitaphs to the (early imperial) Augustan period. This sweeping dating of the necropolis is not precise and may thus be challenged, since tombstones with earlier dating were discovered at the site too.³ The fact that the large majority of the graves are dated to the Augustan period allows us to infer that these graves are the last places of rest of generations of Oniad Jews who were born on the eve of the Roman conquest of Egypt in 30 BCE and thereafter.⁴

Tell el-Yahoudieh: A Mixed Cemetery? Some New Insights and some Methodological Observations There is a prevailing assumption in modern scholarship that the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh was entirely Jewish.⁵ That assumption is essentially based on three observations: a) the toponym (Tell el-Yahoudieh, i. e. the “Mound of the Jews” in Arabic), indicating the presence of Jews at the site; b) the occurrence of Jewish names on some of the tombstones (we will treat this below); and c) the site’s proximity to what is believed to be the remains of the Temple of Onias.⁶ However, in spite of a Jewish presence at the site, which is attested by the existence of a number of funerary epitaphs featuring Jewish names, there is, in fact, nothing much to recommend the assumption that the entire cemetery was Jewish. The cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh, in fact, seems to have been mixed – Jewish and

New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis and the Question of Jewish Diaspora Cemeteries,” SCI 25 (2006): 71– 86; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 117– 133.  So for instance JIGRE 96 (and perhaps JIGRE 93, 90 too), which is dated to 58/57 BCE and another tombstone (JIGRE 30 and possibly also JIGRE 33) that may even be dated to the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (Physcon). See C. C. Edgar, “More Tomb-Stones,” 7; W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 57; D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 165; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 123.  J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 129.  See e. g. E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 15, who were also the first to make that claim.  See E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 14– 15 and Ilan’s observations in T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 80.

Tell el-Yahoudieh: A Mixed Cemetery?

171

non-Jewish.⁷ That Jews and non-Jews were buried next to each other in mixed cemeteries seems not to have been something extraordinary in ancient Egyptian-Jewish burial practice.⁸ This also emerges from the evidence of the cemeteries at Alexandria, Sedmet el-Gebel, and the Cyrenaica.⁹ Evidence for the mixed nature of the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh emerges mainly from a frequent occurrence of non-Jewish (Greek) names, such as e. g. Hilarion, daughter of Philip (JIGRE 70) or Agathokles, son of Onesimos (JIGRE 46).¹⁰ What is more, the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh is comprised of rock-cut family tombs located in a common burial ground.¹¹ With respect to the question which of these tombs belonged to Jews and which not, we could assume that if one of the members of a family interred in a given tomb was Jewish – for which the main indicator is a Jewish onomasticon –, so was everyone else buried there. To our aggravation, however, most of the tombstones found by the first excavators were (re‐)moved

 On the notion that the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh was mixed, see T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 79 – 80; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 124; and also G. Bohak, “Good Jews, Bad Jews and Non-Jews in Greek Papyri and Inscriptions,” in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin 13 – 19. 8. 1995, ed. by B. Kramer, W. Luppe and H. Maehler (Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 3,1; Stuttgart/ Leipzig: Teubner, 1997) 105 – 112. This consequently leads one to speculate about the percentage of Jews buried there. Noy is convinced that the community was largely, if not in all, Jewish. See D. Noy, “The Jewish communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 182.  The intriguing fact that none of the known Jewish cemeteries from the ancient Diaspora appear to have been separated from Gentile cemeteries is also discussed by Ilan in her study, “‘Kever Israel:’ Since When Do Jews Bury Their Dead Separately and What Did They Do Beforehand?” in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy, ed. by A. I. Baumgarten, H. Eshel, R. Katzoff, and Sh. Tzoref (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) 241– 254.  For that matter, the only known entirely Jewish Diaspora cemeteries from antiquity are the Jewish catacombs in Rome and Venosa; see T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 79. The reason why one can argue for a total Jewishness of these subterranean burial grounds is that they were commissioned by the local Jewish community. This fact ultimately allows us to assume that all of the tombs in the catacombs belonged to Jews, regardless of how “pagan” their ornamentation or how Greek/Latin the names of the deceased may have been (see T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 79.). The communal effort for constructing such catacombs, or common burial grounds, distinguishes them from the rest of the (Jewish) cemeteries in the Diaspora, which were either comprised of private tombs located in the midst of “foreign” (i. e. non-Jewish) cemeteries (such as the cemetery at Hierapolis in Asia Minor) or family tombs that were likewise located within common (i. e. “foreign”) burial grounds (e. g. at Alexandria in Egypt and Gamarat, next to Carthage in North Africa); T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 80 – 84.  See also T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 79 – 80.  E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 13; D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 164; T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 80 – 81.

172

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

and brought to museums without recording their location;¹² others were removed by locals (presumably for construction efforts) and/or were sold at the Cairo antiquities market.¹³ The fact that there is no remaining record of which tombstone adorned what tomb precludes us from arguing for or against the possible Jewishness of a particular deceased. Therfore, and in terms of methodology, one has to revert mainly to names in order to determine which of tombs can be considered Jewish and which not.¹⁴ Other indictors for the Jewishness of in Jewish epigraphy (with the exception of names) are: (1) the occurrence of Jewish symbols; (2) inscriptions that are written in either Hebrew or Aramaic (i. e. written in Jewish characters); and (3) inscriptions that employ the ethnicon Ioudaios/Ebraios. ¹⁵ However, also with respect to these points, the inscriptions from Tell el-Yahoudieh turn out to be problematic as we shall discover in a moment. In fact, the argument that the cemetery was not entirely Jewish appears to be sustained by the following additional observations: (a) all the inscriptions are in Greek (no Hebrew or Aramaic was used),¹⁶ (b) the absence of the ethnicon (Ioudaios/ Ebraios), (c) absence of Jewish symbols (Menoroth) on the tombstones,¹⁷ (d) the occurrence of Greek/Hellenistic ideas, ideology and mythology and (e) the unusual occurrence of metrical rhymes in some of the funerary inscriptions. However, not all the items listed here, necessarily negate the Jewishness of certain funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh – rather, they underscore the assimilatory character and accultured aspect of this particular Jewish community. (a) The fact that all the epitaphs from the Tell el-Yahoudieh cemetery are in Greek and not in Hebrew or Aramaic may be striking when one considers the overall number of Jews buried there, but is not so surprising when we consider that we are talking about a Jewish community located in a Greek-speaking, Egyp-

 E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 13.  G. Bohak, “Good Jews, Bad Jews,” 106; T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 81.  See also D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 165.  For a discussion of these indicators of Jewishness in Jewish epigraphy, see T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 77.  This is a remarkable fact given that the Jewish refugees who founded the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh (much as the refugees from Palestine coming later during the First Judaean War) spoke Aramaic and (at least) the priests among them certainly knew Hebrew too. However, given that the inscriptions are mostly from the Augustan period, we may surmise that the Greek prevailed the native language of the founders of the community, which explains our findings. See also W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 129.  The absence of Jewish symbols on the tombstones from Tell el-Yahoudieh was also noted and discussed by D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 165 – 166.

Tell el-Yahoudieh: A Mixed Cemetery?

173

tian Diaspora.¹⁸ Therefore, the use of the Greek language may be taken as an indicator of the assimilation and acculturation of the Oniad community at Tell elYahoudieh, and not necessarily as an indicator against the Jewishness of a given tombstone. (b) The conspicuous absence of the ethnicon Ioudaios/Ebraios (“Jew/Hebrew”) from the funerary epitaphs is probably best explained by the early Roman dating of the cemetery, at a time when the use of the ethnicon by Jews in Egypt became obsolete.¹⁹ Notably, in other Diaspora cemeteries (e. g. at Hierapolis in Asia-Minor) from the Graeco-Roman period the ethnicon seems to have been employed (such as in the case of Hierapolis on sarcophagi), precisely in order to mark a Jewish (family) tomb within a non-Jewish cemetery.²⁰ This observation is intriguing, because it seems to imply that the Oniad Jews at Tell el-Yahoudieh did not feel a need to make explicit any form of separation from their Gentile neighbors – even on the tombstones hailing from the pre-Roman period, when the ethnicon was still in use.²¹

 For the Greek language as the lingua franca of the Jewish Diaspora, see L. I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998) 77– 80; J. M. G. Barclay, The Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE – 117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999) 88 – 89.  The papyrological and epigraphical evidence from Egypt provides some insightful clues with regard to this point. Namely, in the Roman period one notices a general absence of ethnical designations in official documentation (such as papyri) and in inscriptions, as opposed to the Ptolemaic period, where one encounters a plenitude of cases where Jews are designated “’Ιουδαίος” on account of their ethnicity. Here are a few papyrological examples from CPJ Nos. 8, 9, 18, 19, 20 – 26, 30, 33, 38.  T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 73.  E. g. JIGRE 30, 33, 93, 96. Noy too, explains the absence of the ethnic specification by underlining the irrelevance of such designation for the members of the community, who felt no need to differentiate. D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 182. Note that these inscriptions, however, are listed by Ilan (“New Jewish Inscriptions,” 86) as “questionably” Jewish on account of their onomastics. The assumption that these tombs were simply not Jewish would certainly vouch for the absence of the ethnicon, but as noted, it is far from certain whether or not these tombs belonged to Jews. One may also explain the absence of the ethnicon by the fact that the designation ’Ιουδαίος might not have referred to the ethnicity of the deceased (i. e., Jews qua Jews) but rather to their nationality (i. e. Jews qua Judeans). Regarding the problem of understanding the term ’Ιουδαίος view S. J. D. Cohen, The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999) 69 – 106; regarding the meaning of the term in Josephus, D. R. Schwartz, “Herodians and Ioudaioi in Flavian Rome,” in Flavius Josephus & Flavian Rome, ed. by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 63 – 78.

174

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

(c) Given that some of the Jewish cemeteries in the Diaspora feature Jewish motifs or similar Jewish identity markers,²² their absence from the Tell el-Yahoudieh epitaphs appears to be striking. However, we should point out the fact that such symbols are generally absent from any of the known cemeteries in Egypt where Jews were buried.²³ (d) Some of the contents of the funerary epitaphs reveal fairly large degree of Hellenism and employ Greek ideas, such as a frequent mention of Hades (JIGRE 31, 34, 38, 39).²⁴ Yet, even the belief in the post-mortem concept of Hades does not necessarily indicate a turn towards polytheism.²⁵ The concept of Hades can hardly be divorced from the genre of funerary inscriptions, much as other conceptions of the afterlife. These, we may add, were far from consistent. The concept of Hades was under Hellenistic culture assimilated to the Jewish belief in the Sheol (the “underwold”) and is thus not alien to Judaism or contradicts Jewish belief in any way.²⁶ Once more, the display of Greek concepts on the funerary epitaphs should be interpreted as a sign of acculturation and assimilation of the members of the Oniad community, rather than indicating a non-Jewish tomb.

 Such symbols were discovered, e. g. in the Roman catacombs and on tombstones from the cemetery at Gamarat in North Africa; see T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 79, 83.  I.e. the cemeteries at Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu); Alexandria, Sedment el-Gebel and in the Cyrenaica; see also T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 79, 81– 3. The cemetery at at Apollonopolis Magna (Edfu) is discussed by W. Kornfeld, “Jüdisch-aramäische Grabinschriften aus Edfu,” AÖAW 110 (1973): 123 – 37.  On this issue and its possible connection to the Oniad community, see M. M. Piotrkowski, “Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?” in Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur in ihrem interkulturellen Kontext, ed. by M. Hirschberger (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012) 135 – 137 and below, Chapter 9. JIGRE 34 should be considered Jewish on account of the deceased’s name (Jesus). Two other inscriptions mentioning Hades, JIGRE 31 and 38, are listed by Ilan as questionably; see T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 86. However, JIGRE 31 is listed questionable apparently precisely because it employs the Greek concept of Hades (the name of the deceased is not preserved), although that concept is in fact congruent with the Jewish belief in Sheol – the “underworld.” Since I will discuss JIGRE 38 and 39 in depth below, suffice it to note here briefly that I consider both inscriptions Jewish because of onomastical considerations.  Hades is also mentioned in the Septuagint (e. g. LXX Gen 37:35; 42:38; Num 16:30, 16:33 and, inter alia, very prominently in the Pslams) and in various other Jewish-Hellenistic compositions such as Tobit 13:2, 2 Maccabees 6:23 (and see 12:45 for the idea of an afterlife), and 3 Maccabees 4:8, 5:42, 5:51, and 6:31. The Greek concept of Hades is akin to the Jewish concept of the Sheol (‫)שאול‬. See J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 131 and W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 92– 93. See in particular J. S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 23 – 24, 31– 32, 37, 176 and Chapter 9.  See our previous note and M. M. Piotrkowski, “Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees,” 135 – 137 (and the literature cited there).

Tell el-Yahoudieh: A Mixed Cemetery?

175

(e) The same explanation may be given for the phenomenon of metric inscriptions, which are unique to the Oniad Jews laid to rest at Tell el-Yahoudieh, even in comparison with other Jewish funerary epitaphs in Greek from elsewhere in Egypt.²⁷ Despite the fact that the Jewishness of the majority of these inscriptions has been called into question and thus remains “doubtful,” even when applying a minimalist approach, in which only inscriptions with Jewish names are considered Jewish, about a quarter of these metric inscriptions are undoubtedly Jewish.²⁸ These definitely attest to the fact that the Jews of the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh seem to have adopted that custom from their non-Jewish neighbors/comrades. The literary richness of the funerary epitaphs indicates the importance of commemoration of the dead for the living members of the community.²⁹ This fact is of significance in light of the onomastical behavior evident in several of the Jewish papyri, in which the name “Onias” is mentioned more than once. This phenomenon may be explained by suggesting that various families seem to have had an affiliation with the Oniad community and sought to maintain the memory of its founder by naming their offspring after him.³⁰ The importance

 See also J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 129 and W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 123. On the metric inscriptions in particular, see P. W. van der Horst, “Jewish Metrical Epitaphs,” in Early Christian Poetry: A Collection of Essays, ed. by J. den Boeft and A. Hilhorst (Leiden: Brill, 1993) 1– 7. Tell el-Yahoudieh, in fact, is one of the places which yielded the most of these metric rhyme inscriptions in all of Egypt. Epitaphs in metrical rhyme-form might have been fashionable at that time among the “uneducated population” of Egypt. See G. H. R. Horsley, “Towards a new Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum?” JSQ 2 (1995): 89. This is taken by scholars such as Edgar and Momigliano as an indication of the strong Hellenized character of the Leontopolitan [sic] community. C. C. Edgar, “More Tomb-Stones,” 8, 12– 13; A. Momigliano, “Un documento,” 172. Momigliano went as far as labelling Arsinoe, whose funerary epitaph he discussed (JIGRE 38), a “schismatic Jewess,” on the grounds of the pagan terminology and the “pagan” spirit prevalent in the contents of the inscription. According to Momigliano, since Arsinoe and her family endorsed such alien ideas, the entire Jewish community residing in the “Land of Onias” were thus thoroughly Hellenized. A. Momigliano, “Un documento,” 172.  The epitaphs written in metric rhyme are: JIGRE 29 – 39, including JIGRE 114, which is from near-by Demerdash that is believed to have had an affiliation with Tell el-Yahoudieh. With the exception of JIGRE 29 (that mentions a Somoelus), JIGRE 34 (that mentions a Jesus), JIGRE 36 (that mentions a Rachelis) and JIGRE 39 (that mentions an Abramos), the rest of the inscriptions are considered “questionable” by Ilan (see T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 86). In addition to the four inscriptions referred to above, we note that JIGRE 31 and 35 do not feature any names, which leaves open the question of their possible Jewishness, but let us recall that I have made a case for the Jewishness of JIGRE 38 above (in n. 24).  J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 130.  See for instance CPJ 86; 137; 157; 451; 453 and my discussion in Chapter 7 (n.2).

176

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

of remembrance of the dead by the living may have been prominent among Egyptian Jews on the whole, but it was particularly so among the members of the Oniad community.

Onomastics Most names derive from the Bible: Abramos, Eleazar (3x), Iakobus (3x), Iesus (2x), Ioanes (2x), Iosephos (2x), Isakis, Iudas (2x), Nethanin/Nethanis, Rachelis, Somoelos (3x). Next to this list of biblical names, we encounter theophoric names as well, which were very popular among Diaspora Jews.³¹ Thus, we encounter names such as: Dositheos (3x) and its derivates: Dosa, Dosithon, Dosarion; Sabbataios (7x) and its derivates: Sabbathos, Sabbation (2x), Sambathion, Sambaios; Theodora, Theodosios, Theophilos and its derivates.³² Given the initial strained Oniad-Hasmonean relations it is intriguing to discern in the funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh Hasmonean names, which enjoyed a fair degree of popularity in the Second Temple period, particularly after the Maccabean revolt.³³ We can explain this phenomenon in two ways. Either the bearers of those Hasmonean names were refugees from Judaea, or, around the Augustan period, Oniad-Hasmonean relations were simply not as bit-

 T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:10 – 11; S. Honigman, “The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a Jewish Self-Definition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of Onomastics,” in Diasporas in Antiquity, ed. by S. J. D. Cohen and E. S. Frerichs (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 110.  W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 124.  On the strained Oniad-Hasmonean relations see D. J. Kaufman, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oniad High Priesthood,” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 51– 52 and G. Bohak’s discussion in his, Joseph and Aseneth, 32– 34. With regard to the Hasmonean names in the Tell el-Yahoudieh funerary inscriptions, see JIGRE 30, which features an Alexander, who may have been a contemporary of Alexander Yannai (W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 60) and JIGRE 45 features an Aristobulus. True, one may, of course, argue that both were non-Jews on account of their Greek names, but the fact remains that these names were conspicuously adopted by the Hasmoneans. As such, Ilan lists them as questionably Jewish; T. Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 86. But these are not the only occurences of names used by the Hasmoneans. In JIGRE 54 we hear about an Iudas, son of Iudas and JIGRE 131 similarly, features the name Iuda. However, the latter inscription is of uncertain provenance and therefore, there is no way to ascertain Judah’s affiliation with Oniad community. On the Hasmonean names and their popularity in Jewish antiquity, see T. Ilan, “The Names of the Hasmoneans during the Second Temple Period,” Eretz Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies: M. Avi-Yonah Memorial Volume, ed. by D. Barag, G. Foerster, and A. Negev (vol. 19; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1987) 238 – 41 [Hebrew].

Tell el-Yahoudieh: A Mixed Cemetery?

177

ter as is usually presumed. There is good reason to assume the latter.³⁴ The “Judas, son of Judas” funerary epitaph (JIGRE 54), for example, is dated to the first century CE. By that time Oniad-Hasmonean relations were at least cordial, if not outright friendly. Thus, even if we assume that Judas was a member of the Oniad community, the fact that he bore a Hasmonean name seems to have bothered no one in the Augustan period. Nonetheless, and as Ameling notes, the Hasmonean names appearing in the inscriptions are “allerdings wenig prominient.”³⁵ Of further note are two more inscriptions that mention the name “Ḥelkias.” These are of relevance to us because Josephus tells us that a Ḥelkias was one of Onias’ III sons. I shall discuss them in more depth below.³⁶ By and large, we find that Greek and Hebrew names were used within the same family, although the names do not indicate a tendency toward an increased Hellenization of the members of the community. Correspondingly, there was a declining tendency in the use of Egyptian names.³⁷ In the context of the notion of the onomastical behavior (or better: onomastical ideology) of the Oniad community, and the avoidance or a preference of certain names, we note the fact that Seleucid dynastic names are non-existent in the lexicon of names in the Tell elYahoudieh funerary epitaphs. This phenomenon is perhaps best explained against the background of the strained Ptolemaic-Seleucid relations and the equally bad record of Jewish-Seleucid relations – particularly those with Antiochus IV. However, we only encounter two Ptolemaic dynastic names, both female, which indicates that dynastic names in general were somewhat unpopular in the Jewish community of Tell el-Yahoudieh. ³⁸ With respect to dynastic and  The Josephan evidence in particular suggests that Oniad-Hasmonean relations gradually improved since the days of Alexander Yannai. See Ant. 13.353 – 355 and the incident with Caesar’s relief-force from Judaea under the command of Antipater and Hyrcanus II, see BJ 1.190 – 191 and Ant. 14.131– 132 On this issue, see also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 32– 37 and below, Chapter 12.  W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 125.  The inscriptions referring to a Ḥelkias are JIGRE 129 and 156. Josephus mentions Ḥelkias, a son of Onias in Ant. 13.285, 287, 349, 351, 355.  D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 167– 168.  Two “Arsinoe” are mentioned in JIGRE 33 and 38. As we recall, I consider the latter inscription Jewish. As for JIGRE 33, it is intriguing to note that the epitaph also mentions Arsinoe’s husband, a certain Phabeis (Φαβεῖς). In this context, we may also point out that Menahem Stern has argued for the identification of that Phabeis with a high priest named Jesus ben Phiabi recorded by Josephus in Ant. 15.322. According to Josephus, ben Phiabi, a native of Egypt, was “imported” by Herod in order to serve as high priest in the Jerusalem Temple. Stern suggested that ben Phiabi, being of Egyptian origin, had learned his trade at the Temple of Onias before coming to Jerusalem; see M. Stern, “A New Ruling Class in the Days of Herod,” in King Herod and his Age, ed.

178

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

Greek names, the onomastical behavior of the Oniad community is notably different from that of the neighboring Heracleopolis community. On the other hand, there are hardly any Semitic/Jewish names used by members of the Jewish politeuma of Heracleopolis.³⁹ At the same time, members of the Oniad community at Leontopolis did adopt non-Jewish names without hesitation, as exemplified by the case of Arsinoe.⁴⁰

Demography Regarding the demography of the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh, we discover that about 40 % of the deceased were women. This is not unusual in comparison with other data from Egypt. Comparative data from other Diaspora communities, however, reveal a much lower percentage of women and children among the deceased.⁴¹ The meaning of the under-representation of children is ambiguous, and by no means an unusual occurrence. It might be possible that children were not listed as children in some funerary epitaphs or merely recorded by name without specifying an age.

Some Preliminary Conclusions In sum, I underline the mixed nature of the Tell el-Yahoudieh cemetery, which in and of itself seems not to have been something extraordinary in ancient Egyptian-Jewish burial practice. Since, as Josephus indicates, the Oniad community was a settlement of Jewish mercenaries, we may conjecture that the non-Jews buried alongside the Jews in this cemetery were their comrades-in-arms, with

by M. Naor (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1985) 97– 98 [Hebrew]. Stern’s identification of the Phabeis mentioned in JIGRE 33 with Josephus’ high priest Jesus ben Phiabi, however, stands on shaky ground. However, since we here have an example of a Jew – not least a high priest! – bearing the name Phiabi/Phabeis, this observation would speak in favor of the assumption that Arsinoe and her husband were Jewish.  See J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/ 3 – 133/2 v. Chr.) Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001) 30 – 32, 155 – 156 and S. Honigman, “The Jewish Politeuma at Heracleopolis,” SCI 21(2002): 251– 266 and S. Honigman, “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt,” AS 33 (2003): 61– 102.  See above, n. 38.  D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 170 – 171; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 131– 132.

Tell el-Yahoudieh: A Mixed Cemetery?

179

whom they had served together.⁴² On the whole, those funerary inscriptions from Tell el-Yahoudieh that may be considered Jewish bear no specific references to the Jewish religion, not even to monotheism. At the same time, however, none of these inscriptions stand in direct antagonism toward any specific Jewish belief.⁴³ Still, according to Noy, the Jews of Tell el-Yahoudieh followed standard non-Jewish commemoration practices.⁴⁴ Also Ameling notes that the (Jewish) funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh are not much different in form and content from what we may witness from various non-Jewish inscriptions, e.g from Egyptian burial sites discovered in Alexandria.⁴⁵ Thus, they display a certain universalism in their commemoration practice, which reflects the assimilatory character of the local community. As such, the Jewish funerary inscriptions and burial practices reveal a strong affinity with the Graeco-Egyptian surrounding culture, indicating that the members of the Oniad community appear to have had no particular qualms about harmonizing this or that Jewish belief with a popular Hellenistic one (once more, I refer to the example of ‫ שאול‬and Hades). The fair degree of universalism and Hellenization is also evident, as we have seen, in the use of the Greek language for the inscription and the use of metrical rhymes in the funerary texts, which was a fashionable Egyptian burial custom at that  See also W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 124. He too conjectures that because of the mercenary character of the Jewish community of Tell el-Yahoudieh, foreign (Gentile) brothers-in-arms may have been buried alongside their Jewish fellow combatants and that the cemetery, therefore, was indeed a mixed one.  W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 125; J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 130. On the lack of orthodoxy in the inscriptions compare A. Momigliano, “Un documento,” 172.  D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 171, 182. Notably, Noy argues against any trends of Hellenization at Tell el-Yahoudieh and finds that the character of the inscriptions, as well as the burial practices of the community of Tell el-Yahoudieh, are more Egyptian in nature than Jewish. D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 169, 182. It has even been suggested that some corpses were cremated or mummified. See E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 13. This notion rests on the assumption that the occurrence of the word πύροω in one of the inscriptions (JIGRE 83) refers to cremation, but as Edgar already remarked, the word should be understood metaphorically in the sense of “extreme sorrow” (and not “to burn”) in conjunction with the overall context of the funerary epitaphs. See C. C. Edgar, “More Tomb-Stones,” 8; W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 68, 89, 156; J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 133. Hence, there is no substantial evidence that cremation was practiced by the Jews of Tell el-Yahoudieh. But even if the reference here is indeed to the “un-Jewish” burial practice of cremation, the entire “problem” evaporates in light of the fact that the deceased (and her family) mentioned in this inscription simply were not Jewish. In fact, nothing in the epitaph discloses its possible Jewishness (the name of the deceased is fragmentary and seems to be Greek) and thus, it is listed as “doubtfully” Jewish by Ilan (“New Jewish Inscriptions,” 86).  W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 123, 127.

180

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

time. Religious identity seems not have been an issue for the members of the Oniad community, who in spite of all their universalism, still attempted to retain their own heritage by naming their children with Jewish names.⁴⁶ Having provided a general overview of the funerary inscriptions from Tell elYahoudieh and their social context, I now proceed to a detailed discussion of some relevant epitaphs.

2 JIGRE 38: The “Land of Onias” This quite outstanding funerary epitaph belonging to one Arsinoe is written in dialogue-form and in Doric Greek. Although the inscription records non-Jewish names, namely a certain Arsinoe, daughter of Aline and a Theodosius, I consider it Jewish for the following reasons: While we may assume that Aline, Arsinoe’s mother, may not have been Jewish based on her non-Jewish name,⁴⁷ there are occurrences of Jews in the Diaspora bearing the names Arsinoe⁴⁸ and Theodosius⁴⁹. Moreover, JIGRE 38 mentions the “Land of Onias” (’Ονίου γᾶ), the territory named after the high priest Onias who founded the Temple of Onias and presumably also the Jewish military settlement at Tell el-Yahoudieh, of which Arsinoe seems to have been a member. Although doubts may remain, these two observations speak in favor of the Jewishness of JIGRE 38. Thus, next to the literary quality of this remarkable text, Arsinoe’s inscription is of special significance for us because of the aforementioned commemoration of her geographical origin, viz. the “Land of Onias” (’Ονίου γᾶ). We recall that Josephus too, mentions that Jewish fighters inhabited the “Land of Onias” (’Ονίου χώραν).⁵⁰ Josephus’ rather

 Cf. D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 182.  The name Aline is only recorded once in the lexicon of Jewish names in the Diaspora and it is the one under discussion here; see T. Ilan, A Lexicon of Jewish Names in Antiquity: Part III: The Western Diaspora 330 BCE-650 CE (4 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 656.  3 times; with its derivate Arsinoa, another 3 times; see T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 3:405.  10 times, see T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 3:294– 295.  BJ 7.421 and 1.190, which has a parallel at Ant. 14.131. Also Ant. 14.117 implies the existence of the “Land of Onias.” The passage, which is based on Strabo, mentions that the Jews have certain territories assigned to them. It has recently become the subject of scholarly dispute, see B. BarKochva, “The Settlement of the Sons of Onias in Egypt – Philological Remarks,” Zion 64 (1999): 220 – 229 [Hebrew]; D. R. Schwartz, “More on Strabon’s Datum on ‘The Land of Onias’ (Ant. 14.117) – Text Emendation vs. Semantic Expansion,” Zion 64 (1999): 230 – 234 [Hebrew]. See also Y. Glucker and Z. Rubin, “Incorrect Textual Corrections,” in A Collection of Papers and Studies in Torah and Jewish Studies in Memory of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Halevi Katzenellenb-

2 JIGRE 38: The “Land of Onias”

181

fleeting note is based on Strabo of Amaseia, which allows us to assume that Strabo was not only familiar with the existence of Onias’ settlement in the Delta, but it furthermore indicates that the designation “Onias’ Land” must have been commonly known as such. This view is reinforced by a second reference to the “Land of Onias” in BJ 7.421, which, as we have discerned, is based on a Roman military report.⁵¹ That Onias’ settlement was indeed known as the “Land of Onias” is thus confirmed by the funerary epitaph JIGRE 38.⁵² We may add here that in later pagan and Christian literature too, the term “Onias” was used to delineate Onias’ settlement. For instance, Claudius Ptolemy, a second century CE mathematician, astronomer and geographer, mentions that Heliopolis itself was renamed ’Ονίου (Onias’ city).⁵³ Moreover, Jerome and Eusebius claimed that the name “Onias’ settlement” was used to commemorate its founder. Thus, Eusebius states in his Chronicon that Onias came to Egypt and founded a city there that is called ’Ονείου.⁵⁴ In a similar vein Jerome says that Onias founded a city that was named after himself.⁵⁵ Linked to the “Arsinoe-inscription” is the fragmentary epitaph JIGRE 44. All that is left of the inscription are two legible words: [‐-‐]oνίου πατήρ ‫‐[ ׀‬-‐].

ogen z“l, ed. by Rabbi Y. E. Halevi Movshovitz (Sinai 126 – 127; Jerusalem: HaRav Kuk Press, 2001) 354– 365 [Hebrew], who vehemently (and forcefully) rebuff Schwartz’s suggested textual emendation.  See our previous discussion of the relevant passages in Chapter 1 “Flavius Josephus and Oniad History.”  See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 186; J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 186; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 118. Delcor, based on the assumption that the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh should be dated to the Augustan period, attempts to establish a terminus post quem of 14 CE for the designation of the “Land of Onias,” M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 195.  Claudius Ptolemy, Geogr. IV.5.53: ‘Ηλιοπολίτης νομός καὶ μητρόπολις ήλίου ἢ ’Ονίου. He also mentions a second Heliopolis to the south-east of ’Ονίου, in the eastern desert. G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 25 (n. 32).  ’Ονείας…ἐλθὼν εἰς Αἴγυπτον κτίζει πόλιν τὴν ἐπικληθεῖσαν Όνείου. A. Schoene, Eusebi Chronicorum Libri (2 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1875) 2:216.  R. Helm, Eusebius Werke: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (7 vols.; Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte 47; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956) 2:141: Onias…in Heliopolitano pago civitatem nominis sui condit; and his commentary on Daniel (In Danielem on verse 11:14): urbs, quae vocabatur Oniae (…a city that is called, city of Onias…). F. Glorie, Hieronymus Stridonensis: Commentariorum in Danielem libri III (IV) (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75 A; Turnhout: Brepols, 1964) 908 – 909.

182

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

It has been suggested that the first word be read as “Onias” and the following one as the honorary title pater, which is known in the context of the ancient synagogue.⁵⁶ The appellation “Onias pater” could thus also, refer to the “Land of Onias” as indeed has been proposed, since it implies someone who was in charge of the territory of Onias and its community. However, the reconstruction of the name “Onias” is dubious, since it seems that the name has not been preserved in its entirety; ’ονίου appears to be the legible part of an illegible longer name and consequently it may not refer to Onias (the high priest) at all.⁵⁷ As for the second word in that inscription, pater, it has been identified as referring to an honorary title. The individual so named, however, was not in charge of territory, but rather was some sort of a leader or other person of respect.⁵⁸ Thus, on account of the problematic reading of the inscription, we should be hesitant to see here a further reference to the “Land of Onias.” We shall therefore content ourselves with the evidence from JIGRE 38 and Josephus that confirm that the territory under the Oniads’ auspices was indeed renowned and referred to as such.

3 JIGRE 39: “Abramos the πολιτάρχης” This important funerary epitaph constitutes one of the most revealing inscriptions affiliated with the Oniad community, for its contents give much insight into the community’s organization. The epitaph is of unknown provenance,⁵⁹ but can be associated with Tell el-Yahoudieh for two reasons: Firstly, because the overall form of the epitaph is identical with the stele-form known from the Tell el-Yahoudieh cemetery.⁶⁰ Secondly, its contents and text-form may clearly be associated with the metrical epitaphs found at Tell el-Yahoudieh. ⁶¹ Based on palaeography the epitaph has been carefully dated to between the second cen-

 See W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 111. On the title pater, see H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960) 186 – 188; B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Brown Judaic Studies 36; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982) 64– 72; L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 404– 406.  W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 111.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 25.  It was acquired in Cairo, see W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 96.  C. C. Edgar, “More Tomb-Stones,” 12– 13.  E. Bernard, Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 98; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1969) 97; W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 96.

3 JIGRE 39: “Abramos the πολιτάρχης”

183

tury BCE and the second century CE.⁶² The epitaph mentions a certain Abramos, which is a biblical name, and hence the inscription should be considered Jewish. Abramos is designated there politarch (πολιτάρχης) and “was not without honor in the city (πόλιν), but was crowned in his wisdom with a communal magistracy over all the people (…καὶ ἀρχῇ πανδήμῳ ἐθνικῇ…).” The inscription continues praising Abramos: “for you were honored by holding a magistracy in two places (δισσῶν γάρ τε τόπον πολιταρχῶν…), fulfilling the double expense with gracious liberality.”⁶³ The offices held by Abramos that are mentioned in the epitaph point toward communal organization of Onias’ community into a politeuma. Whether the Jewish communities in the Diaspora were indeed organized into politeumata has long been debated,⁶⁴ but recently confirmed by evidence from Heracleopolis.⁶⁵ The politeuma was a cultural organizational body comprised of a non-fixed number of members of a certain ethnicity of soldiers and/or civilians or both; the organizational structures could differ significantly from one another.⁶⁶ However, the organization of communities into politeumata in Egypt was not solely a Jewish phenomenon. Indeed, several inscriptions attest Gentile politeumata, too.⁶⁷ Be that as it may, the strongest argument for assuming the organization of Onias’ community into a politeuma is the mention of Abramos’ tenure as

 The inscription is not dated and the palaeographical evidence suggests an imperial date, see W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 96; A. Kasher, The Jews in Egypt, 126.  Ι follow the translation in JIGRE of lines 5 – 8.  Until recently only two sources suggested the existence of a politeuma of the Jews. A note in the fictitious account of the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, the Letter of Aristeas (310) mentions that the Jews of Alexandria were organized into a politeuma, a view arduously defended by A. Kasher in his Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt (see n. 2, passim). The second evidence, which is of epigraphic nature and hence more serious, is a dedicatory inscription for two Jews from 1st century CE Cyrenaica that was issued by orders of the local politeuma. See in more detail S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 160 – 163. On the inscription, see A. G. Woodhead, Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum, vol. 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1959): 243 – 244 [no. 931] = A. Böckh, Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (vol. 3, ed. by J. Franz, E. Curtius, and A. Kirchhoff; Berlin: Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1853) [nos. 5361 and 5362]. On the politeuma, see C. Zuckermann, “Hellenistic Politeuma and the Jews: A Reconsideration” (Review Article of Arye Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic-Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights, Tübingen, 1985),” SCI 8/9 (1985 – 1988): 171– 185; G. Lüderitz, “What is the Politeuma?” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. by J. W. van Henten and P. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill 1994) 183 – 225; J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 182.  See n. 39 and the subsequent discussion.  J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 7.  For a list of those, see our previous note (n. 66), J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 7.

184

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

πολιτάρχης.⁶⁸ This assumption is further bolstered inter alia, by additional evidence from several other epitaphs from the Tell el-Yahoudieh cemetery that refer to the deceased as πολειταῖς (πολίτης in JIGRE 114), or ἀστοὶ (as opposed to ξένοι, see JIGRE 30, 31, 32, 38).⁶⁹ What is more, line 5 of JIGRE 30 would even allow for the reconstruction of the word politeuma in the text.⁷⁰ Horbury and Noy conjectured that the references to “the city” in JIGRE 30 and 39 correspond to Josephus’ datum in BJ 1.33 that Onias founded a “city.” This tends to verify the historicity of the latter’s datum.⁷¹ Most revealing in view of this assumption are the recently published papyri of the Jewish politeuma of Heracleopolis. More than providing proof of the actual

 See also P. Sänger, “Considerations on the Administrative Organization of the Jewish Military Colony in Leontopolis: A Case of Generosity and Calculation,” in Expulsion and Diaspora Formation: Religious and Ethnic Identities in Flux from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century, ed. by J. Tolan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015) 171– 194 (esp. 178 – 181). The etymology of the term is clearly derived from the Greek words for “city” (πόλις) and “ruler” (αρχών). The term designates a communal or national office. Ameling suggests that it was a very “lyrical title for a communal clerk or of an official representative of the community.” W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 128. On the office of politarch, see F. Gschnitzer, “Politarches,” PWRE Suppl. 13 (1973): 483 – 500; G. H. R. Horsley, “Politarchs,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D. N. Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5:384– 389. The office is hitherto only attested twice, namely in a papyrus from Oxyrhynchos (P. Oxy. IV 745) dated to the 1st century CE, and in our JIGRE 39. In the papyrus, the politarch was a “city-governor” subordinate to the strategos of the nome. According to Kasher, the titles of politarches and archon were common terms in 1st to 2nd century CE Egypt. See A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 125 – 127; J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 8, 10 (n. 37).  D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 166. Also Philo refers to Jews as πολῖται, namely in In Flaccum 47 and in his Leg. ad Gaium 265. But for Philo the term denotes membership of the Jewish population in general and not membership in a politeuma. We encounter a similar case in one of the Jewish papyri from Heracleopolis (no. 1), which refers to the members of the politeuma as πολῖται, thus distinguishing themselves from non-Jews, who are labelled ἀλλόφυλοι (lines 17– 18). We observe a similar behavior in JIGRE 114 that refers to a Gentile as an ἀλλογενής. This distinction is of note since we were hitherto only familiar with the term πολῖται in context of the distinction between Jews and Gentiles in the Hellenistic cities and not in the context of the politeuma. J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 22.  Cf. A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 127. The same inscription notes that his city (πόλιν) should weep for the deceased.  W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 100. For the possibility that the term πόλις does not refer to a city per se (i. e. an urban space), but rather to a military settlement, see H. Heinen, “Bóethus, fondateur de poleis en Égypte Ptolémaïque,” in Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World: Proceedings of the International Colloqium, Bertinero 19 – 24 July 1997, ed. by L. Mooren (Studia Hellenistica 36; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 127– 129 and below, Chapter 12.

3 JIGRE 39: “Abramos the πολιτάρχης”

185

existence of politeumata in the Jewish (Egyptian) Diaspora, these documents chronicle the central offices and titles of those who headed them. Chief among these were the ἄρχοντες⁷² and the πολιτάρχης.⁷³ What may be inferred from the papyri is that the politeuma stood under the supervision of the politarch, while the ἄρχοντες, the politeuma’s council, were elected each year.⁷⁴ Because Abramos bears the title πολιτάρχης, we have every reason to assume that he was the head of the Jewish politeuma of Tell el-Yahoudieh. ⁷⁵ What is remarkable is the statement in line 7 that he was not only the politarch of Tell el-Yahoudieh, but also of another (unnamed) place. Kasher opined that the reference to two places indicates the formation of a Landsmannschaft of the Jews in the area, who were organized around synagogues with a roof-organization over which Abramos presided.⁷⁶ Since this assumption is hardly verifiable, I alternatively suggest that Abramos’ dual tenure had something to do with legal matters. In this case too, the Heracleopolitan evidence comes in handy. Namely, the papyri attest to the fact that the legal authority of the judges (ἄρχοντες) of Heracleopolis extended well beyond the location of their residences.⁷⁷ For example, we discern that several legal-cases were filed at Heracleopolis, even though

 The office of αρχών remains clouded. It remains unknown whether it was explicitly a communal office or one merely linked to the ancient synagogue. Sometimes, the title seems to refer to both. ἄρχοντες are frequently attested in inscriptions from Rome in connection with synagogues and from other places in the Diaspora too. See e. g. P. R. Treblico, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 58 – 60, who discusses the so-called “Julia Severa Inscription” that mentions a certain Publius Zotikos in connection with the restoration of a synagogue in Acmonia. See also L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 402– 404.  On the πολιτάρχης, see above, n. 68.  This may be inferred from the fact that they are referred to by their year of tenure in the documents. Nonetheless, the papyri do not allow us to deduce a hierarchy of the πολιτάρχης and the ἄρχοντες with regard to legal rulings. The politarch may have been a primus inter paris, which is suggested by a non-Jewish inscription from Kios in Bithynia dated to 108/9 CE (A. Koerte, “Kleinasiatische Sudien. V. Inschriften aus Bythynien,” Mittheilungen des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Athenische Abt., Band 24 [Athen: Barth & Von Hirst, 1899] 415 – 421 [no. 14]). In addition, we cannot say for sure how many ἄρχοντες presided over the politeuma. We may suggest that this depended on the actual size of the community. It is similarly difficult to assess how long a politarch held office. Since an archon served only for one year, we may assume the same for the politarch too, and once more, the evidence from non-Jewish inscriptions (of Macedonian politarches) seem to confirm this hypothesis. See J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 10 – 11.  That is also Cowey’s conclusion, J. M. S. Cowey, “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit,” 30 – 31; see also P. Sänger, “Considerations,” 180.  A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 126.  J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 16 – 18.

186

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

its petitioners were residents in several other places in the city’s vicinity.⁷⁸ Let me add in this context that, according to standard Ptolemaic legal practice, legal cases could be delegated to sub-officials who served in legal courts outside of the petitioners’ place residence.⁷⁹ Consequently, petitioners from outside could go to court in Heracleopolis, in the event that their community had difficulties taking care of a given legal matter. Such a case is illustrated in papyrus no. 18 (P. Vindob. G 57700). The papyri indicate too, that the petitioners from Heracleopolis were usually members of the politeuma, but those from the villages were not. This invites us to surmise that the politeuma seems to have been exclusive to the city and not to the nome.⁸⁰ If we apply this hypothesis to our case of Tell el-Yahoudieh, then two main statements can be made: First, Tell el-Yahoudieh was a city of considerable size. Second, it seems to have been an important local center to which Jews flocked when they could not be helped in their place of residence. One inscription from the Tell el-Yahoudieh cemetery in particular seems to confirm this notion: JIGRE 98 highlights that the deceased came from the village of Teberkythis and he seems to have come to Tell el-Yahoudieh to solve a legal matter of some sort and had died there subsequently.⁸¹ Some of the Heracleopolitan papyri noted the fact that some judges (ἄρχοντες) enjoyed a high reputation in the area of their jurisdiction and even outside of it. The documents attest that some ἄρχοντες, and the politarch too, travelled to neighboring villages in order to settle legal disputes there.⁸² This circumstance allows us to surmise that Abramos travelled to several places in the vicinity of Tell el-Yahoudieh as well, which would readily explain why he was the politarch of two different places. We

 See nos. 1, 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13.  J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 18.  J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 18.  Similarly, A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 132. The place, Teberkythis, is otherwise unattested. It was presumably a small village in the vicinity of Tell el-Yahoudieh. Since this is the only reference to a location outside of Tell el-Yahoudieh in the funerary epitaphs, Horbury and Noy are of the opinion that the Oniad Temple did not turn the town into a major burial site for Jews from elsewhere in Egypt, see W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 174. This might be true given that we should not expect the Oniad Temple to be located in the vicinity of a cemetery (Tell el-Yahoudieh), but elsewhere. Especially priests would certainly not be amused serving in a holy place next to a cemetery. This should not mean, however, that the city (or town) of Tell el-Yahoudieh was not an important local center for the surrounding Jewish villages of the “Land of Onias.”  J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 20. See also no. 17 that places the politarch alongside the ἄρχοντες in the village of Tebetnoi. Papyrus no. 8 indicates that the politarch visited the village of Teeis (Τῆις) in Oxyrhynchites.

3 JIGRE 39: “Abramos the πολιτάρχης”

187

may imagine that once his term ended in Tell el-Yahoudieh, he was invited, or elected, by a neighboring politeuma to preside over it there. The recognition that Abramos received in his epitaph may indeed be taken at face value and conveys that he executed his position very satisfactorily and thus enjoyed wide acceptance. This ultimately earned him a new position in a place close to Tell elYahoudieh. The identification of that place is not mentioned in the inscription, however, and remains unknown. Nonetheless, in light of the reference to the village Teberkythis in JIGRE 98, Horbury and Noy have put forward the idea that this village could be a fitting candidate for the unnamed place noted in Abramos’ inscription. At the same time, however, they alternatively proposed to identify the unnamed location with neighboring Demerdash (over ten miles further south of Tell el-Yahoudieh), where Jewish funerary epitaphs were discovered too, and that may have been a suburb of Tell el-Yahoudieh. ⁸³ It seems though, and against Kasher’s view, that not many Jewish politeumata existed in Egypt and that they were mostly characteristic of larger communities and in cities.⁸⁴ Although we should reject the assumption that Onias’ Temple physically stood at Tell el-Yahoudieh, the latter was apparently part of “Land of Onias” as JIGRE 38 implies. The sobriquet “Land of Onias” in turn allows for the assumption that there were a number of Oniad settlements in the area. What we may learn from the Abramos inscription is that the Jewish Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh, was apparently a politeuma, which was headed by several archontes, who took care of the legal issues of the members of their community.⁸⁵ What additionally speaks for this assumption is the reference to the “magistracy of the whole people” (πανδήμῳ εθνικῇ; lines 5 – 6), which matches the ethnic criterion of a politeuma. ⁸⁶ The members of the politeuma were designated as such

 See W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 100, 183. That the Oniad community of Tell el-Yahoudieh was not isolated and had contact with other communities does not only emerge from JIGRE 39 and 98, but also from other inscriptions such as SEG 48 – 1987– 2003. A. Chaniotis, T. Corsten, R. S. Stroud, R. A. Tybout, “Herakleopolis (area of: Sedment el-Gebel). Jewish Epitaphs, ca. 150early 1st century B.C. (48 – 1987– 2003),” Supplementum Epigraphicarum Graecum, Vol. 51 (Leiden: Brill, 2010): 655 – 658, 712– 713 and see W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 125.  Against A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 140 – 141 who also considers the existence of a politeuma in Arsinoe-Krokodilopolis. See J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 20.  I concur with Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 126 and more recently, S. Honigman, “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt,” 122– 123.  In Ant. 14.117, Strabo apud Josephus, mentions an ἐθνάρχης who headed the Jewish community in Alexandria. This is echoed in Josephus’ version of the Claudian decree (Ant. 19. 284– 285) and in Philo, In Flacc. 117, 124; Leg. ad Gaium 133, 137, 161, 178. Kasher maintained

188

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

by the term “fellow citizens” (πολῖται). Accordingly, Abramos served as its head and thus bore the title politarch. We may infer from the laudatory character of Abramos’ epitaph that he was a prominent and revered member of his community. The inscription also teaches us that his involvement in communal matters was not limited to the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh, but seems to have extended to neighboring settlements. The references to Abramos’ dual office as αρχών in “two places” is best explained by the fact that politarches and archontes were renowned in the surrounding area and sometimes travelled to those areas where they would settle legal disputes. But they did not always need to travel. Tell el-Yahoudieh appears to have been some sort of center to which Jews resident in the neighboring villages would flock in order to settle their legal matters. Thus, I propose that Abramos, either prior to or after holding office as politarch at Tell el-Yahoudieh, was voted into the office in some other place. Whether this place was the nearby villages of Teberkythis or Demerdash remains moot, but we may speculate that since the latter places were rather small, it seems more likely that he held office in a bigger settlement (or city) that was a politeuma as well. One may think of Heliopolis for instance. In sum, what is of importance is that Abramos’ funerary epitaph allows us to conclude that the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh was a politeuma headed by a politarch. When exactly this organizational structure was adopted by the Oniad community cannot be pin-pointed, but the early imperial date (around 30 BCE and onwards) of the cemetery certainly provides a terminus post quem. Once, one might have imagined that the Oniad community, much as other Jewish communities in Egypt was organized into politeumata in the wake of the Roman administrative reforms conducted in Egypt.⁸⁷ But given the recent evidence from Heracleopolis, we can safely assume that Jewish politeumata already existed in the Ptolemaic period. I therefore suggest that the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh was founded during the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor.⁸⁸

that the Alexandrian ethnarch was the equivalent of the politarch from Tell el-Yahoudieh and correspondingly, the overall organizational structure of both communities must have been the same. See A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 127.  M. Stern, “The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. by S. Safrai and M. Stern (CRINT I-1; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 175, 336 (n. 84).  J. M. S. Cowey, “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit,” 29 – 30 and there (n. 23); P. Sänger, “Considerations,” 183 – 190. Writing prior to the publication of the Heracleopolite politeuma material, Kasher believed that Onias’ military settlement was dismantled in the wake of the Roman annexation of Egypt and its establishment as a province, thus ending Jewish control over military affairs in the nome, while only leaving the local political and civil-administration intact and that despite the demilitarization of the “Land of Onias,” it is reasonable to as-

4 JIGRE 84: “Marin, the Priestess”

189

4 JIGRE 84: “Marin, the Priestess” The “Priestess-inscription” is certainly one of the most outstanding among the funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh and certainly one of the most controversial. First of all, the inscription is one of only a few that can be precisely dated to the Augustan period.⁸⁹ The name “Marin (or Marion)” can denote both a male and a female and it has been preferred to identify Marin’s gender as male even though the title “priestess (ιέρισα)” clearly indicates a female.⁹⁰ Thus, it has been argued that the title is erroneous and in fact can only refer to a man.⁹¹ This view however, was quickly challenged and it is now commonly accepted that Marin/Marion was female.⁹² Although the name is Semitic and thus not necessarily Jewish, it is attested 19 times (of which five occurrences are indisputably Jewish), primarily in the Egyptian and Cyrenian Diaspora.⁹³ Given the Semitic origin of the name, its popularity with Jews and the partial Jewish archaeological context in which the inscription was found, I consider this inscription Jewish. Besides the question of the Jewishness of this inscription, the more controversial issue is, of course, her title “priestess.” In earlier scholarship the view prevailed that the title merely refers to her pedigree, being the wife or daughter of a priest.⁹⁴

sume that it remained demographically Jewish. He thus concludes that Tell el-Yahoudieh served as the capital of the local Jewish community that was governed by a politarches. See A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 126. Likewise so Ameling, who maintains that Onias’ settlement, which started out as a military colony, lost its function in the Roman period. He notes that despite the loss of the military importance of the settlement, the community itself gained importance. The politarch however, did not necessarily have the same competences as his earlier colleagues from Heracleopolis, and an autonomous Jewish community structure in the early principate times cannot be attested at Tell el-Yahoudieh. See W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 128 – 129.  The epitaph features the date: “Third year of Caesar, Payni 13,” which translates to the year 30 BCE.  Μάριν may be a variant of the name Μάριον as it appears e. g. in JIGRE 80. On the occurrence of the latter name, see T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:295; 3:684– 685 (where ours is no. 8).  The spelling is indeed unusual and we would expect: ἱέρισσα. See on the issue B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 78 – 95.  See B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 78 – 95 and P. Richardson and V. Heuchan, “Jewish Voluntary Associations in Egypt and the Roles of Women,” 234.  See T. Ilan, Lexicon, 3:684– 5. Ilan, however, lists this particular inscription “questionable” Jewish, see Ilan, “New Jewish Inscriptions,” 86.  B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 78 – 95; D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 167.

190

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

The most elaborate discussion of the subject is B. Brooten’s, who discusses three possibilities of understanding Marin’s title: Firstly (a), the possibility that the title denotes priestly pedigree, i. e., the wife or the daughter of a priest; secondly (b), the possibility that the title refers to a cultic context, meaning that Marin may have been a practicing priestess at Onias’ Temple; and thirdly (c), the possibility that her title indicates a certain function she had within the realm of the ancient synagogue, perhaps even including responsibility for offering the priestly blessing or publically reading portions of the holy scriptures.⁹⁵ While Brooten maintains that options (a) and (c) are indeed possible, there is hardly any evidence for it. Overall, however, she remains indecisive. But in view of the lack of evidence for points (b) and (c), and particularly the absence of (practicing) priestesses in Judaism in general, option (a) seems to be the more likely.⁹⁶ The conclusion that the title “priestess” designates Marin’s pedigree, and not an actual priestly role, is indeed the most parsimonious one.⁹⁷ It is impossible to prove that female priestesses participated in the worship of Onias’ Temple and there is no precedent of female priests in other centers of Jewish worship.⁹⁸ Under any interpretation of the Marin-inscription one can conclude that

 B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 73 – 95.  B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 95.  Brooten (Women Leaders, 78 – 99), as noted, has collected and surveyed the inscriptional evidence of Jewish ἱέρισσα and also refered to some rabbinic texts mentioning a ‫( כוהנת‬Hebrew) or a ‫( כהנתא‬Aramaic). There, she discusses the commonly held view that the term “priestess” usually denotes pedigree, i. e., it usually refers to the circumstance that “x, priestess,” was the daughter of, sister of, mother of, or wife of a priest. Although she contends that Marin, indeed could have had a cultic function in the temple, she concludes that “until further evidence is found to support one or the other of the interpretations, it seems most prudent to keep the various options open.” B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 99. However, in my view, the bulk of the evidence surveyed by Brooten indeed suggests that the term expresses not more than familial relations and does not point to a cultic involvement of the individuals designated “priestesses.”  Contra Richardson’s and Heuchan’s view, who one-sidedly claim that female priests were active at Onias’ Temple. Their assumption is based on known parallels from Egypt sacral culture in which (female) priestesses took an active part in the worship in Hellenistic and native shrines. They reinforce their argument by pointing out that already in the Bible one encounters precedents in which Jewish women performed cultic acts. Richardson and Heuchan refer to Exod 38:8; 1Sam 2:22 (two texts that mention women serving at the entrance of the ‘Tent of Meeting’); Num 26:59 (that mentions Amram’s wife, Yoḥevet, the daughter of Levi and Miriam, Aaron’s and Moses’ sister) and 1Chron 6:3 (again mentioning Miriam alongside her brothers as descendants of Levi, i. e. priests). Based on these cases Richardson and Heuchan argue that the worship at Onias’ Temple stood within the same tradition. Accordingly, since Onias’ Temple was detached from Jerusalem, the possibility remains that the Oniad Jews pursued a unique tradition of interpretation of the biblical text, thus adopting the tradition of Miriam as priestess that served as a model for the women of the Oniad community. Like Miriam, the women of the Oniad community

4 JIGRE 84: “Marin, the Priestess”

191

priestly pedigree played a role in the Oniad community – regardless of gender.⁹⁹ Even though priests certainly lived in the Diaspora, the emphasis on one’s priestly pedigree seems extraordinary in a Diasporan context. After all, the priest’s prerogative was his ability to perform sacrifices in the Temple. Given the geographical distance of the Diaspora from the Temple, an emphasis on one’s pedigree certainly strikes us as remarkable.¹⁰⁰ How can we explain this phenomenon? too were closely connected to Egypt. As such, they could have adopted the practice of a female priesthood as in Hellenistic and native sanctuaries (for e. g., the priestesses of Isis, or Anubis). The involvement of female priestesses in the worship conducted at these temples was mostly confined to music and the musical background of the worship, similar to the tasks the Levites fulfilled in the Jerusalem Temple. On the Levitical functions in the Temple, see E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief 63BCE-66 CE (London and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992) 77– 92. Richardson and Heuchan remark too that Marin’s inscription does not elucidate what kind of role she might have played during the service in Onias’ Temple. They speculate that she might have been responsible for music, pouring libations and/or preparing sacrifices, which are common practices performed by female priests in Egyptian shrines. They argue that enough time would have passed since the establishment of the Oniad Temple (sometime in the middle of the 2nd century BCE) to allow for the forces of assimilation to work and to have allowed for such a shift in temple practices. In the context of the debate regarding assimilation, we may note that ca. 100 years passed since the establishment of the Oniad Temple and the point Marin would have been old enough to be actively involved in the priestly service at the temple (she was born in 77 BCE). Cf. P. Richardson and V. Heuchan, “Jewish Voluntary Associations in Egypt,” 235 – 239, 246. Whereas all of the above may be true, it is entirely speculative. In view of the lack any evidence supporting such a claim, we are left with the observation that what really matters here is the notion that it was significant for Marin to underline her priestly pedigree.  See below, my discussion in Chapter 14 and L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 142, who conjectures that the Marin inscription points to the existence of lists of priestly courses at Onias’ Temple just as in Jerusalem and preserved in 1Chron 24.  The phenomenon of Diaspora Jews accentuating their priestly background is attested to elsewhere. An example is the funerary inscription of a certain “Megiste, the priestess” that was discovered in the Alkadema caves in Jerusalem. The caves are dated to the Second Temple period and Megiste’s funerary epitaph is thus contemporaneous with Marin’s. Megiste originated in the Diaspora and seems to have come to Jerusalem perhaps on pilgrimage. On the Alkadema caves see G. Avni and Z. Greenhut (eds.), The Alkadema Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley (IAA Reports 1; Jerusalem: Israeli Antiquities Authority, 1996). On Megiste’s tomb in specific, see T. Ilan, “The Alkadema Tombs,” in The Alkadema Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, ed. by G. Avni and Z. Greenhut (IAA Reports 1; Jerusalem: Israeli Antiquities Authority, 1996) 57– 62. Ilan, too, is of the conviction that the title “priestess” should be understood in reference to Megiste’s pedigree, rather than indicating active participation in the Temple cult. Brooten discussed two further examples that, though dating from a far later period, mention women in connection with the priesthood: One example is the inscription (CIJ 1007) from Beth She’arim dated to the 4th century CE that reads: “Sara, daughter of Naimia, mother of the priest, Maria, lies here.” As Marin, Sara too came from the Diaspora (Palmyra) as we

192

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

For one, we should emphasize that priests held a paramount (social) status in ancient Jewish society, which is related to their importance for the Templecult, as I just noted.¹⁰¹ Social status, however, only partly explains the emphasis of one’s priestly background in a Diaspora setting. The second part of the explanation, namely the notion that priesthood is only worthwhile mentioning in the context of holy place and sacrifices, seems to be a far more feasible explanation for the emphasis of Marin’s pedigree. Especially so, since we know that a Jewish temple existed not too far from where Marin was buried, namely Onias’ Temple. Whether or not Marin, as a woman, actively participated in the worship at Onias’ Temple is unknown. But the emphasis on her pedigree allows us to validate Josephus’ remarks in Ant. 13.63, 73 that several priests and Levites followed Onias into his Egyptian exile, and later served as priests in his temple.¹⁰² Marin’s epitaph also assures us that priests and the priesthood were revered (and continued to be revered) in Onias’ community.¹⁰³ The inscriptions CIJ 1007 and CIJ 315, which also mention female priests from the Diaspora, notably date from a decidedly later period.¹⁰⁴ In fact, the later historical context of the 3rd-4th century CE may account for the emphasis of those women’s priestly heritage, which once more became important in that learn from the inscription. The second inscription discussed by Brooten comes from the Jewish catacombs of Rome (CIJ 315) perhaps from the 3rd to 4th century CE and reads as follows: “Here lies Gaudentia, priestess, (aged) 24 years. In peace be her sleep.” See B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 75 – 77. The emphasis on the priestly pedigree of the ladies of CIJ 315 and 1007, however, may best be explained by the importance of priests in the context of the ancient synagogue in those centuries. See O. Irshai, “The Role of the Priesthood in the Jewish Community in Late Antiquity,” in Jüdische Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext in kulturräumlich vergleichender Betrachtung, von der Spätantike bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Ch. Cluse, A. Haverkamp, and I. Yuval (Hannover: Hahn, 2003) 75 – 85.  See M. Stern, “Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and other Classes,” in The Jewish People in the First Century: Historical Geography, Political History, Social, Cultural and Religious Life and Institutions (CRINT; 2 vols.; Assen and Phildalphia: Van Gorcum / Fortress Press, 1987) 2: 600 – 612.  See also Ant. 11.312.  Kasher was convinced that Marin belonged to a less prominent lay priestly family. See A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 132. Ameling has even suggested that some of the names of the deceased buried at the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh indicate a priestly heritage. So e. g., the “Eleazar(s)” appearing in JIGRE 42, 55, 62, 115. Ameling suspects that they could have been priests, because the name Eleazar is generally believed to be a distinctly priestly one. Cf. W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 125. But see T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:56, who in congruence with our own opinion speaks out against this view. The name was the fourth most popular name during that period (177 attestations, see pp. 65 – 79) and we should be hesitant to consider all of them as priests.  See our note 100.

5 JIGRE 129: The “Ḥelkias-Inscription”

193

period. The context however, was not that of the temple, but of the ancient synagogue.¹⁰⁵ As for the Second Temple period Alkadema inscription from Jerusalem,¹⁰⁶ I point out that, although Megiste came from Diaspora, the emphasis of her priestly background appears in a Jerusalemite context. Just as Marin found it important to emphasize her priestly background in the context of Onias’ Temple, so did Megiste in the context of the Jerusalem Temple. Thus, what connects Marin and Megiste, is the fact that a Judaism based on a holy place encouraged an emphasis on pedigree, no matter where that holy place was located – in Jerusalem, Mt. Gerizim, Elephantine, or Heliopolis. In conclusion, I argue that the designation of Marin as “priestess” should be understood as an emphasis of her pedigree rather than an indication of active participation in the cult of Onias’ Temple. There are simply no grounds to support the latter interpretation.¹⁰⁷ Accordingly, the inscription allows us to verify Josephus’ datum in Ant. 13.63, 73 that Onias managed to import priests from Jerusalem in order to establish proper worship in his temple. Regarding other comparable epigraphic evidence (save for Megiste’s epitaph from the Alkadema caves), I have pointed out that this evidence comes from a decidedly later period and is best placed in the context of the ancient synagogue.¹⁰⁸ With regard to the Megiste inscription, I have suggested that the emphasis on her priestly heritage was probably added when she was buried in Jerusalem, although she originated in the Diaspora.

5 JIGRE 129: The “Ḥelkias-Inscription” Josephus’ Antiquities contains several references to Onias’ sons, Ananias and Ḥelkias. Both are described there as important generals in the Ptolemaic army (Ant. 13:285 – 287; 13:349 – 351). Of Ḥelkias it is reported that he fell in battle in Coele-Syria (i. e. in Judaea)¹⁰⁹ while in pursuit of Cleopatra’s III rogue son, Ptole See L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 491– 500. We may note that even nowadays, Jews take pride in their priestly heritage in a synagogal context as it acquires them certain prerogatives, such as being first to be called to the Torah-reading, etc.  See once more n. 100.  On the issue of an allegedly unorthodox cult that was performed at Onias’ Temple involving women, see our discussion of the Talmudic passages on Onias’ Temple in Chapter 4 (p. 151– 152, n. 53).  See above, n. 100.  The term is problematic because its geographical meaning alternated in the course of time and among different ancient writers. On the issue view E. J. Bickerman, “’La Coelé-Syrie,” 256 – 268; A. Schalit, “Κοίλε Συρία from mid-Fourth Century to the Beginning of the Third Century

194

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

my IX Soter II “Lathyrus” during the Judaean-Syrian-Egyptian conflict of 103 – 101 BCE.¹¹⁰ Save for Josephus, Ḥelkias’ brother Ananias is mentioned nowhere else. A Ḥelkias on the other hand, is mentioned in two papyri (CPJ 145; P. Med. inv. 69.59) and one inscription (JIGRE 129).¹¹¹ But whether the inscription indeed refers to Ḥelkias, son of Onias and general of the Ptolemaic army is a question to which I will now turn (the papyri will be discussed in Chapter 7). The Ḥelkias inscription is essentially a Ptolemaic honorific decree of uncertain date and origin. It mentions a certain Ḥelkias who is referred to as strategos (a general). The text is unfortunately so badly mutilated that only several words of the ten partially preserved lines remain legible. Because, as I have noted, a prominent Jewish general named Ḥelkias is mentioned by Josephus, scholars rushed to identify the Ḥelkias from JIGRE 129 with the Ḥelkias of Antiquities 13. Scholarship, however, remains divided over the issue of whether the Ḥelkias of JIGRE 129 was indeed Onias’ son, or rather his grandson. ¹¹² In the background of the discussion about Ḥelkias’ identity stands another matter, namely a reference in another line of the inscription, which mentions a “multitude of those in the holy precinct ([…πλή]θους τῶν ἐν τῶι τεμέ[νει -‐]).” The reading of the word τέμενος gave rise to speculations about a direct reference to Onias’ Temple in the text, since the word τέμενος is used by Josephus too to describe Onias’ Temple (BJ 7.430, 433). The alleged direct reference to Onias’ Temple, on the other hand, has been taken as proof of the assumption

BC,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 1 (1954): 64– 77, and more recently L. L. Grabbe, A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (4 vols.; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2008) 2:173 – 176. See also the literature cited in Chapter 1 (p. 56, n. 78).  On the so-called “War of the Sceptres,” see E. Van’t Dack (et. al.), The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103 – 101 B.C.E., passim.  I shall discuss CPJ 145 and P. Med. inv. 69.59 in the chapter on the papyrological evidence below, Chapter 7.  De Ricci proposed that the inscription is of Heliopolitan provenance, but no one else appears to have accepted his view. S. de Ricci, “Palaeography – Greek and Latin Inscriptions,” Jewish Encyclopaedia IX (1905): 471– 475. Those scholars are in favor of identifying the Ḥelkias in the inscription with Onias’ son mentioned in Josephus: V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” CPJ, 1:17 (n. 45); M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:270; H. Willrich, “Der Chelkiasstein: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Juden in Ägypten,” APF 1 (1901): 48 – 56 and H. Willrich, “Der historische Kern des III. Makkbäerbuches,” Hermes 39 (1904): 251 (n. 1); Th. Reinach, “Un préfet juif il y a deux mille ans,” REJ 40 (1900): 50 – 54; M. L. Strack, “Inschriften aus ptolemäischer Zeit II,” APF 2 (1903): 554; L. Fuchs, Die Juden Ägyptens in ptolemäischer und römischer Zeit (Wien: M. Rath Verlag, 1924) 16, 67; E. Gabba, Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia, no. XI, (Sintesi dell’Oriente e della Bibbia; Monografie dirette da Giovanni Rinaldi, 3; Torino: Marietti, 1958) 36 – 38. See also D. M. Lewis, CPJ, 3:144– 145 and A. Kasher, The Jews in Egypt, 89 – 90.

5 JIGRE 129: The “Ḥelkias-Inscription”

195

that the Ḥelkias of JIGRE 129 was indeed Onias’ son.¹¹³ In addition to that it was surmised that another reference in the text, namely that to the πλήθος (“the many”), signified the body of Onias’ community at Tell el-Yahoudieh. The use of this term, it follows, corresponds to its use in other Jewish sources in which πλήθος likewise designates the Jewish community. ¹¹⁴ In light of JIGRE 39, which mentions “Abramos the politarch,” Kasher saw here a further indication of the organization of the community at Tell el-Yahoudieh as a politeuma. ¹¹⁵ While Kasher is certainly correct in assuming that the Oniad community was organized as a politeuma, it is in my view, difficult to claim so solely on the basis of one word πλήθος in our inscription. Furthermore, this assumption is blurred even more by the fact that the provenance of the stone is unknown. For us to assume that πλήθος indeed refers to the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh, we are compelled to secure its Tell el-Yahoudian provenance, which we cannot. This shortcoming, obviously, leads us to question the identification of the inscription with Onias’ community in the first place. However, in spite of all these difficulties, it is of note that the inscription does commemorate Ḥelkias as the strategos, which strikingly correlates with the Josephan evidence. Moreover, the fact that a Jewish general loyal to the Ptolemies would be honored with a dedicatory inscription is not far-fetched. Hence, the possibility remains that the inscription indeed refers to Ḥelkias, the son of Onias, who, as his father, attained a prominent military and administrative position in the form of the office of strategos. ¹¹⁶ The badly mutilated state of the inscription juxtaposed with its unknown origin, however, allows no explicit proof for this. Thus, to our great regret, it does not allow for more than the possibility that the Ḥelkias of JIGRE 129 was indeed Onias’ son, the Ḥelkias of Antiquities 13.¹¹⁷

 See H. Willrich, “Der Chelkiasstein,” 51.  For instance in the Letter of Aristeas 308, 309, where the term refers to the body of the Jewish community of Alexandria. In Acts 6:2, it refers to the (Jewish‐)Christian community in Jerusalem. The Hebrew term ‫ רבים‬would be its Hebrew equivalent. It appears first and foremost in the Community Rule of Qumran (1QS, e. g. in col. vi 1– 2). See M. Weinfeld, The Organizational Pattern and Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Novum Testament et Orbis Antiquus 2; Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1986) 14– 16; C. Hempel, “Do the Scrolls Suggest a Rivalry between the Sons of Aaron and the Sons of Zadok and if so Was it Mutual?” RQ 24 (2009): 135 – 153.  See A. Kasher, The Jews in Egypt, 125 – 130.  See C. Ap. 2:49 and CPJ 132 which refer to Onias’ prominent position in the Ptolemaic state.  For a further possible attestation of Ḥelkias, see our following discussion (Chapter 7) of CPJ 145 and compare D. M. Lewis’ view in CPJ II, ad loc.

196

Chapter 6 Voices from the “Land of Onias”: Epigraphy and the Oniad Community

6 Conclusion What can we learn from the funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh about Onias, his temple, and his community? (1) Tell el-Yahoudieh and its vicinity belonged to a larger area called the “Land of Onias” – a piece of information paralleled in Josephus. (2) Tell el-Yahoudieh was just one of several centers for the Jews of the Oniad community, presumably a larger one. Perhaps it belonged to a conglomerate of five Oniad cities, as is suggested by the Oniad founding-legend based on Isaiah 19:18 – 19.¹¹⁸ (3) In all likelihood, the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh seems to have been mixed. This is suggested by the names appearing on some of the gravestones, which are mostly of Graeco-Egyptian nature, but also by the unknown provenance of some of the inscriptions scholars have deliberately attributed to the corpus of funerary inscriptions from Tell el-Yahoudieh for one reason or another. Since the Oniad community was largely composed of mercenaries, we may imagine that the non-Jewish graves are those of the foreign soldiers who had fought alongside the Oniad troops and were subsequently buried there. (4) The previous assumption would also explain the fairly Hellenized and universal character of the funerary epitaphs (e. g., the exceptionless use of the Greek language, the metrical rhyme form, the concept of Hades, etc.) which in turn alludes to a degree of Hellenization of the Oniad Jews. We observed that the Oniad Jews were far from hostile to the ideas and the culture of their surroundings, to which they were exposed on a day-to-day basis. (5) On the other hand, we have seen that nothing in the inscriptions really militates against practice of the Jewish faith, Jewish customs, or monotheism for that matter, despite the overall absence of Jewish symbols on the grave stelae. (6) I also noted that Oniad Jews mostly preserved their Jewish/Semitic names, which indicates that (at least) some members of the community still cherished their Jewish heritage. (7) The extraordinary funerary epitaph of Marin suggests that Oniad Jews put much emphasis on their priestly heritage. This not only attests to the presence of priests in a Jewish community associated with the “Land of Onias,” but also confirms the very existence of a Jewish temple in the area. The em-

 See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 27.

6 Conclusion

197

phasis on one’s holy seed, so I have argued, is pointless in a setting devoid of a holy place. (8) There are no grounds for the assumption that Marin, being a woman, actively participated in the worship at the Oniad Temple. (9) With regard to the organizational structure of the Oniad community, we learn from Abramos’ funerary epitaph that the Jewish community of Tell el-Yahoudieh was a politeuma, which was headed by a politarch and a group of elders and judges (archontes) who were elected each year. The recent evidence from Heracleopolis supports this assumption. The archontes and politarches could also extend their legal authority to nearby localities. Hence, Abramos apparently held an office at Tell el-Yahoudieh and in a second (yet to be identified) place, too. (10) On account of the Augustan dating of the cemetery, and the administrative re-structuring of Egypt in the early imperial (Roman) period, one may be inclined to date the establishment of the politeuma at Tell el-Yahoudieh to that period. However, I have argued on the basis of the more or less contemporary papyrological evidence from Heracleopolis, which confirms the existence of politeumata prior to the Roman transformation of Egypt into a province, that the Oniad politeuma of Tell el-Yahoudieh should be dated to the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor, as is also suggested by the literary evidence from Josephus. (11) JIGRE 129 attests to a strategos by the name of Ḥelkias in Egypt, who may be identified with the homonymous son of Onias III, and who is mentioned by Josephus in Antiquities 13. Despite this tempting identification, I have pointed out that the Tell el-Yahoudian, and hence the Oniad, provenance of the inscription is precarious. The identification of the Ḥelkias of JIGRE 129 with that mentioned by Josephus, thus, is best put aside until further evidence becomes available to support more confident and precise results.

Chapter 7 Onias in the Papyri 1 Introduction The sands of Egypt and its dry climate enables the preservation of an important source of information: papyri. Among the many papyri that have come to light in Egypt, a surprisingly substantial number refer to Jews and/or were written by them.¹ Since the Temple of Onias was located in Egypt, the most obvious question is to ask whether some information about the temple or its founder was preserved in those papyri – especially in view of the general paucity of sources on the history of Onias’ Temple. Papyri do indeed provide information, and therefore, a look at the relevant material can shed some more light on the subject. We are surprised, however, to discern that of the relatively extensive body of Jewish papyri, only three (CPJ 132; 24; 145) contain references that are of relevance to the reconstruction of Oniad history.²

 The classic collection of Jewish papyri is V. A. Tcherikover, A. Fuks and M. Stern, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge and Jerusalem: Harvard University Press and Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1957– 64), but see also I. F. Fikhman, “L’état des travaux au ‘Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum IV’,” in Akten des 21. internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin, 13.-19. 8. 1995, ed. by B. Kramer (et al.) (ABF Beiheft 3; Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1997) 290 – 297. A recent collection of Jewish papyri (all from the second century BCE from Heracleopolis) has been published by J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3 – 133/2 v. Chr.): Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001).  Next to these three papyri, we encounter six more papyri (CPJ 86; 137; 157; 451; 453) that mention an Onias in different contexts, divergent spellings of the name (CPJ 86), geographical location (from the Fayûm, Thebes, Alexandria, the Oxyrhynchite and Hermoupolite nomes) and chronological periods (CPJ 157; 451, 453, notably are dated to the Roman period). A seventh papyrus (CPJ 37) is questionable since it mentions a person by the name of “Phanias,” which may be emended to “Onias.” What may be concluded from this evidence is mostly that we witness a rather ample commemoration of the name Onias in Egypt, predominantly in Lower Egypt. Whether or not some of the Oniases mentioned in those papyri indeed were affiliated with Onias’ community and its temple (e. g. in case of “Onias the γραμματέως” mentioned in CPJ 137) remains moot. But what speaks for that assumption is the observation that certain names were popular and common only in specific Jewish-Egyptian communities and were passed on exclusively in those communities. See S. Honigman, “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt: Different Responses to Different Environments,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. by L. I. Levine and D. R. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 135. It follows that the onomastical behavior of the Egyptian Jews exhibited in the papyri implies that Onias (and probably his community and temple, too) was revered by https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-012

2 The Onias Papyrus: CPJ 132

199

2 The Onias Papyrus: CPJ 132 This papyrus (P. Louvre N 2329) is certainly the pièce de résistance for any reconstruction of Oniad history, particularly in view of the discussion of the identity of the Oniad Temple’s founder.³ It is dated to the year 164 BCE and labelled “Letter from Herod to Onias.” The papyrus was discovered in the Serapeion near Memphis and thus in the immediate vicinity of Onias’ Temple according to Josephus.⁴ Herod was a dioiketes (διοικητής), the manager of the Ptolemaic state treasury.⁵ The letter constitutes a correspondence between Herod and someone of considerable rank in the Ptolemaic state. That conclusion may be inferred from the letter’s cordial tone and the royal greeting prescript, which is considered a rarity in letters of this kind.⁶

at least some Egyptian Jews. That implies too, that not only was Onias’ Temple a known center of Judaism, but an important one also. I will retrun to this observation in the concluding chapter of this book (“Concluding Oniad History”). Another Onias is mentioned in an inscription on a fragment of white marble discovered on the acropolis of Kourion in Cyprus (CYP5), dated by the editors to the second to 1st century BCE. See D. Noy, A. Panayotov, and H. Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Syria and Cyprus (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 3:222. The reading of the fragmentary inscription remains disputed, but the text is reconstructed as follows: “[‐-‐]αν Ονίας.” The name “Onias” is rather rare and almost exclusively endemic to Egypt and therefore, the presence of an Onias in Cyprus is best explained at the background of the Ptolemaic domination of the island. See G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 25, 159 – 161. We recall that when Cleopatra III ousted her rogue son, Ptolemy Lathyrus, the latter went to Cyprus which was under his direct control. G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 188 – 189. Josephus chronicles in Ant. 13.284– 287 that Cleopatra III dispatched a force to Cyprus in the wake of the struggle against her son (Lathyrus), which was headed by two of her Jewish generals, Ḥelkias and Ananias, who were Onias’ sons. See also P. W. van der Horst, “The Jews of Cyprus,” in Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context, ed. by P. W. van der Horst (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2006) 29. The presence of Ptolemaic troops in Cyprus who were previously stationed in Judaea is indicated by a coin find of the Hasmonean king Alexander Yannai. G. Barkay, “A Coin of Alexander Jannaeus from Cyprus,” IEJ 27 (1977): 119 – 120. Perhaps, some members of this expedition force were Jewish mercenaries from the Oniad community, which would explain the occurrence of the name Onias in Cyprus. This too, dovetails nicely with the suggested 2nd-1st century BCE dating of the inscription. Whether the Onias named in the inscription indeed was a mercenary or not, cannot be ascertained, but it is certainly possible.  V. Tcherikover, CPJ, 1:182.  BJ 7.426, according to which Onias’ Temple was located in a distance of twenty-three (Roman) miles from Memphis.  See V. Tcherikover, CPJ, 1:245. On the office of dioiketes, see L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province (London and New York: Routledge, 2005) 34– 35.  V. Tcherikover, CPJ, 1:245 and J. J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 124.

200

Chapter 7 Onias in the Papyri

The crux of the matter is the reading of Herod’s correspondent’s name, which is garbled. At first, it was proposed that the name should be read as “Theoni,”⁷ but Wilcken read “mit ziemlicher Sicherheit” the name “Onias” (Ὀνί[αι]).⁸ In consequence, it has been argued that a chief Ptolemaic executive official by the name of “Onias” – who, on account of his name, must have been Jewish – is best identified with Josephus’ Onias the high priest who had fled to Egypt and there became a chief civil/military administrator (στρατηγός)⁹ of the nome of Heliopolis.¹⁰ If one accepts Wilcken’s reading, which I do, then the papyrus attests to a Jewish high ranking Ptolemaic official in Egypt by the name of Onias already in 164 BCE. In the context of the debate about the identity of the founder of Onias’ Temple (Onias III, or Onias IV) and whether we should prefer Josephus’ War account over the Antiquities, the papyrus proves to be a valuable source of information. The presence of Onias in Egypt in 164 BCE implies two things: Firstly, that the chronology of Onias III’s biography as provided by Josephus in his War account is certainly the more credible, and secondly, if so, we should identify the builder of Onias’ Temple with Onias III. We recall that Josephus tells us that Onias III fled to Egypt around the time of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ assumption of power and the ensuing turmoil in Judaea. This gives us a time window of ca. 175 – 168/167 BCE.¹¹ What further supports this assumption is the notion that the Onias of the papyrus was a high-ranking Ptolemaic official based in

 [Θέω]νι versus [Ονι]αι. See V. Tcherikover, CPJ, 1:244– 245.  U. Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (2 vols.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1922– 1927) 2:487– 488. The reading is also supported, for instance, by P. Schäfer, “‘From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small,’” 136; and F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 84. On the “insufficiency” of the evidence see an indecisive A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 60 – 61. Bohak considers the papyrus “dubious evidence,” see G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 21 and J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 309. Similarly, J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 190, who finds the papyrus as a “puzzling document.”  On the office of strategos, see H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in hellenistischer Zeit. Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht, Band 3: Die Strategie im Ptolemäerreich (3 vols.; Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Heft 36; München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1952) 3:14– 91; and recently in the Egyptian Ptolemaic and Roman orbit, L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 42– 45, 172.  See BJ 1.33; 7.426; Ant. 12.388; 13.285; 20.236 and Tcherikover’s comments in Tcherikover et al., CPJ, 1:244– 245; F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 84, 96.  BJ 1.31– 33; 7.423 – 436 See also M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: A New Paradigm (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002) 91, 274.

2 The Onias Papyrus: CPJ 132

201

the vicinity of Memphis, which essentially conforms to the information provided by Josephus on Onias III.¹² That conclusion challenges the communis opinio which favors Onias IV as the temple’s builder; not only on a chronological level, but on a demographic level too. Namely, according to Ant. 12.237, Onias IV was still an infant at the time that his father (Onias III) had allegedly died. We thus have every reason to doubt that he would have been able to achieve such position in the Ptolemaic state at that young an age.¹³ To add to this observation, we remember that Ant. 12.237 is a doublet of Ant. 12.44 and in fact attributes minority to the wrong Onias. This makes the previous observation obsolete and strengthens the reliability of the information provided by CPJ 132. The papyrus thus essentially confirms my hypothesis, articulated in the previous chapters, that we should identify Onias III with the builder of Onias’ Temple.¹⁴ The papyrus confirms, too, that Onias III was a well established, high ranking official of the Ptolemaic administration with excellent connections to the royal court as is maintained by Josephus in C. Ap. 2.49 – 50 already by 164 BCE. Notably, this date also corresponds to Judas’ Maccabeus rededication of the Jerusalem Temple.¹⁵ Having Onias III well and active in Egypt in the year 164 BCE, also militates against the reports of his alleged death in Ant. 12.237 and 2 Maccabees 4:36, the historicity of which I have questioned in an earlier chapter (Chapter 2).

 On the Oniad Temple’s location in the nome of Heliopolis: BJ 1.33; 7.426; Ant. 12.388; 13.70, 285; 20.236. For the proximity of Memphis to the Heliopolite nome see J. Baines and J. Málek, Atlas of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Phaidon, 1980) 53 (Map). For Onias’ important position at the Ptolemaic court: C. Ap. 2.49 (as military leader); BJ 1.90; Ant. 14.131 (as nome-administrator [strategos]) and the places enumerated on Heliopolis.  So also A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 135; E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 55 – 56; and in particular, F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 84.  Some scholars, including Tcherikover (CPJ, 1:245), have argued for the existence of two Oniases: One Onias (III or IV) the Judaean high priest; and one Egyptian – the one mentioned in our papyrus (CPJ 132), nicknamed Onias Aegypticus. Compare e. g. P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness,” JJS 48 (1997): 31– 41. We shall return to that issue in our discussion on the relationship between Onias’ Temple and the community of Qumran Chapter 13.  1 Macc. 4:36 – 59; 2. Macc. 10:1– 5. Compare M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:406, who speaks out against an identification of Onias III with the Onias of CPJ 132. Stern is of the conviction that all that may be gained from the papyrus is that it attests to the high position of Onias in the Ptolemaic court. But see S. Zeitlin, “Review of: The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman in the Light of the Papyri,” JQR 37 (1946 – 47): 90.

202

Chapter 7 Onias in the Papyri

3 Onias’ Associates: Dositheos (CPJ 24) and Ḥelkias (CPJ 145) I CPJ 24 This papyrus is dated to the year 174 BCE and was written in the village of Trikomia in the Fayûm. The papyrus mentions a ἵππαρχος (a cavalry officer) named Dositheos. Although Dositheos is a Greek name and may have been borne by a non-Jew, the name enjoyed great popularity among Jews as well. Since all the other individuals mentioned in the papyrus were Jewish, it seems reasonable to assume the same for Dositheos.¹⁶ Alongside the observation that Dositheos was a Jew, we also take note of the fact that he was a high ranking (cavalry) officer in the Ptolemaic army. Now, a Dositheos is mentioned by Josephus in C. Ap. 2.49 – 50, where he is referred to as the strategos Dositheos who fought alongside Onias (III) in the civil war against Ptolemy Physcon around 145 BCE.¹⁷ It seems tempting to identify the Dositheos of the papyrus with the one mentioned by Josephus, for we may imagine that someone who was a ἵππαρχος in 174 BCE, could well be a strategos in 145 BCE. The Dositheos mentioned in the papyrus was certainly not the only Jew by that name serving in the Ptolemaic army, something we may infer from the general popularity the name enjoyed among Jews, as I have mentioned. However, in view of the fact that we lack any other pieces of information concerning the biography and career of the Dositheos of CPJ 24, his identification with the Dositheos of Contra Apionem is possible, but speculative.

II CPJ 145 This partly badly preserved papyrus dated to the 7th of April 13 BCE deals with a transfer of katoikic land from a landowner by the name of Protarchos to one Tryphon, son of Simon. The land about to be transferred was located in the Bousirite nome, just north of the Oniad settlement. Of interest for our discussion is a geographical reference (a toponym) contained in the papyrus, namely, the reference to the so-called “Land of Ḥelkias (Χελκίου γῆ),” which bordered the “Land of Heron and Ḥelkias (ήρωνος καὶ Χελκίου γῆ).”

 T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish, 1:274– 275, 3:250 – 256.  On the question of the identity of Dositheos, see V. Tcherkiover, CPJ, 1:20 – 23, 167 and in particular, A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 61.

3 Onias’ Associates: Dositheos (CPJ 24) and Ḥelkias (CPJ 145)

203

The mention of the “Land of Ḥelkias” immediately arouses the association with the “Land of Onias” we encountered in JIGRE 38 and in Josephus (BJ 1.190 // Ant. 14.131); the more so if we consider that this other “Land of…” is that of a certain Ḥelkias, who just happens to bear the same name as Onias’ son.¹⁸ The mention of the “Land of Ḥelkias” in the papyrus thus raises the question whether the Ḥelkias of CPJ 145 was the same Ḥelkias mentioned by Josephus as the son of Onias and Cleopatra III’s general?¹⁹ Is there a connection between the “Land of Ḥelkias” and the “Land of Onias”? At first glance, an affiliation of Ḥelkias with Onias and/or Onias’ community may seem attractive. This is especially so when considering the similarity of the designation of the territory as the “Land of Ḥelkias” and the “Land of Onias,” respectively and reconciling the coincidence that a Ḥelkias is known as Onias’ son from alternative sources (Josephus). At second glance, however, this assumption becomes more problematic; the biggest obstacle here being chronology. We recall that the papyrus is dated to the year 13 BCE, while our second source on Ḥelkias – given that we indeed wish to identify him with Onias’ son – Josephus, tells us that Ḥelkias died around 103 BCE.²⁰ That leaves us with a chronological gap of roughly a century between the demise of Josephus’ Ḥelkias and his namesake of CPJ 145, who was active in 13 BCE.²¹ In spite of his awareness of this chronological problem, Schubart nonetheless argued for the possibility that the estate retained the name of its initial owner for over 100 years (as did the term “Land of Onias”).²² About half a century after Schubart, the editors of CPJ rejected his conclusions and correctly observed that the Ḥelkias of the papyrus was the owner of two plots of land, suggesting an “actual state of possession.” If so, the Ḥelkias of CPJ 145 was still alive in 13 BCE and thus could not have had any connection to the long deceased homonymous Jewish general.²³ While Schubart’s conclusion is certainly reasonable, it may be critiqued on two points. Firstly, we duly observe that the parallel case of “the Land of Onias”  Ant. 13.284– 287, 348, 351. See also E. Van’t Dack (et al.), The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103 – 101 B.C.E, 129 – 131.  That question was already discussed by W. Schubart, “Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus,” APF 5 (1913): 119 (n. 2).  Ant. 13.351. According to Josephus, Ḥelkias fell in battle while pursuing Cleopatra II’s rogue son Ptolemy Lathyrus in the wake of the latter’s attempted invasion of Egypt in 103 – 101 BCE. On that conflict see E. Van’t Dack (et al.), The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103 – 101 B.C.E., passim.  See also A. Fuks’ remarks in CPJ, 2:15.  W. Schubart, “Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus,” 119 (n. 2).  See A. Fuks, CPJ, 2:3, 15.

204

Chapter 7 Onias in the Papyri

(an inscription that is likewise dated to the Augustan period²⁴) demonstrates that a specific territory could retain the name of its long deceased owner, or strategos in case of JIGRE 38. For that matter, based on the parallel evidence provided by JIGRE 38, the territorial designation “Land of X,” suggests that Ḥelkias too (as Onias) may have been a strategos under whose auspices the land was held.²⁵ If indeed Ḥelkias was a strategos, then an identification of that Ḥelkias with Josephus’ becomes more plausible. This seems a fitting moment to recall that JIGRE 129, perhaps better known as the “Ḥelkias-stone,”²⁶ which refers to a strategos named Ḥelkias; and likewise so does another papyrus (P. Med. inv. 69.59) from an unknown provenance (perhaps the Arsinoite or Heracleopolite nome) dated to the 1st century BCE or 1st century CE.²⁷ I hesitate concerning a final verdict on the identification of the Ḥelkias of that inscription (JIGRE 129) and the papyrus (P. Med. inv. 69.59) with his namesake mentioned by Josephus, arguing especially that the stone’s and the papyrus’ (unknown dating and) unknown provenance renders impossible such identification. In that context we took note of the circumstance that, according to CPJ 145, the “Land of Ḥelkias” was located in the Bousirite nome, just north of the “Land of Onias.” The geographical proximity of both territories, in fact, would speak in favor of an affiliation of the territories and their owners. It would seem that Ḥelkias would have been the strategos of the Bousirite nome and we may only speculate that the “Ḥelkiasstone” shared that origin. It is thus indeed possible, but far from sure, that the “Land of Ḥelkias” mentioned in CPJ 145 was named after Ḥelkias ben Onias, whose military career and loyal service under Ptolemy VI Philometor and his daughter Cleopatra III is commemorated by Josephus as well.

4 An Egyptian Reaction to the Temple of Onias? (CPJ 520) In a 1995 study, G. Bohak suggested that the papyrus CPJ 520, which was dated to the 3rd century CE and named by its editor, the late M. Stern, “A fragment of Graeco-Egyptian prophecy bearing on Jews,” more specifically bears on the mer-

 W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 90 – 94 and M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 195; J. MélèzeModrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 129.  Perhaps the “Land of Ḥelkias” was katoikic land?  See on that inscription W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 218 – 220; A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 61, 123 – 125 and our previous discussion in Chapter 6 on Epigraphy.  A. Di Bitonto, “Papiri documentari dell’Università Cattolica di Milano,” Aegyptus 54 (1974): 20 – 21.

5 Conclusion

205

cenary community centered on Onias’ Temple.²⁸ Bohak suggested a new reading of several words in the papyrus and posited that they make much better sense in a 2nd century BCE context of Onias’ Temple, rather than the presupposed 3rd century CE context put forward by its editors. Bohak underscored the fact of the presence of Onias’ mercenary community (and temple) and that it was by and large scorned the Egyptian native population. He concluded that CPJ 520 is a testimony to this aversion.²⁹ His interpretation, however, has not found much acceptance among scholars and while I abstain from passing judgement on the issue, I certainly concur with Bohak’s view that the Egyptian native population scorned Onias, his men, and his temple.

5 Conclusion Our examination of three Jewish papyri has yielded the following results: (1) I have accepted Wilcken’s reading of “Onias” in CPJ 132, who is mentioned in the papyrus as a high-ranking Ptolemaic courtier. Hence, I have labelled CPJ 132 the “Onias papyrus.” Because the papyrus is dated to the year 164 BCE, we should identify CPJ’s (no. 132) Onias with Onias III, the Jerusalemite high priest who had fled to Egypt in the wake of the Sixth Syrian war as chronicled by Josephus’ Judaean War (1.31– 33). The papyrus, which clearly substantiates Onias’ high rank in the Ptolemaic administration, thus supports too Josephus’ datum at C. Ap. 2.49, which assigns much military and political power to Onias. (2) The papyrus attests to Onias’ presence in Egypt already in the year 164 BCE, thus negating Josephus statements to the contrary in his Antiquities where he has Onias IV (Onias III’s son) fleeing to Egypt instead of Onias III himself. The evidence from this papyrus thus supports our hypothesis which identifies Onias III as the high priest who fled to Egypt in the days of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and who must have built the Temple of Onias.

 M. Stern, CPJ, 3:119 – 121; G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 520: The Egyptian Reaction to Onias’ Temple,” JSJ 36 (1995): 32– 41.  Bohak emphasizes that the Ptolemies granted Onias the location on account of its strategic importance and that Onias and his men could keep a watchful eye on the local population, which was suspicious of the Ptolemies. Anyhow, Bohak contends that local temples and priests were closed down in favor of the erection of Onias’ fortress and this was the chief reason for the Egyptians’ disdain of Onias’ community in Heliopolis, one of Egypt’s most ancient and sacred cities. G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 520,” 37– 41.

206

Chapter 7 Onias in the Papyri

(3) The identification of Onias’ co-combatant Dositheos, mentioned in C. Ap. 2.49 – 50 with a homonymous Jewish cavalry officer who is mentioned in papyrus CPJ 24, cannot be appropriately confirmed and therefore must be considered speculation. (4) The reference to “the Land of Ḥelkias” in CPJ 145 indeed implies an affiliation of this territory with the Jewish general Ḥelkias, Onias’ III son, who served under Cleoptara III. A final identification, however, awaits further evidence.

Part II Jewish Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias

Jewish-Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias: An Approach toward Oniad Literature Introduction In modern scholarship on Onias’ Temple and on Diaspora Judaism one frequently encounters the claim that the former was of little significance and that it is for this reason that references to the Temple of Onias are absent in contemporary Alexandrian Jewish literature.¹ The example of Philo, Alexandrian Jewry’s most eminent representative, is usually cited by way of illustration in this case.² True, Philo had no word to waste on Onias’ Temple; but, we should explain this omission, not by assuming that the temple lacked significance, but rather owing to the snobbism on Philo’s side. Philo was an ardent adherent of the Jerusalem Temple and therefore, just as Josephus, displays little tolerance for the existence of Jewish sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem. For that reason we can hardly expect him to refer much to Onias’ Temple at all, the more so, considering that Philo was an interpreter of the Bible and not a historian, as was Josephus.³ So, even if we imagine that Philo was sympathetic towards Onias’

 The sole exception, so it seems, is a reference in Artapanus (Frag. 3.2) to the construction of a temple built by Jews in Heliopolis. See, for instance, S. A. Hirsch, “The Temple of Onias,” 56 – 57; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 201– 203; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 95. However, as I hope to show elsewhere, it is far from certain that Artapanus had Onias’ Temple in mind in noting this event. Rather, for apologetic reasons, he seems to suggest to his non-Jewish audience that even the famous and important pagan-Egyptian temple at Heliopolis was founded and built by Jews.  See e. g. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 278; S. Safrai, Pilgrimage in the Days of the Second Temple (Tel Aviv: Am Hasefer, 1965) 63; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 203; A. Zivie, “Tell El-Yahoudieh,” 14; R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias,” 109 [Hebrew]. P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 33; J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 187, 192; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 120. Bohak proposes that the reason for Philo’s silence on Onias’ Temple is linked to the general decline of the Oniad community and its temple in the early Roman period. See G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 36. While this suggestion is indeed an interesting one, especially because it takes into consideration that things may change over time, I shall argue differently.  Philo, De spec. leg. 1.67: ἐπειδὴ εἷς ἐστιν ὁ θεός, καὶ ἱερὸν ἒν εἷναι μόνον (“Because God is one, there is also only one Temple”). See also De Vita Mosis 2.98, 122 and De somniis 2.250, where Philo describes Jerusalem as the “city of God” (ἡ δὲ θεοῦ πόλις ὑπὸ Ἑβραίων Ὶερουσαλὴμ καλεῖται). J. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Jewish Worship and Universal Identity in Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, ed. by J. Frey, D. R. Schwartz, and S. Gripentrog (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 51, who notes that: “for Philo the Temple [in Jerusalem, M.P.] was an essential part of Jewish identity.” See also C. Werman, “God’s House: Temple or Universe,” in Philo und das Neue https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-013

210

Jewish-Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias

Temple, it is not to be expected that he would mention it, and thereby, acknowledge its significance.⁴ Another aspect of the silence about Onias’ Temple in Alexandrian literature has to do with preserveation. That is to say that we are left quite in the dark about how much of ancient Jewish literature from Alexandria (or, for that matter, from elsewhere in Egypt) actually has survived and come down to us. We can comfortably imagine that one or the other Alexandrian compositions indeed mentioned Onias, or his temple. But regardless of the question of how much Jewish literature from Alexandria or from elsewhere has survived, the assumption that Onias’ Temple is not mentioned in Alexandrian literature implies that, in general, Jewish-Hellenistic literature from Egypt was written in Alexandria. Such an attitude automatically precludes the possibility of the existence of other Jewish cultural centers in Egypt (such as Onias’), and perhaps even elsewhere in the Jewish Diaspora. The aim of this section of the study is to promote a shift away from the conception that the Diaspora Jews of Egypt comprised a monolithic body concentrated in Alexandria. We rather acknowledge that many important and distinct, though perhaps small, Jewish communities and cultural centers existed in Egypt, each of them with its own culture and traditions.⁵ Recognizing the significance of these communities, and Onias’ community in particular, allows us to lend due credit to these groups for their cultural achievements and their contribution to ancient Jewish literature. In fact, it has been proposed in the past that various works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature originated in the milieu of Onias’ Temple community; chief amongst them the Greek translation of the prophetic Book of Isaiah.⁶ In like manner, an Oniad authorship has since been suggested for

Testament; wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen; I. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus JudaeoHellenisticum, Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena, ed. by R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 310 and G. Bohak, “Theopolis: A Single-Temple Policy and its Singular Ramifications,” JJS 50 (1999): 3 – 16.  Note that Graetz conjectured that the Passover ritual described by Philo in his treatise On Special Laws 2.145, is that performed at Onias’ Temple. H. Graetz, “Das Korbfest der Erstlinge bei Philo,” MGWJ 26 (1877): 436 (n. 1).  S. Honigman, “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt,” 117– 135.  The pioneer of this assumption was I. L. Seeligman (The Septuagint Version of Isaiah), who has since been followed by several additional scholars: K. Kim, Theology and Identity, passim; A. van der Kooij, “‘The Servant of the Lord:’ A Particular Group of Jews in Egypt according to the Old Greek of Isaiah: Some Comments on LXX Isa 49,1 – 6 and Related Passages,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (BETL 132; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997) 383 – 396; M. N. van der Meer, “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light

Jewish-Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias

211

an array of other compositions as well: so for instance, the Third and Fifth Sibylline Oracles,⁷ Joseph & Aseneth,⁸ the Testament of Job,⁹ 2 Enoch,¹⁰ Ezekiel the Tragedian (Exagoge)¹¹ and several other Jewish traditions and stories, such as the “Tale of the Tobiads.”¹² While we may consent to one such suggestion or another – depending on the individual case – the issue is a broader one. Namely, the question whether or not Onias’ Temple and its community was actually a cultural center at the time when Jewish-Hellenistic literature was produced. In this section of this study, I wish to elucidate the question by examining additional Jewish-Hellenistic compositions for a possible Oniad origin. However, doing so requires some methodological deliberations, namely the establishment of parameters, or a set of characteristics, indicating “Oniad literature.” The two most obvious pre-requisites are the Greek language of a given composition and its Jewish-Egyptian origin.¹³ On the issue of a Jewish-Egyptian ori-

of Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt,” in Isaiah in Context; Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by M. N. van der Meer (et al.) (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 281– 316, and more recently, T. Hibbard, “Isaiah 19:18: A Textual Variant In Light of the Temple of Onias,” in Concerning the Nations; Essays on the Oracles Against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, ed. by E. K. Holt, H. Chul Paul Kim and A. Mein (London: Bloomsbury, 2015) 32– 52.  J. J. Collins, The Jewish Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBL Dissertation Series 13; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974); J. J. Collins, “The Provenance of the Third Sibylline Oracle,” BIJS 2 (1974): 1– 18.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, passim; and M. Chyutin, Tendentious Hagiographies: Jewish Propagandist Fiction BCE (London: T & T Clark, 2011) 208 – 262.  L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto, 76.  U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW 44; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978) 40 and similarly, M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (Studia Post-Biblica 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 60, 167– 168.  M. Chyutin, Tendentious Hagiographies, 171– 207.  J. A. Goldstein, “The Tale of the Tobiads,” 85 – 123. Similarly, it has been suggested that the story on Ḥezekiah the high priest as preserved in Josephus (C. Ap. 1.187– 189) has its origins in an Oniad milieu, see H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 32, 80 – 81. Recently, Rappaport very cautiously suggested in a footnote that an earlier version of the Heliodorus affair may have been written by Onias III, or one of his supporters: “The most probable circle that nourished and embellished the ‘Heliodorus affair’ would be the Oniad family and its supporters who emigrated to Egypt under the leadership of Onias IV.” U. Rappaport, “Did Heliodoros Try to Rob the Treasures of the Jerusalem Temple?: Date and Probability of the Story of II Maccabees, 3,” REJ 170 (2011): 16 (n. 36); and also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 101– 102.  Greek was the lingua franca of the Jewish Diaspora in the East. See J. N. Sevenster, Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Century Jewish Christians Have Known? (Leiden: Brill, 1968) 77– 96 (especially 82– 83); M. Hengel, Juden, Griechen und Barbaren: Aspekte der Hel-

212

Jewish-Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias

gin of a given composition, we should be especially keen-eared regarding references to Heliopolis,¹⁴ or, more generally, the Egyptian chora,¹⁵ since this is where we locate the Temple of Onias. References to these locations may betray an Oniad background.¹⁶ In view of the presence of priests in Onias’ community, which is attested to by epigraphy (JIGRE 84), and the assumption that there were enough priests to conduct proper worship at Onias’ Temple (a minyan, so to speak), we would expect to encounter corresponding themes in Oniad literature. Examples are ample references to the Temple, things cultic, purity, and references to priests, the priesthood and an emphasis on their importance, etc. Somewhat related to this point is the fact that literacy and literary production is traditionally the domain of priests.¹⁷ This of course does not mean that every piece of Jewish-Hellenistic literature was necessarily written by priests, but it does imply a strong correlation between literary output and the priesthood. In other words, what I intend to suggest here is that the presence of priests is likely to leave a trail of literary production.¹⁸

lenisierung des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit (Bibel-Studien 76; Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1976) 126 – 144 (Chapter 10: “Die Übernahme griechischer Sprache und Bildung durch die jüdische Diaspora im ptolemäischen Ägypten”). Note that the language of the funerary epitaphs from Tell elYahoudieh, that was part of the “Land of Onias” is Greek and that there is no indication of the knowledge of Hebrew or Aramaic among the members of the Oniad community. W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 129.  For instance in case of Joseph & Aseneth, Artapanus (who will not be discussed here), and in allusion (by means of the mention of the legendary bird phoenix who is associated with Heliopolis) in Ezekiel’s Exagoge (see, M. Chyutin, Tendentious Hagiographies, 184).  As in 3 Maccabees (6:1). See Chapter 9.  See below, Chapter 12 with regard to the location of Onias’ Temple.  See A. I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism 55; Leiden: SBL, 1997) 116 – 123; C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001) 34– 35.  Perhaps the best example for the correlation of an enhanced literary output and priesthood (mostly borne out of the need to interpret biblical Law) is the Qumran community. See L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kultes im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 267– 284; F. García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without a Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substiuierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kultes im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Mohr Siebeck: Tübingen, 1999) 303 – 322. Consider also Porten’s remark that the members of the Elephantine community, which, just as Onias’ community too, was dominated by priests, were “literary people.” B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 250.

Jewish-Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias

213

Other features and themes we imagine encountering in a literature produced at Onias’ Temple are things military, along with a tangible emphasis on the loyalty of Jews to their Ptolemaic sovereigns. This assumption is rooted in the military nature of the Oniad community, being largely a community of mercenaries in the service of the Ptolemies. In the nature of things, we therefore expect to hear details concerning the military, soldiery, and/or battle-accounts and descriptions.¹⁹ These are things we expect to miss in Alexandrian literature that was, by and large, philosophically inclined.²⁰ In addition, we should draw attention to the fact that references to soldiers, combat, and things military are rather “un-Diasporan” and more congenial to a Palestinian setting that is characterized by the existences of a Jewish state and a Jewish army. Good examples of this are 1 Maccabees or the Book of Judith. Diasporan literature, by contrast, distinguishes itself from non-Diasporan literature with the notion that it is noble to die for one’s cause or religion, rather than to fight for it.²¹ In other words, the Diasporan approach conveys a certain degree of passivite as opposed to the more proactive approach exhibited in non-Diasporan literature. Emphases on, and references to, Jewish soldiers and related topics thus appear “unusual,” or “unique” and therefore, in my opinion, betray a military background of the author and the Sitz im Leben of a given piece of Egyptian Jewish-Hellenistic literature. Such a background, in all likelihood, was an Oniad one. As to loyalty, it is true that one can argue that an emphasis on loyalty toward one’s sovereign may be a common trait of Jewish-Hellenistic literature, particularly in an apologetic context. But we take note too that especially in the context of Jewish service catering to the (Ptolemaic) state, we expect to encounter this theme repeatedly.²² Related to the issue of loyalty and service to the state is the theme of intimacy with the dealings and protocols of the court. Although that theme too has par-

 Recently, N. Hacham suggested that the appearance of these themes serve as chronological indicators for relevant compositions of Jewish-Hellenistic origin, rather than to their actual origin. See N. Hacham, “”Joseph and Aseneth”: Loyalty, Traitors, Antiquity and Diasporan Identity,” JSP 22 (2012): 53 – 67. While the chronological aspect of dating certain Jewish-Hellenistic compositions of this argument is certainly acceptable, I nevertheless find it difficult to accept that we should divorce those themes from the Sitz im Leben both of those compositions and of its authors.  See e. g. J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 158. So for example (first and foremost) Philo, Aristobulus, and the Letter of Aristeas.  D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 33.  S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 155 – 157.

214

Jewish-Hellenistic Literature and the Temple of Onias

allels elsewhere,²³ in my opinion references to the life at court, including knowledge of its protocol and gossip, betray an Oniad authorship just as do references to loyalty, soldiery and the military as discussed above; for, we know from Josephus that the Oniads played a crucial role in the Ptolemaic administration and in Ptolemaic politics, and were profoundly involved in the Ptolemaic court.²⁴ In a recently published paper, N. Hacham likewise argued that the special status enjoyed by the Oniads in the Ptolemaic royal court and the increased hatred of the Jews within the Ptolemaic state (especially among the aristocracy) that came as a result thereof, served as a backdrop to some Jewish-Hellenistic compositions and, in general, engendered a burst of intellectual creativity.²⁵ To round off this discussion, we conclude that even though some of the features referred to above, such as the themes of loyalty to one’s sovereigns, court gossip, and court protocol are not definitive to identifying a given piece of Egyptian Jewish-Hellenistic literature as Oniad, others are. Examples are ample references to the Temple, the priesthood and other things cultic, and also references to things military. Although the previous, more ambivalent, themes do appear in other contexts and compositions, which can largely be ruled out as being of Oniad origin, when we encounter these themes in combination with more distinct features (such as things cultic, for instance), they enhance the possibility of an Oniad authorship of that this or that composition. The following selection of works of Egyptian Jewish-Hellenistic origin will thus be examined in accordance with these parameters.

 Chiefly Dan 1– 6 and also the Book of Esther. See also L. M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends (Harvard Theological Studies 26; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990); S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 178 – 179.  Ant. 12.285, 349, 355 – 356; C. Ap. 2.49 – 52 and CPJ 132.  N. Hacham, “The Anti-Judaism of the Alexandrian Court and the Oniad’s Creative Surge: What Can We Know about the Oniads’ Literature?” in La mémoire des persecutions: autour des livres des Maccabées, ed. by M.-F. Baslez and O. Munnich (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2014) 107– 119 (= N. Hacham, “Oniad Literature: On the Cultural Influence of the Oniad Settlement,” in Between Babylonia and the Land of Israel: Studies in Honor of Isaiah M. Gafni, ed. by G. Herman, M. Ben-Shahar and A. Oppenheimer [Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2016] 131– 146 [Hebrew]). Hacham, ultimately, disagrees with my view of seeing here an indication of an Oniad authorship and maintains that the authors/redactors these works (he discusses 3 Maccabees, Greek Esther, and Joseph & Aseneth) were affiliated “with similar milieus associated with the political-military status of the Oniads but not with their temple.” N. Hacham, “The Oniad’s Creative Surge,” 116.

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy? 1 Introduction The Sibylline Oracles were very popular in the ancient world and a well-attested phenomenon.¹ They constitute a set of oracles, written in Greek hexameter, which were ascribed to the Sibyls, who were prophetesses that uttered oracular predictions in an ecstatic state.² In their existing form, the Sibylline Oracles constitute a rather chaotic compilation of oracles in 12 (or 14, as some have speculated) books of various authorship, date, and religious conception.³ The final arrangement, thought to be due to an unknown editor of the sixth century CE, contains books consisting of arbitrary groupings of unrelated fragments.⁴ Therefore, much ink has been spilled in attempts to pinpoint the date and authorship

 On the history and popularity of the Sibylline Oracles, see H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy in Classical Antiquity (London: Routledge, 1988) and J. J. Collins, “The Jewish Adaption of Sibylline Oracles,” in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism, ed. by J. J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 181– 188; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 289 – 290.  J. J. Collins, The Jewish Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBL Dissertation Series 13; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974) 1– 2. The literature on the Sibylline Oracles is quite extensive: J. Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902); J. Geffcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit der Oracula Sibyllina (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1902); W. Bousset, “Sibyllen und Sibyllinische Bücher,” in Real-Encyclopaedie der Protestantischen Theologie und Kirche, Vol. 18 (1906): 265 – 280; H. Lanchester “The Sybilline Oracles,” in Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphica, ed. by R. H. Charles (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 2:368 – 406; A. Rzach, “Sibyllen, Sibyllinische Orakel,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (PWRE), Vol. II A,2 (1923): 2073 – 2183; A. Peretti, La Sibilla babilonese nella propaganda ellenistica (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1942); V. Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sibylle (Paris: La Haye, 1970); J. J. Collins, “The Provenance of the Third Sibylline Oracle,” BIJS 2 (1974): 1– 18; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles,” in Old Testament Pseudepigraphica, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday 1983) 1:317– 472; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. by M. Stone (CRINT 2; Assen: Van Gorcum/Fortress Press, 1984) 357– 383; J. J. Collins, “The Development of the Sibylline Tradition,” ANRW II/20,1 (1987): 421– 459; R. Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles and Its Social Setting (Leiden: Brill, 2003).  Books 9 and 10 are missing in some MSS. J. J. Collins, “Development,” 422; H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy, 1. On the MSS traditions, see in particular, J. Geffcken, Die Oracula Sibyllina, XXI-LIII and A. Rzach, “Sibyllinische Orakel,” 2119 – 2122.  H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy, 1. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-014

216

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

of the various Sibylline Books. Of the twelve or so books, there are two in particular, namely Books Three and Five, which are generally held to be (largely) of Jewish authorship. These two books are of interest to us for two chief reasons: The first reason relates to Collins’ suggestion that the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles was authored in the milieu of Onias’ Temple.⁵ I shall further examine this suggestion in what is to follow. The second reason relates to a particular prophecy contained in the Sibylline’s Fifth Book (5.501– 511) that predicts, or, rather, expresses hope for the re-building of a Jewish Temple in Egypt. This datum is particularly interesting in our case, as one might suspect an Oniad influence on the dream of the temple’s rebuilding in Egypt.⁶ However, since the Fifth Book of the Sibylline Oracles is dated to the Roman period, which is not covered in this book, I shall focus on the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. We will make do with only an occasional reference to the Fifth Book.⁷

2 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles and Oniad Authorship The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention and is generally fancied as the most interesting and most important

 J. J. Collins, The Jewish Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, xiii.  The passage is generally thought of as referring to the Oniad Temple. See e. g. J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 93 – 94; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 5,” 405 (n. h4).  The book is generally dated to the Roman period (1st – 2nd century CE) and is divided into six (sometimes four) central oracles: (1) 5.1– 51, the introduction to the book; (2) 52– 110; (3) 111– 178; (4) 179 – 285; (5) 286 – 434; (6) 435 – 530, which serves as a concluding oracle. See J. Geffcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit, 22– 30; A. Rzach, “Sibyllinische Orakel,” 2134– 2140; V. Nikiprowetzky, “Réflexions sur quelques problèmes du quatrième et du cinquième livre des Oracles Sibyllins,” HUCA (1972): 30 – 33; J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 94; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 5,” 390; Barclay argues for a specific dating of 80 – 130 CE, see J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 225, esp. 450 – 451. See also S. Felder, “What is the ‘Fifth Sibylline Oracle’,” JSJ 33 (2002): 367 and there (n. 12), 372. The first section of the book (5.1– 51) may have been inserted at a later stage, because of the positive description of Hadrian (if one accepts the allusion to his persona at 5.48). See e. g. J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 75, 94– 95; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 5,” 390; M. Goodman, “The Sibylline Oracles,” in The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, 3.1:652– 654. Others have seen here a reference to Marcus Aurelius (ruled 161– 180 CE), e. g. H. Lanchester, “The Sibylline Oracles,” 373.

2 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles and Oniad Authorship

217

book of the entire corpus of oracles.⁸ With its 829 verses in the Greek original, it is also the longest. Apart from the latter observation, scholars disagree about almost every other detail concerning the book, including its date, its unity, its authorship, and its provenance. Nonetheless, most scholars accept the view that the book is largely of Jewish origin and that it was written sometime from the mid-2nd century BCE-1st century CE.⁹ Most scholars consent to an Egyptian provenance of the book,¹⁰ but others have proposed different places of origin, such as Asia Minor and/or Palestine, for instance.¹¹ Dissent prevails, however, over the addressee of its despondent prophecies, although Gruen has convincingly shown that the Sibyl’s wrath is directed at Rome (a detail that shall occupy us later).¹²

 So for instance, W. Bousset, “Sibyllen und Sibyllinische Bücher,” 270 and J. J. Collins, “Development,” 354.  Some scholars have – for good reason – cast doubt the Jewishness of Sib. Or. 3.401– 488, which appears to stem from a collection of prophecies affiliated with the Erythrean Sibyl (see also below, n. 23). The same has been argued in the past with regard to other sections of the book. See J. Geffcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit, 1– 17; W. Bousset, “Sibyllen und Sibyllinische Bücher,” 270 – 271; E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi, 2:794– 801; H. Lanchester “The Sibylline Oracles,” 371– 372, A. Rzach, “Sibyllen, Sibyllinische Orakel,” 2127– 2128; J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 21– 33; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 354– 355; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 216 – 225; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 269. Particularly one verse of the book (3.766) appears to be a Christian interpolation. It mentions the “Son of the Great God,” which bears a Christian connotation. J. Geffcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit, 14. Nikiprowetzky, instead, has a different understanding of that reference, interpreting it as a reference to the Temple. Compare V. Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sibylle, 329  J. J. Collins, The Jewish Sibylline Oracles of Egypt Judaism, 21, 35 – 55; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 354; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 218; E. S. Gruen, “Jews, Greeks, and Romans,” 17; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 270, 283 – 285.  A Jewish-Asian Minor provenance was recently forcefully argued by R. Buitenwerf, “Sibyllijnse Orakels III: Joodse identiteit in Klein-Azië,” NTT 56 (2002): 1– 15; R. Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles, 130 – 134. For the assumption of a Palestinian origin of the book, compare F. Millar, “Review of V. Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sibylle,” JTS 23 (1972): 223 – 224.  For Cleopatra VII as the addressee of the Sibyl’s wrath see W. W. Tarn, “Alexander Helios and the Golden Age,” JRS 22 (1932): 135– 141; H. Jeanmarie, La Sibylle et la retour de l’âge d’Or (Paris: E. Leroux, 1939) 55 – 61. This stands against Gruen’s conviction that favors Rome as its addressee. E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 280, 286; E. S. Gruen, “Jews, Greeks, and Romans,” 31, and see also H. Lanchester, “The Sibylline Oracles,” 371.

218

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

3 Unity and Jewishness of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles The complexity and diversity of the oracles contained in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles is immediately felt after reading only brief sections of the work. The patchwork nature of the book is quite obvious and has often been noted, so that the work appears to be a more or less “wild” amalgam of oracles from different periods and written by multiple authors.¹³ Accordingly, and in concert with the view of various other scholars, I am of the conviction that it is possible to distinguish between earlier and later strata in the work.¹⁴ Collins has identified three layers: (1) a main corpus (97– 349 and 489 – 829), (2) oracles against various nations (350 – 488), and (3) an introductory section (1– 96). The latter (1– 96) was more likely the concluding section of the previous book.¹⁵ Collins singled out Sib. Or. 3.97– 161 as the introduction to the remaining portions of the book.¹⁶ This observation dovetails with the fact that, upon closer examination, one may discern signs of the book’s specific edition. For example, one may distinguish certain recurring phrases, which were obviously inserted in order to leave the reader with the impression of reading a cohesive thread of oracles.¹⁷ Consequently, arguments have been made for cohesiveness in the work, but most modern scholars keep on rejecting this view.¹⁸ In context of a debate about the unity of the work, we should add that sections of what seems to be the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracle were recently discovered on a second cen-

 In particular, E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 271– 272. See also J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 218; M. Goodman, “The Sibylline Oracles,” 631; and the literature cited above, in n. 7. Nikiprowetzky has argued for the redactional unity of the work and has proposed to date it to the reign of Cleopatra VII (69 – 30 BCE). Compare V. Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sibylle, 206 – 217. His claim, however, is commonly rejected. See e. g. J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 85.  See the subsequent note, and Gruen’s criticism against the identification of a “main corpus,” as assumed by Collins, E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 272.  J. J. Collins, “Development,” 430 – 433; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 354.  J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 354.  See e. g. 3.196 – 198; 3.295 – 300; 3.489 – 491. Those phrases were inserted to bridge and smooth over oracles of different contexts.  See above, n. 12 and R. Buitenwerf, Book III of the Sibylline Oracles, 124– 134, who rejects the view of a core composition as proposed by Collins.

4 The Layout of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles

219

tury BCE papyrus, which corroborates the assumption of the existence of earlier parts of that composition.¹⁹ As noted, one may clearly distinguish the heterogeneity of certain sections and oracles in the work. Nonetheless, the reader of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracle is struck by the sheer frequency of the mention of the Jewish God,²⁰ explicit hopes of messianic redemption,²¹ and numerous allusions and direct references to biblical prophetic and apocalyptic books such as Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel.²² These observations taken together, strongly suggest a Jewish authorship of the book. Indeed, there are only a few passages that might not be of Jewish origin. These are distinguished by their lack of interest in Jewish topics and the absence of the Jewish God.²³

4 The Layout of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles It is crucial for this study to recognize the different stages of the composition of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. My claim is that the older textual stratum was written, as first suggested by Collins, in the milieu of Onias’ Temple, and that only at a later stage – in the Roman period – were additional layers of the text added. The proposal that the book as we know it today underwent its final edition in this period too, is unlikely. The book’s final edition probably sur-

 P. Oslo II 14 and P. Köln Inv. 20380 recto. Both papyri complement each other and seem to preserve Sib. Or. 3.608 – 615. See M. Gronewald (et al.), Kölner Papyri, Vol. 12 (Papyrologica Coloniensia VII.12; Paderborn, München, Wien, and Zürich: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2010) 1– 17; M. Gronewald, “P. Macquarie, inv. 586 (1), ein neues Fragment zu P.Köln XII 467: Sibyllinische Orakel,” ZPE 177 (2011): 57– 62. The Oslo papyrus was published by W. Crönert, “Oraculum Sibyllinum Fragmentum Osloense,” SO 6 (1928): 57– 59 and dated by him to the 2nd century CE, but it seems that Crönert’s dating should be revisited on the grounds of the new evidence of the Cologne papyrus.  See but a few instances right at the beginning of the book: 3.97, 156, 161, 165, etc.  For example 3.49, which bespeaks the coming of a “holy prince” holding a scepter, and 3.286 – 290, 652– 656, 767– 795.  For references to Isaiah, see e. g. 3.77 alluding to Isa 47:8 – 9; 3.224 alluding to Isa 47:12; 3.285 alluding to Isa 44:27– 45:1. For references to Ezekiel, see e. g. 3.32 alluding to Ezek 9:17; 3.319 alluding to Ezek 38 – 39; allusions to the Book of Daniel include 3.329, 397, 400 to Dan 7:7– 8; 3.767 (Dan 2:44; 7:27).  3.401– 488. That particular passage is thought to be taken from a collection of the Erythrean Sibyl. See J. Geffcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit, 13; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 359. Collins suggests that the passage might have been added to bring the composition “up-to-date” and to emphasize its sibylline flavor.

220

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

faced only some time in the sixth century CE.²⁴ As noted, the opening section of the book (3.1– 96) may, in fact, belong to the concluding section of the Second Book of the Sibylline Oracles, while Collins has identified a main corpus of the work at 3.97– 349 and 3.489 – 829. In concert with the general notions presented here, I concur with Collins’ assumption. Nonetheless, I shall argue here that several pieces of the main corpus should be attributed to an earlier composition stage that would best be dated to the time of the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (around 170 – 164 BCE). These passages include, in my view, the following: 3.218 – 264 (“Praise of the Jews”); 3.265 – 294 (“Exile and Restoration”); 3.388 – 400 (“An Oracle on Alexander and His Descendants”); 3.573 – 600 (“Eulogy of the Jews”); 3.624– 634 (“Appeal to Conversion”); 3.657– 668 (“The Final Assault on the Temple”); 3.702– 731 (“The Salvation of the Elect”). These passages are characterized by their affinity to the Temple, allusions to its de-sanctification, cultic customs, and chronological allusions pointing to this particular period in time. In order to discern who was responsible for the composition of these passages and for what specific purpose, I shall first examine the book’s main themes and its purpose.

5 The Purpose and Main Themes of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles Over all, the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles presents a recurring pattern of world history: (1) sin and idolatry usually leads to (2) disaster and tribulation, which is terminated by (3) the advent of a king or kingdom. Within this framework, the reader of the book is struck by the prevailing wrath of the Sibyl against Rome. We recall that some scholars have suggested a variety of targets of the Sibyl’s wrath, but I concur with Gruen that the main object of God’s wrath and the doomful predictions of the Sibyl is Rome.²⁵ This can be explained by the association of Rome with the harbinger of the destruction of the Temple. But we note

 See e. g. J. J. Collins, “Development,” 422 and for the respective situation in case of the Fifth Book of the Sibylline Oracles. S. Felder, “What is the ‘Fifth Sibylline Oracle’?” 367– 372.  I accept Gruen’s interpretation of the reference at 3.77 of the widow, and mistress that rules the world as Rome and not as Cleopatra VII as has been suggested by several scholars (see the literature cited by J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 177 [nn. 78 – 81]) or as an “apokalyptisches Weib der Endzeit” as remarked by A. Rzach, “Sibyllinische Orakel,” 2131; E. Schürer, Die Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes zur Zeit Jesu Christi, 3:579, and V. Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sibylle, 146 – 149. See also J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 67– 71 and J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 360.

5 The Purpose and Main Themes of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles

221

too, that the Sibylline tradition is intimately linked with Rome itself, since it became an important element of Roman religion and Roman government.²⁶ Thus, having a (essentially) Roman prophetess predicting doom for Rome is quite an imposing message, containing not an insignificant amount of irony. In addition, we observe that the author of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles was not particularly fond of Egyptians and their religion.²⁷ He is as deeply repulsed by the Egyptian practices of animal worship and idolatry,²⁸ as by Roman pederasty and homosexuality; practices he repeatedly condemns and urges be abandoned.²⁹ Moreover, the book consistently stresses the oneness of God and thus seeks to promote the concept of monotheism.³⁰ The Greeks are initially viewed with sympathy (3.545 – 572), but towards the end of the work the author somewhat alters his attitude and emphasizes that the Greeks were subdued under foreign rule (the Romans) due to their own hybris and adherence to the pagan religion.³¹ The attitude towards the Greeks in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles is thus somewhat ambivalent. As noted, on the one hand they received sympathy from the author for having to endure Roman oppression. This is clearly a sign that the author underscores a shared fate of Jews and Greeks.³² On the other hand the Greeks are threatened with the wrath of God lest they attack the “city” (3.734, obviously an allusion to Jerusalem), and are condemned for their idolatrous religious beliefs.³³ Overall, the Greeks are singled out for redemption on the condition that they abandon their impious ways by converting and embracing the omnipotence and greatness of the Jewish God.³⁴  H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy, 140 – 151; J. J. Collins, “The Jewish Transformation of Sibylline Oracles,” in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism, ed. by J. J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 182– 184; S. Felder, “What is the ‘Fifth Sibylline Oracle’?” 364.  J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 224; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 284– 285.  See for instance: 3.38 – 39, 59, 279, 341– 343, 586 – 590.  See above n. 26.  See for instance the unequivocal statements that “God is One” right at the beginning of the work (3.11) and elsewhere (3.629, 760), as well as Collins’ remark on the Sibyl’s “consistent monotheism,” J. J. Collins, “The Sibyl and the Potter: Political Propaganda in Ptolemaic Egypt,” in Seers, Sibyls and Sages in Hellenistic-Roman Judaism, ed. by J. J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 1997) 205 (n. 35).  3.732– 740. The Greeks’ hybris is emphasized at 3.555, 738 – 739.  See E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 286 – 288.  3.545 – 572, 597– 600, 732– 740. It seems that the reference to an attack on Jerusalem by Greek soldiers and kings (3.734) alludes to Antiochus’ IV Epiphanes sack of the city 169/168 BCE and thus belongs to an older stratum of the text, as I indeed have suggested above.  3.624– 627, cf. 5.494– 497. See also E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 287.

222

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

Interestingly, the author of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles calls for the conversion of (Greek) Gentiles, an observation that clearly bears on the milieu of the work’s composition. I shall return to this point later on. For now, however, we note that the Romans and even more so the Egyptians, were not “granted” (literarily speaking of course) an invitation to conversion to Judaism. Perhaps, the reason why the Egyptians were denied the opportunity to convert is because they were continuously abhorred for their idolatry and animal worship. But there seems to be an additional reason, namely blind hatred, which applied too for the explicit barring of the Romans. As I shall argue below, the barring of the Romans from conversion appears to have had its roots in a concrete historical situation. Other major themes present in the book are eschatology and messianic redemption.³⁵ In various instances, the Sibyl, in the form of grim predictions of terrifying divine judgments, refers to many disasters in the past as well as to those yet to come. God will redeem those loyal to the Jewish faith by sending a Messianic savior figure in the persona of a king.³⁶ But, perhaps the most important aspect of Book Three (and Book Five) is the centrality of the Temple.³⁷ This point demands explanation, in view of the fact that works originating in the Diaspora usually distinguish themselves by a

 See for example: 3.286 – 290, 652– 656, 767– 795.  The locus classicus in the work is 3.652– 656 that describes the coming of a “king of the sun.” Gruen understands this ominous reference as referring to a Messianic figure (E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 277; E. S. Gruen, “Jews, Greeks, and Romans,” 33 [n. 83]), contra Collins, who sees here a reference to a Ptolemaic King on the grounds of a parallel passage of the native Egyptian composition called “The Potter’s Oracle” [in col. 2]. See J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 40 – 44; J. J. Collins, “The Sibyl and the Potter,” 202; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 92– 95. See also against Collins, J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 223. As much as Collins’ arguments seem convincing, it is more reasonable to concur with Gruen that the passage bespeaks the coming of a Messianic figure who is detached from the Ptolemaic royal dynasty. Compare 3.286, that mentions the coming of a “king” sent by God as well.  Even though the importance of the Temple is much emphasized by Collins (see e. g. J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 44– 49; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 356 – 357), the point is whetted by J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 220 – 221 and A. Chester, “The Sibyl and the Temple,” in Templum Amicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple presented to Ernst Bammel, ed. by W. Horbury (JSNTSup 48; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1991) 37– 69. But see 3.214, 265 – 294, 302, 556 – 579, 665, 703, 718, 772– 775 for references to the Temple.

5 The Purpose and Main Themes of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles

223

lack of emphasis on the Temple and on sacrifices.³⁸ Therefore, we would expect that an emphasis on the Temple and its cult would only be significant to people for whom the Temple (or a holy place) is an essential part of their religion, first and foremost priests. It is quite remarkable to note in this context that the Sibyl implies that Greeks may embrace the Jewish faith simply by denouncing idolatry and relinquishing assorted illicit sexual practices, and sending offerings to the Temple.³⁹ We are surprised to discern that circumcision plays no role here and is never mentioned in the whole book. It follows that sacrifices seem to have taken priority over other aspects of Jewish law (e. g., circumcision). Once more, such an outlook betrays a priestly authorship. What is interesting to add here is the circumstance that priests are priests by birth and not by choice or instruction (as in Christianity). This implies that anyone willing to accept the Jewish faith may do so by performing a certain set of rituals; but at the same time, he or she will never be able to become a full-fledged Jew due to lack of pedigree. In D. R. Schwatz’s words, a ‫( גר‬i. e. a convert) “could not become a Jew any more than an Israelite could become a priest.”⁴⁰ Naturally, for people who were of the opinion that no operation could compensate for deficient pedigree, such as Jewish priests, things such as circumcision become futile.⁴¹ The nonchalance in regard to circumcision thus bolsters my assumption that the author of this passage of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles was a priest. I will re-visit this issue in our examination of Joseph & Aseneth (Chapter 11). What, then, is the purpose and message of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles? It seems that the Sybil expresses a simple plan, namely that sin and idolatry will lead to doom, tribulation and punishment by God. But if everyone will denounce idolatry and will accept the glory and omnipotence of the Jewish

 See D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 29. Note Collins’ remark that “the third [sic] Sibyl displays an interest in the Temple, which is unparalleled in any document from Egyptian Judaism…” J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 356.  3.715 – 719, 722– 723.  D. R. Schwartz, “Yannai and Pella, Josephus and Circumcision,” DSD 18 (2011): 354.  Schwartz emphasizes that Qumran texts distinguish themselves from other Jewish writings in their lack of interest in circumcision. So does Jubilees 30, which conspicuously omits any reference to the circumcision of Shechemites when recounting Gen 34 and the aftermath of Dinah’s rape. Another example is Ant. 20.38, which is part of the conversion story of the royal House of Adiabene, and as Jubilees and the Qumran texts, quite strikingly nonchalant in the requirement to circumcise when converting to Judaism. Notably, the authors of the Qumran texts, the Book of Jubilees, and the Jewish Antiquities, all were priests. See M. Thiessen, Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, & Identity in Ancient Judaism & Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011) 67– 110; D. R. Schwartz, “Yannai and Pella,” 339 – 359.

224

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

God, then everyone will find peace, harmony, and prosperity.⁴² What is striking here is that in spite of the Sybil’s condemnation of other nations for their evildoings, first and foremost the Romans and the (native) Egyptians, its author does not, in a fanatical manner largely exclude non-Jews from (eschatological) salvation. Instead, he leaves open the possibility that some non-Jews, predominantly Hellenes, will join the ranks of the Jews by accepting the oneness and omnipotence of the Jewish God. This is, per se, quite a universalistic attitude characteristic of Jews living in the Diaspora.⁴³ At the same time, we observe that becoming a Jew, according to the author of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, is intimately linked with sacrifices and the recognition of the Temple, an issue I will return to below. The universalistic attitude is already evident in the fact that the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles constitutes a Jewish voice in the guise of a pagan prophetess, who speaks in Homeric hexameters and employs well-known images and references to Greek mythology. This includes the notion that traditions on the fall of Troy and the Exodus are comfortably co-presented, much as the story of the Tower of Babel and the legendary tales on Cronos and the Titans.⁴⁴ All the while, though, the Sibyl adamantly promotes the monotheistic faith and the adherence to the Temple and its cult. As Gruen has aptly argued, the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles successfully reconciles the Greeks and Jews within the eschaton.⁴⁵ For Collins, the message of the book transcends into the political realm. Based on three passages he believes to refer to a Ptolemaic king, he argues for a distinctly positive attitude of the Jews toward the Ptolemies in the book, even going as far as reading Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles as a work of Jewish pro-Ptolemaic propaganda.⁴⁶ There are, however, good reasons to reject Collins’ identification of those three passages with a Ptolemaic king, and with it, the notion of an outright positive attitude towards the Ptolemaic monarchy.⁴⁷ This issue will be taken up below.

 See e. g. 3.755, 767– 795. E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 290.  Let us provide another example for such a world-view. 2 Maccabees, as the Third Book of the Sibyllene Oracles too, is a work of Diasporan origin. As such, it portrays Onias (III) the high priest enthusiastically as a “noble and good man (ἀνήρ) (2 Macc. 15:12),” thus underlining a general human capacity, rather than for instance emphasizing his piety as a Jewish high priest. Similarly, we should understand the notion that everyone, or every man, may adopt the Jewish faith as indicated by the Third Book of the Sibyllene Oracles.  3.96 – 110, 110 – 155, 248 – 256, 414– 418.  E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 290.  Compare J. J. Collins, “The Sibyl and the Potter,” 199 – 211.  See below, n. 49 and our subsequent discussion.

6 Dating the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles

225

6 Dating the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles Much has been written about the date of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, but it is generally assumed to be the oldest of the collection, composed between the mid-2nd century BCE and 1st century CE.⁴⁸ Collins forcefully argues for a mid2nd century BCE date for the book’s main corpus on account of three references to a “seventh king” of the Egyptians of Greek race.⁴⁹ On the condition that Alexander the Great is counted as the first king, thus marking the beginning of Greek (Macedonian) rule over Egypt, the seventh king should be identified with either Ptolemy VI Philometor (who ruled 180 – 164 and 163 – 145 BCE), or his short-lived successor Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator (who ruled 145 – 144 BCE).⁵⁰ Identifying Philometor’s brother Ptolemy VIII Physcon (who ruled 170 – 164, 164– 163, and 144– 117 BCE) with the “seventh king,” Collins’ dating would be out of question; inter alia, because the alleged reference to Ptolemy VIII Physcon is totally positive, which would not suit Physcon’s bad record with the Jews.⁵¹ For these reasons, Collins is partial to the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor, under whose rule Egyptian Jewry flourished.⁵² Collins’ dating, however, has been challenged for good reason by several scholars.⁵³ For example, dynastic numbering is a modern invention and was a method alien to the ancients.⁵⁴ Instead, the references to the “seventh king,” in particular at 3.193, are to be understood in a redemptive, messianic context;

 See above, n. 7. Some passages, such as 3.46 – 92 for example, clearly belong to the Roman period. The latter passage, as such, refers to a time when “Rome will rule over Egypt (3.46),” which can only have been post-Actium, i. e. after 31 BCE.  The “seventh king” is referred to at 3.193, 318, 608. See J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 28 – 33, J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 88 – 95.  J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 355. Collins also provides the reason that the context in which the first reference to the seventh king appears, viz. 3.175 – 190, mentions Roman reprisals in Macedonia (190 BCE) and Rome, as such, prominently which points to a time in which Roman interference in Egyptian political affairs increased – for example as in case of Antiochus IV’s second invasion of Egypt in 168 BCE.  On Physcon’s negative record with the Jews see in particular, C. Ap. 2.49 – 56.  See above, n. 46.  In particular by E. S. Gruen (Heritage and Hellenism, 272– 277); E. S. Gruen, “Jews, Greeks, and Romans,” 18 – 24 and note Barclay’s hesitations, J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 218. Contra Gruen, J. J. Collins, “The Third Sibyl Revisited,” in Jewish Cult and Hellenistic Culture: Essays on the Jewish Encounter with Hellenism and Roman Rule, ed. by J. J. Collins (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 87– 96.  E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 276.

226

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

the number is of merely symbolic value.⁵⁵ As already noted by Gruen, the number “seven” does not only appear in context of the “seventh king,” but elsewhere in the work, indicating that it was indeed of symbolic importance for the author.⁵⁶ In fact, the author’s interest in the number “seven” seems to have its origin in the Book of Daniel, to which the author frequently alludes.⁵⁷ Collins’ 2nd century BCE dating, together with the Egyptian provenance of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, constitute his main arguments for an Oniad authorship. Yet, if Collins’ grounds for dating should be rejected, can we nonetheless maintain not only the same dating, but also the same setting of the author of the book? And why should we want to do so in the first place? In terms of dating, we note that the sections that I contend, originated in the Hellenistic period contain several other chronological allusions, apart from those to the “seventh king” that allegedly refer to a Ptolemaic king.⁵⁸ For example, there are two, albeit problematic, references to Antiochus IV Epiphanes at 3.396 – 400 and at 3.611– 618. The first instance appears in the context of a prophecy of the destruction of “Asia” – a symbol of the Seleucid Empire. The author of the passage, unmistakably inspired by the Book of Daniel, predicts that the destroyer of Asia will “cut off” the root of “ten horns.”⁵⁹ The problem with this passage according to Collins is that it does not belong to the main corpus. He is convinced that it was updated by a Jewish author at a later stage in time and inserted into the collection. He considers it an “isolated piece of anti-Hellenistic propaganda.”⁶⁰ I, however, for two reasons, am of the conviction that the piece belongs to the older stratum of the text; Firstly, anti-Hellenistic propaganda – or anti-Antiochic propaganda as Collins calls it more precisely – strikes us misplaced in a collection of oracles generally concerned with anti-Roman propaganda.⁶¹ It would doubtless fit much better into the context of Jewish anti-Hellenistic propaganda, of the kind prevalent at the time of the Antiochian persecu-

 See E. S. Gruen, “Jews, Greeks, and Romans,” 23; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 277. Compare Collins’ defense of his assumption in J. J. Collins, “The Third Sybil Revisited,” 87– 96.  3.280 refers to “seven decades” (see Jer 25:11 and compare Dan 9:27) and at 3.728 where “seven lengths of annually revolving times” (Ezek 39:9) are mentioned.  See above, n. 22.  See J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles,” 365 – 368.  3.396 – 397 and compare Dan 7:7– 8: “…It was different from all the beasts that preceded it, and it had ten horns. I was considering the horns, when another horn appeared, a little one coming up among them; to make room for it, three of the earlier horns were plucked up by the roots. There were eyes like human eyes in this horn, and a mouth speaking arrogantly (NRSV).” The little horn “speaking arrogantly” is commonly interpreted to stand for Antiochus IV Epiphanes.  J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 359.  See also V. Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sybille, 199.

6 Dating the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles

227

tions and prior to the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt (around the years 168 – 167 BCE). The second reason why we should assign the passage to the older stratum of the composition is the reference to the Book of Daniel. We recall that 3.396 – 397 is not the only reference in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles to the Book of Daniel. Another such reference, for instance, occurs at 3.767 – a piece I have considered as belonging to the older stratum of the composition as well. Therefore, there is little reason to detach the first passage containing the allusion to Antiochus IV Epiphanes from the older textual stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. In fact, this particular passage only strengthens the assumption of an older mid-2nd century BCE text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. A second possible allusion to Antiochus IV Epiphanes appears in the muchdebated passage at 3.611– 618 in the prophecy predicting the coming of the ominous “seventh king.”⁶² We remember that Collins identified the “seventh king” with Ptolemy VI Philometor, and the “great king of Asia,” with Antiochus IV Epiphanes, albeit with hesitation.⁶³ The “great king of Asia,” so the prophecy predicts, will emerge and invade and devastate Egypt. Were we indeed to identify the “great king of Asia” with Epiphanes, who invaded Egypt twice (successfully in 170 BCE and unsuccessfully in 168 BCE),⁶⁴ we would be left with a very narrow time window for the composition of this passage, since it nowhere refers to Antiochus’ second, unsuccessful invasion.⁶⁵ Although Collins stresses that the passage is not an ex eventu prophecy, but rather part of a greater eschatological scheme of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, he concedes that the prophecy could have been inspired by the recent event of the Antiochian invasion.⁶⁶ In

 “…whenever the young seventh king of Egypt rules his own land, numbered from the dynasty of the Greeks, which the Macedonians, wonderful men, will found. A great king will come from Asia, a blazing eagle, who will cover the whole land with infantry and cavalry…He will overthrow the kingdom of Egypt (3.608 – 614).”  See above, n. 49. For scholars who have interpreted this passage as a clear-cut reference to Antiochus IV Epiphanes, see e. g. H. Lanchester, “The Sibylline Oracles,” 389.  On that topic see W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers. Ein Beitrag zur Politik und zum Staatsrecht des Hellenismus (Abhandl. d. Bayrischen Akad. D. Wiss. Philosoph.-hist. Abtl. Heft 11; München, 1934) 40 – 81.  See J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 29 – 30; J. J. Collins, “The Third Sibyl Revisited,” 93; Gruen denies that the passage refers to Antiochus IV Epiphanes at all and emphasizes that invasions of Egypt from Asia were a persistent threat. E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 274– 276.  Collins stresses that the theme appears elsewhere in the work, e. g. at 3.635 – 656. See e. g. J. J. Collins, “The Third Sybil Revisited,” 93.

228

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

spite of Collins’ hesitance, I am convinced that the passage: (a) refers to Antiochus’ IV Epiphanes first invasion of Egypt and should thus be dated to 170 – 168 BCE; and (b) that it belongs to the older text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. Two further observations shall be underlined in order to strengthen this assumption. The first one concerns the similarity of our passage with the Book of Daniel (cf. Dan 11:40 – 46). We recall that we already encountered corresponding passages in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, which I have dated to the mid-2nd century BCE, such as in 3.767 and 3.396 – 397. Secondly, we should consider that the prophecy nicely correlates with the references to the desolation of the Temple elsewhere in the text, which seem to have been written in the same period.⁶⁷ To these two observations I add that nowhere in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles do we encounter any references to the Maccabean uprising, save for one brief and much debated passage at 3.194– 195.⁶⁸ The view that the passage indeed refers to the Maccabean uprising is generally rejected and I, too, see no reason to disagree with this view.⁶⁹ To that I add that the narrow time frame of 170 – 168 BCE for the composition of the earlier text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, which was doubted by Collins, and even more forcefully called into question by Gruen, in fact turns out to be not at all unreasonable.⁷⁰ Therefore, I argue that the passages I think belong to the older text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles were indeed written in the Hellenistic period sometime after the beginning of the Antiochic persecution of Judaism,⁷¹ Antiochus’ first invasion of Egypt in 170/169 BCE and the defilement of the Jerusalem Temple, and prior to the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple and the

 See also V. Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sybille, 197 (n. 3) who has argued for a dependence of 3.611– 618 on the Danielic passage. I agree with Collins that a textual dependence seems too strong a claim to make, but we merely note the affiliation. See J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 144 (n. 52). The desolation of the Temple is mentioned at 3.281 and 3.657– 668.  The passage states that “the people of the great God will again be strong… (3.194– 195).” Momigliano in particular has seen here a reference to the Maccabean uprising. Cf. A. Momigliano, “La portata storica dei vaticani sul settino re nel terzo libro degli oracoli sibillini,” Sesto contributo alla storia degli studi classici 2 (1980): 553 – 556. His reading has not found much acceptance, see especially E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 285 (n. 171), but see J. M. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 223.  See our previous note and J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 89.  J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 89; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 285 (n. 171).  On the Antiochic persecutions see K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, passim.

7 Who Wrote the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles?

229

outbreak of the Maccabean revolt (ca. 168/167– 164 BCE). This oldest text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles was thus written just prior to, or during the erection of the Oniad Temple in Egypt. I shall discuss this final point later, in the section discussing the authorship of these passages of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. It would be unfitting to round off the discussion of the date of composition of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles by only referring to specific parts of the work and not (briefly) suggesting a dating for the other parts. It is best assumed that the sections I have determined to belong to a later period should be dated to the Roman period. That finding is in concert with an array of historical references to that specific period in the text, and is also compatible with the general antiRoman sentiment prevalent in the composition.⁷²

7 Who Wrote the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles? The focus of this section is on the authorship of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, especially of those passages I have dated to the mid-2nd century BCE. We recall Collins’ suggestion that the ominous references to the “seventh king” allude to the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor, i. e. in the mid-2nd century BCE, who was renowned for his positive inclination toward the Jews of Egypt.⁷³ Since his benefactions were especially directed to Onias and his community, whom he allowed to build a temple in the Heliopolitan nome, Collins stressed that the general enthusiastic reception of Ptolemaic rule and of the Ptolemaic king in particular, indicates an Oniad background of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles.⁷⁴ The Ptolemaic king in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, which Collins identifies with Ptolemy VI Philometor, who as we remember, is hailed by the Jews as a Messiah, much in the same way as Isaiah hailed the Per-

 For chronological references alluding to the Roman period, see in particular: the reference to the Triumvirs (3.52) Marcus Antonius, Octavianus, and Lepidus; the datum at 3.46 bespeaking Roman dominion of Egypt, which could only refer to the time after the Battle of Actium (31/ 30 BCE); or the references to the Sebastenoi at 3. 62 referring to the genus of Augustus/Octavian. On the Roman date of the later sections of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, see in particular J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 358 – 361; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 224– 225; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 271– 272. For the general antiRoman flair of the work, see above, n. 12.  See e. g. J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 53; J. J. Collins, “The Third Sibyl Revisited,” 88, 98.  J. J. Collins, “Provenance,” 1– 18; J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 35 – 55.

230

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

sian king Cyrus (Isa 45:1).⁷⁵ His assumption, however, has failed to gain much acceptance.⁷⁶ For our purposes however, Collins’ suggestion should not be passed over so quickly – although his main argument for his hypothesis indeed stands on shaky ground. Thus, Collins’ suggestion is indeed attractive, but is better approached from a different angle. So, with Collins, I have identified an older text layer of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles and have identified the relevant sections (above, in our point [a]). I have furthermore noted that these parts are characterized by an eager interest in the condemnation of idolatry, Messianism/redemption, the conversion

 See e. g. J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 355 – 356; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 95 – 96.  Inter alia, because the Oniad Temple is nowhere mentioned, as underlined by Gruen, who remarks that “The absence of any allusion to Leontopolis [sic] in the text fatally weakens the idea, forcing Collins to postulate a very narrow corridor of time for the composition: after Onias’ arrival in Egypt but before he built the temple at Leontopolis…” E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 283 – 284 (n. 158); E. S. Gruen, “Jews, Greeks, and Romans,” 29 – 30. It is particularly this narrow time window that emerges from the historical allusions we have identified in the older stratum of the text which apparently co-insides with the period described by Gruen and with the time of Onias’ III flight to Egypt as it emerges also from other sources on the history of the Oniad Temple (see Part 1 of this study). And I have opined that nothing really stands in the way of rejecting that narrow time-window; not all prophecies necessarily demanded an up-date. On the contrary, it is quite revealing to take a glimpse at Oniad perceptions prior to the establishment of their temple, which, by the way, does not militate against the view that Oniad Jews, who were already exposed to a fair share of Hellenistic culture prior to their arrival, would adopt a Hellenistic literary genre for their own purposes as postulated by Gruen. Let us recall, for example, that Eupolemus – a Judaean historian linked with the Hasmonean court – wrote in Greek and as his name already indicates, he seems to have enjoyed a (partly) Hellenistic upbringing. B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus: A Study of Judeao-Greek Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974) 7– 21. In any event, the absence of an explicit mention of Onias’ Temple is not reason enough to deny an Oniad authorship of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. See also J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 53. Barclay too, expressed objection to Collins’ hypothesis. J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 225 (n. 81). He is especially unpersuaded by Collins’ argument that the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles could have been a product of Alexandrian Judaism because of their primarily “academic” and “spiritualizing” nature. Barclay is of the conviction that the work was written in Alexandria, since it was the biggest Jewish center in Egypt. He adds that it is unlikely that the Oniad Jews could be responsible for expressing the hope of a future restoration of the Jerusalem Temple. But as Collins correctly observed, such a notion is unfounded for two reasons: For one, also the Qumranite Jews expressed hopes for the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple and continued to look to the Temple in an idealistic manner, even after they distanced themselves from it. Secondly, the earlier text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles seems to have been written prior to the building of the Oniad Temple. See also J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 356.

7 Who Wrote the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles?

231

of non-Jewish Greeks, and, first and foremost, the significance of the Temple and sacrifices. Throughout the course of our study (and particularly in this chapter) I have underscored that a specific and profound concern with the Temple and its cult characterizes the interests of one particular stratum of ancient Jewish society, namely priests. I have also argued, with the majority of scholars, that the Third Book of Sibylline Oracles was written in Egypt. In the quest for the identity of the author of the Third Book of Sibylline Oracles, the next logical step would be to look for Jewish priests in Egypt who maintained a temple. The only relevant location is Onias’ Temple. But before elaborating on this point, I wish to illustrate an additional point concerning the literary genre of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. Oracles and oracular interpretation are traditionally part of the set of priestly functions. Already in the Bible we find several references to the Urim and Thummim (‫)אורים ותמים‬, an oracle under priestly supervision.⁷⁷ At Qumran, too, we discern that priests were assigned the task of interpreting oracles and prophetic utterances.⁷⁸ It thus follows that the genre of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles early on betrays an affiliation with priestly activity, so that an Oniad milieu for the authorship of that work becomes all the more plausible. That having been said, we return to the importance of the Temple in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles. As many other scholars have already pointed out, the Temple plays a crucial role in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles and is mentioned frequently.⁷⁹ Particularly striking are the recurrent references in the text to the offering of sacrifices, once more indicating priestly authorship.⁸⁰ Nonetheless, it has been argued that the references to the Temple refer exclusively to the Jerusalem Temple, thus excluding the possibility of a reference to Onias’ Temple.⁸¹ When arguing for an Oniad authorship of the work, this detail certain-

 Lev 8:7– 8; Num 27:21; Deut 33:8; 1Sam 14:41. Note that 1Sam 28:3 – 6 enumerates three ways of communicating with God, while one of them is by means of the oracle of the Urim. See also Josh 9:14; Judg 1:1– 2, 20:18, 26 – 28; 1Sam 10:22; 14:3, 18, 36 – 37; 22:10, 13; 23 :2, 4, 6, 9 – 12; 28:6; 30:7– 8; 2Sam 2:1; 5:19, 23 – 24; Josephus Ant. 3.163, 216 – 218. For a discussion of Josephus’ interpretation, see S. Rappaport, Agada und Exegese bei Flavius Josephus (Wien: Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, 1930) 35, 123 – 124 and H. W. Attridge, The Interpretation of Biblical History, 99, and there n. 3.  F. García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without a Temple,” 305 – 308. See also, for example, 4Q164 (4QpIsad) and the Temple Scroll (11QTa /11Q19) col. 48:18 – 21.  See above, n. 37.  The following passages mention sacrifices for the Temple: 3.564– 565, 575 – 579, 626 – 627.  This was stressed in particular by J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 222. But see Collins’ remarks in J. J. Collins, “The Provenance of the Third Sibylline Oracle,” 15 – 16; J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 356; and above, our n. 75.

232

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

ly strikes us as unusual, for we would expect an Oniad author to aggrandize his own temple, rather than that of Jerusalem. Indeed, this observation demands explanation. We may recall the fact that the Maccabean revolt is nowhere referred to in the work. Given the initially soured Oniad-Hasmonean relations, this finding would strengthen the assumption of an Oniad authorship.⁸² But here we can add too, that the reason why the work does not refer to the Maccabean revolt lies in the limited time-window for the composition of this section, namely in the time between the defilement of the Jerusalem Temple, the subsequent flight of Onias and his followers to Egypt, and prior to the erection of Onias’ Temple (ca. 170 – 168 BCE). We should not forget that the lament for the defilement of the Temple and the transgression of the Jewish law (back home) in Judaea as thematized in the older text-stratum of the work is what evoked the building of the Oniad Temple in the first place.⁸³ Thus, the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles’ older text-stratum allows us, in my opinion, a glimpse of the psyche and sentimental world of the Oniad refugees who had just arrived in Egypt where they were faced with the difficulty of coping with the loss of their Temple in their homeland. It is this background that evoked the creation of prophetic predictions about the re-building of the Temple and notions of future sacrifices.⁸⁴ Perhaps the most revealing passage speaking in favor of a priestly (Oniad) authorship of the older stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles is 3.591– 595, which decidedly illustrates a priestly custom. It reads: ⁸⁵

 Regarding this point, see J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 51– 52; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 96 – 97.  See e. g., 3.273 – 279, 294, 302– 304, 573 – 591, 663 – 668 and note the datum at 3.266 – 267 where it is said that “…you will surely flee, leaving the very beautiful temple, since it is your fate to leave the holy plain.” Does this echo the ousting of the Oniads from Jerusalem?  See in particular 3.573 – 600; 3.265 – 294 and J. Nolland, “Sib. Or. III 265 – 94: An Early Maccabean Messianic Oracle,” JTS 30 (1979): 158 – 166.  Another tentative, yet noteworthy indicator of the possible Oniad authorship of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, are three references to Hades in the work (3.393, 458, 480). My discussion of the possible Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees (Chapter 9) shall reveal that Oniad Jews profoundly believed in the concept of Hades – a finding which is confirmed too by the funerary epitaphs from the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh. The belief in Hades seems to have been another distinctive characteristic of Oniad Judaism. The references to Hades in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, therefore, strongly suggest an Oniad authorship of the work. I have postulated that the older text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles stems from the quill of an Oniad priest, yet only one of the three references to Hades (at 3.393), in fact, appears in those older sections of the text. Yet, in the opinion of some scholars, even this one reference is independent of the so-called “main-corpus.” Cf. J. J. Collins, “The Sibylline Oracles, Book 3,” 359. The other two references (at 3.458, 480) as well, appear in later

7 Who Wrote the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles?

233

…at dawn they lift up holy arms toward heaven, from their beds, always sanctifying their flesh with water… (3.591– 593)

This passage clearly alludes to the raising of the priest’s hands before pronouncing the priestly blessing, while at the same time, it refers to a purification ritual by means of water.⁸⁶ Details of this sort are a rarity in Jewish texts from the Egyptian Diaspora, which are strikingly uninterested in practices like these.⁸⁷ Therefore, and once more, I underline that the description of such decidedly priestly practices usually interests priests and thus we have every reason to assume that

added sections of the text and some even believe that they are of non-Jewish origin (perhaps belonging to the collection of the Erythrean Sibyl). So e. g., J. Geffcken, Komposition und Entstehungszeit, 13. Thus, one may be inclined to conclude that the references to Hades are solely “external” and of non-Jewish origin. But since the first reference at 3.393 is in all likelihood of Jewish origin and written in the Hellenistic period, it is tempting to assume the same for the other two references. And even if 3.458 and 3.480 are indeed “external,” as some scholars have maintained, we are still perplexed about the fact that the final (Jewish) editor/author the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles made no effort to delete these references. This shows that the final editor/author seems to have shared the belief in Hades and we once more emphasize that this indicates an Oniad authorship. Compare 3.480 with 3 Macc. 4:8.  In his commentary to 2 Maccabees, Schwartz underlines that stretching out one’s hands to heaven is a “classical stance for prayer” (D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 198 – 199) and thus denoting a common gesture without connection to priestly blessing. However, we note that all the passages cited by Schwartz in support of his argument involve prayers conducted by (high) priests. See, e. g., one such passages cited by him, 2 Macc. 15:12, which states that: “Onias, who had been high priest (emphasis mine, M.P.) … was praying with outstretched hands for the whole body of the Jews.” Similarly T Peah 4:6: …‫ בארץ ישראל נשיאת כפים וחלוק גרנות‬,‫[“( שתי חזקות לכהונה‬There are] two indicators for [belonging to] the priesthood: In the Land of Israel – raising one’s hands [during prayer] and receiving [heave-offerings] at the threshing-floor.” S. Lieberman, The Tosefta, Vol. 1: The Order of Zeraim [New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1955] 56 – 57). We may refer to the Essene practice described by Josephus at BJ 2.128 in this context too. Indeed, some commentators related 3.591– 593 to a sectarian practice akin to the one of the Essenes, or the Pythagoreans, see e. g., V. Nikiprowetzky, La troisième Sibylle, 238 – 259. Collins sees here a “glimpse of some of the more specific practices of this branch of Judaism.” J. J. Collins, “Sibylline Oracles,” 357. Wacholder has pointed to parallels to the passage and to the general messianic atmosphere of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles with the customs of purification at Qumran and their messianic beliefs (see e. g. 1QM, col. 18:1). With Collins, we take note that the emphasis on purity in the Qumran community is contingent upon the presence of priests. Collins, however, quite surprisingly, goes not as far as to link the matter of purity to the possible Oniad provenance of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, as do I. See also B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 292.  See D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 29, 39 and D. R. Schwartz, “The Egyptian Jews between the Temples of Onias and Jerusalem,” 11– 22 [Hebrew]; see also J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 52.

234

Chapter 8 The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles – An Oniad Book of Prophecy?

the author of this particular passage, too, was a priest. It is not by coincidence that we encounter in the same section (3.573 – 600), more references to things cultic, such as sacrifices (3.575 – 759), and the Temple (3.575). This emphasis of topics linked with the Temple and the priesthood in an Egyptian setting brings us back to our assumption that the author of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles was a priest and most probably a member of the Oniad community.

8 Conclusion I have attempted to show that Collins’ hypothesis of an Oniad authorship of the older text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles is indeed a valuable insight. Collins, however, rested his case solely on the identification of the “seventh king” with the Ptolemaic king Philometor and his enthusiastic reception. Along with many other contemporary scholars, I have acknowledged the various problems that this assumption entails. Instead I approached the same question using a different method, namely by examining the text in light of a possible priestly background. Indeed, the text reveals an eager interest in the Temple, priestly functions, and sacrifices, which I have explained on the grounds of their origin within a priestly context. Since the work is of Egyptian-Jewish provenance, and the only significant Jewish center that would provide such a background was Onias’ Temple, I have argued that the author of the older text-stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles must have come from the milieu of the Oniad Temple. As to the question of who was responsible for the later additions to the older text-stratum, and the final edition of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles which must have occurred in the Roman period, we are more or less left in the dark. It seems most reasonable to assume, however, that this later layer of the text may also have been of the same provenance as its earlier one. I have proposed to date the older sections of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles roughly between the years 170 and 168 BCE, after Antiochus’ Epiphanes first invasion of Egypt and the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple, and prior to the erection of Onias’ Temple, i. e., it was most probably composed immediately after Onias’ arrival in Egypt. The Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles is pregnant with lament for the defilement of the Temple and hopes for its rededication. As such, the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles expresses the hopes of the recently exiled Oniad Jews to return to their homeland and to their Temple. The choice of the oracular genre for the work provides an outlet for these emotions. It should be seen as an attempt to console their loss. We may imagine that an Oniad author was responsible too, for adding and editing the later textual strata of the Third

8 Conclusion

235

Book of the Sibylline Oracles in the Roman period. The Sibyl’s wrath against Rome may easily be explained by the general decline of the Oniad community in the Roman period and ultimately the closure or destruction of the Oniad Temple at the hands of the Romans.⁸⁸ This observation thus links the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles with the Fifth, which seems to allude to the destruction of the Oniad Temple and may thus have been written by members of the Oniad community as well.

 See on that especially G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 35 – 40.

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition? 1 Introduction 3 Maccabees is generally considered one of the more enigmatic works in the corpus of ancient Jewish-Hellenistic literature. The precise date of the work’s composition remains disputed, but modern scholars commonly maintain a 2nd century BCE – 1st century CE dating.¹ Further evidence shows that the text, which is written in a highly polished Greek, was composed in the late Ptolemaic period (ca. 150 – 130 BCE) in Egypt.²

 L. M. Wills, The Ancient Jewish Novel: An Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 174. For a dating after 100 BCE, see C. W. Emmet, “The Third Book of Maccabees,” in: R. H. Charles (ed.), Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 156 – 159; E. J. Bickerman, “Makkabäerbücher (III),” PWRE 19 (1928): 797– 800; H. Anderson, “3 Maccabees,” in Old Testament Pseudepigraphica, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth (2 vols., New York: Doubleday, 1985) 2:510 – 512. An early Roman date for the composition was suggested by V. Tcherikover, “The Third Book of Maccabees as a Historical Source of Augustus’ Time,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961): 11– 18, because of the λαογραφία mentioned in 3 Macc. 2:28. Tcherikover argues that in the wake of the Roman re-organization of Egypt initiated by Augustus in 31 BCE a census was conducted, and that the passage in 3 Macc. 2:28 hence is an allusion to that incident. See also M. Hadas, The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (New York: Harper, 1953) 18 – 21; A. Paul, “Le troisième livres de Macchabées,” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 331– 333. Such censuses, however, were already introduced into the Ptolemaic administrative apparatus during the late Ptolemaic period as asserted by papyrological evidence (see e. g. P. Tebt. 103, 121, 189; P. Ryl. 667), and see E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 226; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 129 – 141 (especially, 135). A later date, in the age of Caligula, has been suggested by H. G. A. Ewald, Geschichte des Volkes Israel 3 (7 vols.; Göttingen: Dieterich, 1864) 4:611– 614 and has enjoyed great acceptance, see e. g. H. Willrich, “Der historische Kern des III. Makkabäerbuches,” Hermes 39 (1904): 244– 258; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 105 – 111; F. Parente, “The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological Document and Historical Source,” Enoch 10 (1988): 150 – 168, who argues that the work went through two stages of publication, one in the 1st century BCE, and a second in the early Roman period (and esp. 168 – 81).  See our previous note (n. 1), E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 226. Gruen finds confirmation for a late Ptolemaic date from philological and literary aspects, such as: (1) The reference to the Greek additions of Daniel in 3 Macc. 6:6, which provides a terminus post quem of 100 BCE, and (2) The formulae employed by the king’s letters that reflect the late Ptolemaic usage as attested in the aforementioned papyri. In addition, he finds many linguistic parallels in works such as the Letter of Aristeas, 2 Maccabees and the Greek Esther that point to an early 1st century BCE date. See also S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 141, 170. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-015

2 The ’Episode in the Hippodrome’ in 3 Macc. and C. Ap.

237

As is the case with many other Jewish-Hellenistic compositions originating in the Egyptian Diaspora, 3 Maccabees is often assigned an Alexandrian authorship.³ Such a claim of course reflects an underlying presumption that Alexandria was home to all literarily active Jewish intellectuals of that time.⁴ This chapter challenges the claim of Alexandrian authorship of 3 Maccabees and argues that the work originated in an altogether different milieu. Specifically, the evidence presented here suggests that the author of 3 Maccabees was a member of the Jewish mercenary community of Onias.⁵ Although 3 Maccabees evades explicit mention of Onias (and his community) or of Heliopolis, one encounters a substantial number of allusions either to events in which Onias (and his community) played a significant role, or to themes (such as an emphasis on the priesthood, and mercenarism) which seem to be of concern for members of the Oniad community and which are recurrent in other Jewish-Hellenistic compositions I suspect to be of Oniad origin. Bearing these claims in mind, the following analysis of specific passages in 3 Maccabees will place the composition within the framework of Oniad writings. Let us begin with an examination of the connection between the hippodrome episode narrated in 3 Maccabees and the parallel scene in Josephus’ Contra Apionem.

2 The ’Episode in the Hippodrome’ in 3 Macc. and C. Ap. The Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees is most tellingly expounded by a comparison between the text’s ‘Episode in the Hippodrome’ and a passage in Josephus’ final work, the Contra Apionem (2:49 – 55). As in 3 Maccabees, in Contra Apionem Josephus describes the detainment and threat of extermination, by means of trampling by drunken elephants, of Jews in the hippodrome, near the city of Alexandria.⁶ As will be further elaborated, a primary difference between the two accounts is the period in which each of them is said to have taken place;  See e. g. C. W. Emmet, “The Third Book of Maccabees,” 158; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 131; L. M. Wills, The Ancient Jewish Novel, 174; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 169; U. Rappaport, “3 Maccabees and the Jews of Egypt,” JQR 99 (2009): 551.  Similarly, see J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 131.  As early as 1895, Willrich claimed an affiliation of 3 Maccabees to an Oniad milieu. H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 145. More recently L. Capponi, “Martyrs and Apostates: 3 Maccabees and the Temple of Leontopolis,” Henoch 29 (2007): 288 – 306, esp. 302– 303, concentrating on the theme of apostasy treated in 3 Maccabees, has attempted to show that “both Leontopolis [sic] and 3 Maccabees belong to a common ideological background,” but maintained that the author of 3 Maccabees was probably a priest from Alexandria.  C. Ap. 2:53; 3 Macc. 5.

238

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

the episode in 3 Maccabees allegedly occurred under the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator (ca. 221– 205 BCE), while Josephus places the incident under the reign of Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, several decades later (“Physcon”; ca. 146 – 116 BCE). Much of what has been written about the connection between Josephus and 3 Maccabees attempts to provide evidence for the historicity of one or the other of the two accounts.⁷ The historiographical nature of Josephus’ text requires further examination, as Contra Apionem does not claim to be a work of historiography, but rather belongs to the genre of apologetics.⁸ This classification, however, does not imply that all chronological references made in the treatise are inevitably flawed. Josephus’ decision to report the events as having taken place under the reign of Physcon must be rooted in one or more sources that date the events to this time period, and not to the period of Philopator’s reign.⁹ Josephus’ employment of this source material should be examined within the context of his apologetics, including the refutation of Apion’s charges against the Jews for being unfaithful to their Ptolemaic overlords, in particular to Ptolemy VIII Phys-

 H. Willrich, “Der historische Kern des III. Makkabäerbuchs,” 244– 258, who clearly prefers Josephus’ report; A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden und Oniaden, 205 concedes that 3 Maccabees and Josephus share the same source. However, according to Büchler, that source did not name the “Ptolemy” in the story and left the identification of the named king to the respective authors. Therefore, Josephus depicts the episode of the drunken elephants under the reign of Physcon, while 3 Maccabees dates the same event under the reign of Philopator. See also C. W. Emmet, “The Third Book of Maccabees,” 159 – 160; V. Tcherikover, “The Third Book of Maccabees as a Historical Source,” 7– 9; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 194; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 105, M. Delcor, “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Hellenistic Period,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. by W. D. Davis and L. H. Finkelstein (4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 2:496 – 497. These authors prefer Josephus’ account over that of 3 Maccabees: F. Parente, “The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological Document,” 150 – 157; A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 213 – 214; and J. MélèzeMordrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 146 – 153 ascribe greater historicity to the account rendered in 3 Maccabees. For the view that neither of the two accounts should be perceived as historically reliable due to their dependence on popular circulating legends, which Josephus and the author of 3 Maccabees respectively treated and reworked for their purposes, see E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 228 and S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 184– 187.  A. Kasher, “Polemic and Apologetic Methods of Writing in Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 144– 150.  That Josephus relies on more than one source for this episode becomes evident from his remark in C. Ap. 2:55 regarding the different names of Physcon’s concubine: “some call her Ithaca, others Irene.” Obviously, however, both sources must have referred to the same Ptolemaic king, namely Physcon, rather than Philopator.

2 The ’Episode in the Hippodrome’ in 3 Macc. and C. Ap.

239

con.¹⁰ It is clear that one of Josephus’ sources for this textual detail was a report by Apion describing Onias’ involvement in the confrontation with Physcon, which must have contained chronological references. Josephus’ main objective with respect to this passage, however, was to refute Apion’s allegation of Jewish disloyalty. Although Josephus does not show great interest in chronological particulars in this instance, there is little reason to believe that he altogether ignored or altered the chronological references in Apion’s original account. As we may also note with Willrich,¹¹ whereas 3 Maccabees illustrates a conflict of religion, Josephus’ text relates a conflict of politics. This difference implies that 3 Maccabees shows greater flexibility of historical manipulation than Josephus’ account. As my present concern is with chronology and historicity in the two texts, I a priori prefer Josephus’ account in Contra Apionem over the report in 3 Maccabees. Apart from the differences in historical methodology and chronological emphasis in these two accounts, what distinguishes Josephus’ text from that of 3 Maccabees is the former’s claim that there existed a connection between the deliverance of the Jews and the Oniad troops. If we grant credibility to Josephus’ report and his remark of a (near?) stand-off between Onias and his troops and Physcon in Alexandria and the deliverance of the Jews detained there,¹² rather than to the corresponding story in 3 Maccabees, then it follows that the Jews were saved from death not by divine miracles,¹³ but rather by the aid of Jewish Oniad mercenaries. 3 Maccabees is generally understood as an endorsement of a festival commemorating the deliverance of the Jewish people in Egypt. There are other Jewish texts that, although set in different historical contexts, promote similar celebrations, such as in the biblical Book of Esther and, quite similarly, in 2 Maccabees.¹⁴ If we bear in mind the historical nature of the events rendered by Josephus – minus the author’s depiction of the drunken elephants and the divine miracles – and acknowledge that these events indeed occurred under Physcon’s

 See also P. Spilsbury “Contra Apionem and Antiquitates Judaicae: Points of Contact,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 352.  H. Willrich, “Der Historsiche Kern,” 244– 245.  C. Ap. 2.53.  Note that Josephus too ascribes the deliverance of the Jews in the Alexandrian hippodrome to God (C. Ap. 2.55), but this notion is based on the Jewish source he used for his story on the entrapped Jews in the arena. Historically speaking, we may assume that God had some mundane assistance in form of Oniad military units.  See e. g., J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 202; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 122.

240

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

reign, then we may reasonably assume that Onias and his troops played a significant role in saving the Jews of Alexandria.¹⁵ Upon a closer examination of 3 Maccabees as a text that situates the Jews of Alexandria in an Oniad context and encourages a commemoratory celebration, the following questions arise: Is the festival intended to commemorate Onias’ triumph and the Oniads’ involvement in the deliverance of Alexandrian Jewry? And does 3 Maccabees, therefore, seek to (subtly) aggrandize Onias, his people, and his temple? If the case holds that 3 Maccabees does indeed promote the tradition of a commemoratory festival, an additional question arises: What could have been the incentive for promoting a celebration of the deliverance of the Alexandrian Jews by the Oniads? The very supposition that there existed particular motivations for such a celebration immediately suggests the existence of a tension between the two communities. It has often been noted that the Oniad Temple is not explicitly mentioned in Jewish literature from Alexandria.¹⁶ Our most prominent example is Philo, and as I have demonstrated in the introduction to this part of the book (Part II), he evidently bore little sympathy towards any temple outside the Land of Israel and thus refrained from mentioning Onias’ Temple in his works, although he was undoubtedly aware of its existence.¹⁷ Several records, too, seek to marginalize this prominent religious institution. Among them is Josephus, who, in contrast to Philo, does report on the Temple of Onias, although he may not be counted amongst its most ardent admirers, as we have discovered.¹⁸ Thus, not all Jews favored the Oniad Temple and this division of Jewish opinion of the Oniad Temple is likewise evidenced by relevant discussions found in rabbinic literature, which, albeit exhibiting a somewhat ambivalent attitude, also recount negative attitudes towards the Oniad Temple, which were conceivably based on real perceptions held in the time of the Rabbis.¹⁹

 See also P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1:83.  See e. g. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 278; M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 203; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 120.  See the Introduction to Part II.  See Chapter 1.  See e. g. H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” 133 [Hebrew]; F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis,” 96 and our Chapter 4. Another case exemplifying the view that not all Jews were fond of Onias’ Temple is the different readings of Isaiah’s prophecy (19:18 – 19) with respect to the establishment of Onias’ Temple in Egypt. See C. Balogh, The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18 – 20 concerning Egypt and Kush (OTS 60; Leiden: Brill, 2011) 222– 229 and below, Chapter 12.

3 3 Maccabees: A Response to 2 Maccabees?

241

Thus it may be presumed that not only did the Jews in Judaea and in the Diaspora not universally recognize the legitimacy of the Oniad Temple, but that the Jews of Alexandria in particular were not too fond of Onias’ project either. For that reason, the deliverance of the Alexandrian Jews certainly constituted a most welcome opportunity for Onias to boast of the part he himself had in it, and we may surmise that 3 Maccabees was consequently also directed at an Alexandrian Jewish readership.²⁰ Indeed, another passage of 3 Maccabees, which will be examined below, in my view, displays an attempt to legitimize the existence of Onias’ Temple.

3 3 Maccabees: A Response to 2 Maccabees? The assumption that Onias played a crucial role in freeing the Jews imprisoned in the hippodrome of Alexandria during the civil war of 145 BCE necessitates a closer examination of the two prefixed letters preserved in 2 Maccabees. The letters (1:1– 9; 1:10 – 2:19) promote the “Festival of Booths in the month of Chislev” amongst the Jews of Egypt.²¹ Two dates are cited in the letters, one in the first correspondence from “the reign of Demetrius, in the one hundred sixty-ninth year” (2 Macc. 1:7), and the second in 2 Macc. 1:9, referring to the 188th year of the Seleucid era (SE). The two dates denote the year 143/142 BCE and 124/123 BCE, respectively, and suggest that the epitomizer had already dispatched an earlier appeal to the Jews of Egypt in the year 143/142 BCE, sending a subsequent reminder in the year 124/123 BCE. One should note that, as E. Bickerman has suggested, the letters dispatched in 124/123 BCE should be regarded as historical documentation.²² However, there are good reasons to challenge the date provided in 2 Macc. 1:9 (188 Seleucid era = 124/123 BCE). As Schwartz points out, there are two manuscripts of 2 Maccabees bearing the date “148 SE,” which translates into the year

 Johnson too, though for reasons other than ours, claims that 3 Maccabees was directed at an Alexandrian readership. S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 51.  2 Macc. 1:9.  E. J. Bickerman, “A Jewish Festal Letter of 124 B.C.E. (2 Macc. 1:1– 9),” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, ed. by E. J. Bickerman (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980) 2:416 – 417 (= E. J. Bickerman, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v.Chr. (II Macc. 1.1– 9),” ZNTW 32 [1933] 233 – 254). For the notion that the letters are based on a short, yet forged letter written sometime after the rededication of the Temple or the death of Nicanor, which was re-edited and expanded by a compiler in the Roman period, see A. Büchler, “Das Sendschreiben der Jerusalemer an die Juden in Ägypten in II Makkabäerbuch 1,11– 2,18,” MGWJ 31 (1897): 481– 500; 539 – 554.

242

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

164/163 BCE and coincides with the year of the cleansing and rededication of the Jerusalem Temple. Observing Judas Maccabaeus’ mention in the correspondence, Schwartz has accurately adopted this variant reading (164/163 BCE).²³ This new dating implies that in 143/142 BCE, the Jews of Egypt were sent a version of 2 Maccabees that described Judas’ deeds including a letter to commemorate and to celebrate the rededication of the defiled Jerusalem Temple (Hanukkah).²⁴ Two further observations are in order here, one chronological and the other political in nature. First, it is essential to note that both dates specified in the manuscripts – 164/163 BCE and 124/123 BCE – call for a 143/142 BCE dating of the first letter, which also, perhaps not coincidentally according to Schwartz, marks the time when the epitomizer revised this correspondence. The year 143/142 BCE is of utmost importance in Judaean history, as it marks the year in which the Jews under Hasmonean leadership achieved independence from Seleucid rule. It would make much sense then that the Hasmonean rulers – as they did under similar circumstances in the year 164/163 BCE – appealed to the Jews of Egypt to partake in the festival celebrating their independence.²⁵ It is also important here to take into account the civil war in Alexandria, which resulted from the dynastic struggle between Cleopatra II and her rival, Ptolemy Physcon.²⁶ Considering that 2 Maccabees explicitly refers to the Jews’ dire situation in Egypt, it seems hardly coincidental that the letters were sent to Egypt by the new rulers of independent Judaea, as the following passage demonstrates:²⁷ May He open your heart to His law and His commandments, and may He bring peace. May He hear your prayers and be reconciled to you, and may He not forsake you in time of evil. We are now praying for you here (2 Maccabees 1:4– 6).²⁸

 D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 11– 13 (“Introduction”) and 519 – 529 (Appendix 1: “On the Letters in Chapters 1– 2”).  Schwartz is also convinced that the letters were not added by the epitomizer, as is usually assumed, but by members of the Hasmonean court who dispersed the work in the Jewish Diaspora. See D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 31– 33 [Hebrew]. According to Schwartz, this final editor was also responsible for adding 2 Macc. 10:1– 8, the piece that describes the cleansing of the Temple by Judas Maccabeaus.  D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 31– 33 [Hebrew].  On the History of the Ptolemaic civil war see G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 172– 183 (esp. 176).  The reason why the letter was dispatched from Jerusalem to Egypt in the year 143/142 BCE and not earlier (in 145 BCE), when the Egyptian Jews seem to have been under a more immediate threat, is likely due to Judaea’s gaining of its independence only in that year.  The translation derives from the NRSV.

3 3 Maccabees: A Response to 2 Maccabees?

243

The letters convey an attempt to convince Egyptian Jews to celebrate the “Festival of Booths” of the Jerusalem Temple (in this context, Hanukkah). From a political point of view this shows an underlying effort of the Hasmoneans to convince the Jews of Egypt to accept them as Judaea’s new rulers. Moreover, the Hasmoneans seem to present themselves as responsible for their Jewish compatriots in Egypt, conveying the notion that, when needed, they are capable of intervention on behalf of Egypt’s Jews.²⁹ Whether or not Egyptian Jews perceived themselves to be in need of defense remains a moot point, but it may be assumed (and will be further addressed below) that the Hasmoneans were not necessarily given recognition by all of Egypt’s Jews.³⁰ If 3 Maccabees was indeed authored by a member of the Oniad community, and if its historical hallmark is a celebration of the deliverance of the Egyptian Jews by Onias and his men, then the book, it seems, would indicate a negative response to the Hasmonean claim to be defenders of Egyptian Jewry. In other words, if 2 Maccabees seeks to appease Egypt’s Jews, and offers them aid at the price of accepting Hasmonean rule over Jerusalem, then 3 Maccabees represents Egyptian Jewry’s decline of that offer. According to this assumption, 3 Maccabees should be understood as a response to 2 Maccabees. This notion surfaces throughout the work, and the case is further emphasized when we consider that 2 Maccabees and 3 Maccabees share many similarities, including the fact that at least one chapter of 2 Maccabees (specifically chapter 3, including the so-called “Heliodorus affair”), served as a source of inspiration for the author of 3 Maccabees.³¹ It stands to reason, then, that 3 Maccabees expands on issues first introduced in 2 Maccabees.

 See e. g., M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus 3, 112. And similar efforts recorded in 1 Maccabees 5:9 – 23, for instance.  See also N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees: Literature, History, and Ideology (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2002) 86 – 87 [Hebrew], who stresses the patronizing and derogatory attitudes prevalent among to Judaean Jews (first and foremost among the Hasmonean ruling class) towards their co-religionists residing in the Diaspora. D. S. Williams, “3 Maccabees: A Defense of Diaspora Judaism?” JSP 13 (1995): 23 argues that the letter implied that “God is displeased with Egyptian Jews, perhaps because of the Oniad Temple at Leontopolis [sic], and calls them to repent.” Although I consent that there indeed exists an Oniad-Hasmonean antagonism in the correspondence of 2 Macc., I find it difficult to find in the passage referred to by Williams (i. e., 2 Macc. 1:3 – 5).  To cite but a few commentators, see: C. W. Emmet, “The Third Book of Maccabees,” 160; J. Tromp, “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees,” Henoch 17 (1995): 311– 314, and more recently, N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees, 65 – 77 [Hebrew]. Hacham provides a detailed discussion relating the differences and similarities of both works.

244

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

4 Prayers, Priests and Temples Having been written in the Diaspora, we would expect to encounter in 3 Maccabees, by and large, notions representative of Diaspora Judaism.³² The attentive reader will observe, however, that priests appear to be of chief importance in the narrative of 3 Maccabees. Some may argue that emphasizing one’s priestly pedigree will generally increase one’s social standing in society. This is true, but only to a certain degree and much dependent on what advantage that privilege is really connected with. In other words, in Judaism the only significant implication of holy pedigree is the privilege it gave the priests to enter the holy place. Now, in view of the absence of a holy place in the Diaspora, and the substitution of sacrifices and sacrificial cult through prayer, references to priestly pedigree and the presence of priests in the narrative are notable observations. Hence, we are surprised to discern that in 3 Maccabees, priests play a crucial role in two places in the narrative, once in 2:1– 20, wherein Simon, the high priest of Jerusalem, offers a prayer evoking God’s involvement in preventing Philopator from entering the Holy of Holies and thus defiling the Jerusalem Temple; and on the second occasion, in 6:1– 15, a priest named Eleazar offers a prayer invoking the power of God too. In this second instance, however, Eleazar offers prayer in an effort to save Egyptian Jewry from near extinction in the Alexandrian hippodrome. Eleazar is said to have originated from the Egyptian chora (i. e. the countryside [6:1]), an interesting detail to which I shall return later. The two prayers arguably function as corresponding parallels within the larger narrative of 3 Maccabees. Before discussing why 3 Maccabees emphasizes the origins of Simon and Eleazar, we note that these prayers, too, illustrate a competition between Jerusalem and Egypt.

 These notions include that God – in contrast e. g., to 2 Maccabees – is not geographically confined to one place only (namely the Temple in Jerusalem), but dwells everywhere (i.e. also in Egypt and esp. in the Alexandrian hippodrome; see 3 Macc. 6:16 – 18). See D. S. Williams, “3 Maccabees: A Defense of Diaspora Judaism,” 27; N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees, 95 [Hebrew]; D. R. Schwartz, “Temple or City: What Did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem?” in The Centrality of Jerusalem, ed. by M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 114– 127; M. Tuval, “Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in Judaic Literature of the Diaspora,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple, ed. by D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 151– 239. Note also the emphasis on the adherence to Jewish law or God’s law (3 Macc. 1:23; 3:4; 7:10, 12), which may be fulfilled everywhere, vis-à-vis the notion of keeping one’s “ancestral customs,” and implying a sacrificial cult. D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 34. Another notion, one that has gained much attention, is displayed in 3 Macc. 6:3 and concerns the Jews’ self-perception as “foreigners in a foreign land.”

4 Prayers, Priests and Temples

245

Some scholars have interpreted Philopator’s attempt to enter and defile the Jerusalem Temple in 3 Maccabees as evidence of the Diaspora Jews’ unfailing loyalty to their mother-city Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Temple.³³ I suggest, instead, that the episode was deliberately introduced by the author of 3 Maccabees as a counter-piece to the events taking place in Egypt in the second part of the narrative.³⁴ The prayers of Simon and Eleazar reflect a kind of competition. Accordingly, 3 Maccabees’ account of Philopator’s attempt to enter the Holy of Holies tells us that the people, including the priests officiating in the Temple before Simon offered his prayer, also called on God to intervene on their behalf (1:16); we are somewhat surprised to find that nothing of the sort is said to have happened.³⁵ It is only because of Simon’s prayer that God finally intervenes, and even then we find God’s involvement rather cautious.³⁶ In his prayer, Simon appeals to God to manifest Himself and to reveal His mercy (2:19). However, although He indeed saves His Temple, there is no hint that the request for His manifestation has been fulfilled. Similarly, we note that the king, content in Jerusalem, does not re-

 See e. g., J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 198. For the more nuanced view that Jews of the Diaspora expressed several different perceptions of the importance of the Temple and Jerusalem, see N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple in Hellenistic Judaism,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple, ed. by D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 178 – 179; D. R. Schwartz, “Temple or City,” 114– 127; M. Tuval, “Doing without the Temple,” 151– 239. For the notion of the overall acceptance of Jerusalem as the center of Judaism, see esp. Philo Leg. ad Gaium 281 and A. Kasher, “Jerusalem as ’Metropolis’ in Philo’s National Consciousness,” Cathedra 11 (1979): 45 – 56 [Hebrew]; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 112. Collins maintains that: “How far Jewish identity involves a link with Jerusalem is less clear.” At the same time, however, he acknowledges that: “There is no doubt that the author holds the Jerusalem Temple in high esteem.” J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 130. Cf. H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 145, who claims that the author of 3 Maccabees was: “ebenso gewiss jerusalemitsch gesinnt.” E. S. Gruen, Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002) 240 – 241 contends that the reverence for the patris (i.e. the homeland) was shared by many Jews of the Diaspora as well as by many Greek colonists, but does not necessarily emphasize the strong hopes of return.  Likewise so N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees, 79 – 80, 90, 94– 95 [Hebrew], who emphasizes the issue of competition between Jerusalem and Egypt. N. Hacham follows D. S. Williams, “3 Maccabees: A Defense of Diaspora Judaism,” 28 – 29, who analyzes the whole composition along such lines, observing the text as a defense of Diaspora Judaism against the criticism of Judaean Jews.  In contrast, note that all the prayers of the entrapped Jews in the Alexandrian hippodrome are heard and answered: (5:7– 12; 25 – 35; 50 – 51; 6:1– 15). See also D. S. Williams, “3 Maccabees: A Defense of Diaspora Judaism,” 25 – 26.  See also N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple,” 161– 162.

246

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

pent, but continues to persecute the Jews after his return to Egypt. There, however, in the wake of his foiled attempt to extinguish the Alexandrian Jews in the hippodrome, the king realizes his evil deeds and repents (6:22– 29). Thus, the final salvation takes place in the Alexandrian hippodrome and not the Temple of Jerusalem.³⁷ In the episode in the hippodrome, by contrast, when Eleazar makes the same request (6:9), God indeed reveals His face and opens the gates of heaven, out of which two terrifying angels emerge, who foil the extinction of the Jews in the hippodrome (6:18).³⁸ Eleazar’s prayer is thus superior to Simon’s uttered in the Temple of Jerusalem. This comparison also reflects a general superiority of the Jews (and their priests) in Egypt over their brethren in Judaea, despite the Judeans’ closeness to the Jerusalem sanctuary.³⁹ On closer examination of the two accounts, we are faced with yet another piece of textual evidence suggesting the superiority of the Jewish priests of Egypt over their Jerusalemite counterparts. If we compare Onias’ role in the so-called “Heliodorus affair” in 2 Maccabees 3, which, as I have remarked above, served as source material for the author of 3 Maccabees,⁴⁰ we find that Onias was involved in the crisis in the Temple from the beginning of the narrative. In the parallel account in 3 Maccabees 2, by contrast, Simon only appears in the text on the brink of disaster. The author of 2 Maccabees explicitly declares that Onias’ virtues and leadership skills are essential to overcoming the crisis.⁴¹ If we compare the depiction of Onias in 2 Maccabees to that of Simon in 3 Maccabees, it seems obvious that the author of the latter work somewhat downplays Simon’s role, presenting him as lacking all those virtues ascribed to Onias in 2 Maccabees.⁴² This indifference to Simon’s role becomes all the more evident

 N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees, 78 – 80, 96 [Hebrew]; N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple,” 161– 162.  N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees, 91 [Hebrew] finds this outlook mirrored in the names of the high priests. Simon’s (in Hebrew: Shim’on) prayer is “to be heard” (sham’a) by God, whereas in consequence to Eleazar’s (El = God and azar = helped) prayer, God actually helps.  N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple,” 171.  See above n. 31.  Onias is described as a pious man, hating wickedness (2 Macc. 3:1). In 15:12 he is described as “Onias, who had been high priest, a noble and good man (ἄνδρα καλόν), of modest bearing and gentle manner, one who spoke fittingly and had been trained from childhood in all that belongs to excellence (ἐκμεμελετηκότα πάντα τὰ τῆς ἀρετῆς), was praying with outstretched hands for the whole body of the Jews.” Compare the praise Eleazar is credited with in 3 Macc. 6:1: “Eleazar, famous among (ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος) the priests of the country, who had attained a ripe old age and throughout his life had been adorned with every virtue (κατὰ τὸν βίον ἀρετῇ κεκοσμημένος)…”  N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple,” 165.

4 Prayers, Priests and Temples

247

when we compare Simon to Eleazar, the latter of whose virtues are depicted in 3 Macc. 6:1 in a similar fashion to those of Onias depicted in 2 Macc. 15:12.⁴³ Thus, Simon, despite being the high priest of Jerusalem – and consequently the central figure of all Jewry – is outdone in virtue by a simple provincial priest from Egypt.⁴⁴ Therefore we see that 3 Maccabees considers Eleazar as superior to Simon; this “small-scale-conflict” is reiterated and embedded in the larger one between Jerusalem and the Egyptian Diaspora.⁴⁵ These distinctions in mind, I will now explain the importance of the roles of priests in 3 Maccabees. Previously, I have drawn attention to the fact that Diaspora Judaism generally distinguishes itself by the lack of a specific holy place, which, despite its grounding in Jerusalem, becomes something rather remote. Thus the notion of priestly pedigree becomes obsolete, for its only significance is the priestly privilege of entering into the holy place. But why, then, does 3 Maccabees assign so much importance to priests, for one could easily substitute their involvement by that of any other Jewish figure? The emphasis on priests in 3 Maccabees only makes sense if we suppose that its author belongs to a milieu wherein notions of priestly pedigree and holiness are indeed important. Furthermore, while we are well aware of the fact that a holy place existed in Jerusalem, we also know that 3 Maccabees was not written there, but rather in the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora. And we do not need to look far to find that a Jewish temple, namely that of Onias, existed there as well. Hence I confidently suggest that the author of 3 Maccabees belonged to the Oniad community. As I have noted in an earlier chapter (Chapter 6), priestly pedigree also emerges as important in the funerary inscriptions from the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh located in the so-called “Land of Onias,” i. e., the geographical area (χώρα) surrounding the Oniad Temple.⁴⁶ JIGRE 84 is a funerary epitaph dated to 30 BCE, which mentions a priestess named Marin (or Marion).⁴⁷ The inscription continues to puzzle scholars, who are mostly concerned with the question of whether or not Marin actively officiated in the Oniad Temple.⁴⁸ While one can-

 See n. 41.  N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple,” 165.  See also N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees, 93 – 98 [Hebrew].  We recall that the exact location of the Oniad Temple remains unknown and disputed to this day. See on this issue Chapters 5 and 12. That Tell el-Yahoudieh was part of the so-called “Land of Onias” and thus an Oniad settlement, becomes evident from the inscription JIGRE 38 (Chapter 6).  For a detailed discussion of this inscription, see the subsequent note (n. 48) as well as W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 157– 158 and Chapter 6.  See e. g., B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 78 – 95 and P. Richardson and V. Heuchan, “Jewish Voluntary Associations,” 226 – 251.

248

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

not claim Marin’s place in the temple for sure, for my purposes I wish to point out that the case of Marin reveals that a member (or members) of the Oniad community emphasized her/their priestly pedigree, which, again, only makes sense in a context whose focus is on a holy place overseen by priests. Hence, the emphasis on priests in 3 Maccabees and the central role they play in its narrative is best explained by assuming that its author originated from such a milieu.⁴⁹ The assumption that the author of 3 Maccabees was an Oniad Jew is bolstered further when we examine the explicit reference to the background of the text’s priestly hero, Eleazar. In 6:1, we learn that Eleazar was “famous among the priests from the country… (Ελεαζαρος δέ τις ἀνὴρ ἐπίσημος τῶν ἀπò τῆς χώρας ἱερέων).”⁵⁰ It seems quite odd that the author of 3 Maccabees presents us with this detail to begin with, the more so when we consider that the entire episode takes place in the hippodrome of Schedia near Alexandria.⁵¹

 Note also 3 Macc. 7:13 that describes the celebrations of the Jews ensuing their deliverance: “The priests and the whole multitude uttered a ‘Hallelujah!’” Were priests not of any importance to the author and/or his audience, so their mention would be unnecessary. Notably, as early as 1899, Büchler speculated whether the priests mentioned in this passage may have come from Onias’ Temple, since the text implies that they too (as Eleazar), were from the chora. A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden und Oniaden, 211. This may also explain the emphasis on the priestly garments in 3 Macc. 1:16, which Tromp considers “hardly functional” and explains as a relict of the source text (i. e. 2 Macc. 3:15 – 16). J. Tromp, “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees,” 320. While this may certainly be true, we may argue however, that if this reference indeed has no function, why then did the author not delete it? I therefore argue that, although mention of the priestly garments may not be functional in its present context, it still reflects the Sitz im Leben of the author.  A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden und Oniaden, 212 (n. 37) argues that the Eleazar of our story (3 Macc. 6:1), who is referred to as a famous priest, should be identified with “Eleazar, the priest” who appears in the Letter of Aristeas (50; 184: “Therefore he dispensed with the services of the sacred heralds and the sacrificing priests and the others who were accustomed to offer the prayers, and called upon one of our number, Eleazar, the oldest of the Jewish priests, to offer prayer instead…”). While this remains possible, we also note that Eleazar was one of the most popular names during that period. See T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:7. Conversely, some scholars have noted similarities of 3 Macc. and the Letter of Aristeas, see e. g., M. Hadas, “Aristeas and III Maccabees,” HTR 42 (1949): 175 – 184 and J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 201– 202, who emphasizes the contrasts, as do A. Paul, “Le Troisième livre des Macchabées,” 331– 333; U. Rappaport, “3 Maccabees and the Jews of Egypt,” 554 and N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees, 97– 103 [Hebrew]. If these similarities indeed exist, the character of Eleazar in 3 Maccabees might well have been modelled after that of Eleazar in the Letter of Aristeas. Moreover, the name Eleazar appears in 2 Macc. 6:18, 24 and 4 Macc. 6:5; 7:12.  3 Macc. 4:11. Regarding the exact location of Schedia, see P. S. Alexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” in Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman, ed. by A. Rappaport-Albert and G. Greenberg (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001)

4 Prayers, Priests and Temples

249

We may imagine that any other priest could have fulfilled Eleazar’s role, and we are well aware that there did exist others.⁵² Nevertheless, the author stresses the countryside background of Eleazar, which seems odd, unless we assume an Oniad authorship in which case it is natural; after all, the Oniad Temple was located in the countryside (χώρα), the chora of Onias. Therefore, the note on Eleazar’s background in the text may only bring us to assume an Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees.⁵³ Supposing an Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees reiterates that the work illustrates the tensions between Onias’ Temple, represented by Eleazar, and the Jerusalem Temple, represented by Simon. As we have seen, 3 Maccabees is thus at pains to propagate the supremacy of the Oniad Temple. In addition, if we align this observation with the historical considerations presented at the beginning of this inquiry, that is, if we assume that 3 Maccabees was written immediately after the Ptolemaic civil war under the rule of Ptolemy Physcon (i. e., after 145 BCE), then we find in 3 Maccabees a depiction of the contentions between the Oniads, who were deprived of their high priestly office in Jerusalem by Jerusalem’s new rulers and high priests, the Hasmoneans. In other words, 3 Maccabees may be read as an anti-Hasmonean document or, at least, as an Oniad reaction to Hasmonean political propaganda depicted in 2 Maccabees.⁵⁴

325. We may add that, beginning in 3 Macc. 3:1, the author seems to make substantial efforts to introduce Jews from the chora as replacements for the Jews from Alexandria. See, for instance, 3 Macc. 3:1, 12; 4:1– 10 and A. Paul, “Le Troisième livre des Macchabées,” 319 – 320; J. Tromp, “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees,” 324– 325; P. S. Alexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 325, 331. Alexander (p. 331) claims that the historical persecution may have been only a local affair, which gives reason for the introduction of and emphasis on the Jews from the chora. I, however, find the best explanation in the chora-background of our Oniad author.  The most prominent perhaps would be Philo, who is believed to have been of priestly stock. See D. R. Schwartz, “Philo’s Priestly Descent,” in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, ed. by F. E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert, and B. L. Mack (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984) 155 – 171. The aforementioned Letter of Aristeas also names Alexandrian Jewish priests (184, 310). See the previous two notes above.  P. S. Alexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 339 argued for the same, while Capponi contends that the figure of Eleazar was modelled after Onias III. L. Capponi, “Martyrs and Apostates,” 303  P. S. Alexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 338 – 339 also considers 3 Maccabees an anti-Hasmonean document. For the more general notion that 3 Maccabees enforces the view that Egyptian Jews neither had any particular personal ties to Jerusalem and its Temple, nor harbored any sentiments for Judaea as their homeland, see N. Hacham, 3 Maccabees, 95, 98 – 103 [Hebrew]. For the notion that 2 Maccabees should be considered a pro-Temple/pro-Hasmonean work of propaganda, see R. Doran, Temple Propaganda, passim.

250

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

Let me add another observation concerning the Jerusalemite high priest Simon mentioned in 3 Maccabees. We know that a high priest named Simon existed in Jerusalem in the time of Philopator – the historical setting of 3 Maccabees. He was famously called “Simon the Just,” is praised exceedingly by Ben Sira and is championed as a hero in rabbinic literature too.⁵⁵ In light of Josephus’ reference in BJ 7.423, Simon is revealed to be none other than the father of Onias III, whom I hold to be the founder of the Oniad Temple.⁵⁶ Thus, 3 Maccabees is set in a time period when the “legitimate” line of Zadokite high priests in Jerusalem was still in its designated position.⁵⁷ However, as I have shown above, in 3 Maccabees Simon is hardly admired. If we assume, however, a “real” historical setting of the narrative after the year 145 BCE, we also find a high priest by the name of Simon in Jerusalem (Simon the Hasmonean) the founder of the Hasmonean dynasty, who attained the office of high priest in the year 142 BCE. Thus another question arises: Is 3 Maccabees’ rather unflattering portrayal of the high priest Simon modelled after Simon the Hasmonean? Taking into consideration the competitive nature of 3 Maccabees vis-à-vis compositions aggrandizing the Hasmoneans, such as the Judaean reworking of 2 Maccabees that was sent to Egypt, the suggestion is indeed quite appealing.

5 The Plot Thickens: On Loyalty, Court Gossip, Legitimacy, and Hades Assuming an Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees helps to clarify an array of previously unexplained details regarding the text’s composition. The work portrays the Jews as loyal subjects to the ruler of their country. In fact, the depiction of

 See Ben Sira 50 and the stories on “Simon the Just” in M Avot 1:2 and B Yoma 69a, for instance. On “Simon the Just,” see J. C. VanderKam, “Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?” 303 – 318 and J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 147– 157. For his legendary role in rabbinic literature see now A. Tropper, Simeon the Righteous, passim.  For several substantial reasons, recall that I have argued against the current communis opinio that Onias IV is to be identified with the temple’s builder. See Chapter 1.  Cf. M. Brutti, The Development of the High Priesthood, 111– 114, 307 and A. Hunt, Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History (New York and London: T & T Clark, 2006) passim, who make the case that the Zadokites were not the dominant priestly family after the Babylonian Exile until the Hasmonean takeover. Hunt even casts doubt on the Zadokite background of the Oniads, A. Hunt, Missing Priests, 40.

5 The Plot Thickens: On Loyalty, Court Gossip, Legitimacy, and Hades

251

Jewish loyalty appears in many works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature and is doubtlessly intended to refute anti-Jewish slander.⁵⁸

I Jewish Loyalty and Jewish Mercenarism Jewish loyalty to the Ptolemaic king is emphasized on several occasions in 3 Maccabees. In the opening of the text we read about Dositheos, the son of Drimylus (3 Macc. 1:2– 3), who disclosed a plot to assassinate Philopator. The episode is clearly designed to show that Jews are loyal subjects, even capable of saving their king’s life.⁵⁹ Although Dositheus is obviously presented as a positive example, there nonetheless appears a rather negative remark, condemning him for his apostasy.⁶⁰ Regardless of this observation, however, we note that already right from the beginning of 3 Maccabees’ narrative, its author is at pains to stress the Jews’ loyalty to the Ptolemaic kings. This begins a predictable recur-

 J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 200; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 155 – 157.  Some have compared Dositheos and his role in the narrative with that of Mordechai in the Book of Esther. See C. W. Emmet, “The Third Book of Maccabees,” 160; A. Paul, “Le Troisième livres des Macchabées,” 301– 303; P. S. Alexander, “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” 328. On the issue of Jewish loyalty in the Diaspora context view N. Hacham, “Bigthan and Teresh and the Reason Gentiles Hate Jews,” VT 62 (2012): 318 – 356 and N. Hacham, “Joseph and Aseneth: Loyalty, Traitors, Antiquity and Diasporan Identity,” JSP 22 (2012): 53 – 67.  Dositheos is attested holding the office of the priesthood of Alexander (which was a pagan office) in Egypt (see CPJ 127d and 127e; P. Vindob. Gr. 40588; P. Med. Inv. 83.17; P. Dem. Berl. 3096). Attempts have been made to identify the Dositheos mentioned in C. Ap. 2.49 with the high ranking, apparently Jewish, officer of the same name in P. Tebt. 818 (= CPJ 24) from Trikomia in the Fayûm, dated to 174 BCE. See M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (BEFAR 169; 2 vols.; Paris: E. de Boccard, 1949 – 50) 1:546, 2:1233 and H. Willrich, “Der Historische Kern,” 257: “Jener Dositheos ist übrigens gewiss aus der Physkonlegende übernommen; zwar nennt Iosephus [sic] ihn in seinem knappen Auszug nicht, aber mehrfach an der Seite des Onias und auch Apion wusste von ihm.” The relatively early date of that papyrus, however, makes such identification doubtful. See also A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 66 and there, n. 38. Further on in the narrative we encounter the following remark on Jewish apostates: “Those of the Jewish nation who had wilfully transgressed against the holy God and the law of God should receive the punishment they deserved. They declared that those who for the belly’s sake had transgressed the divine commandments would never be favorably disposed toward the king’s government (3 Macc. 7:10 – 11).” Such a remark obviously militates against the story of Dositheos, the son of Drimylus, who embodies a positive example of Jewish loyalty to the king. However, by attaching the note on Dositheos’ apostasy, this positive example is grossly contradicted, especially in light of 3 Macc 7:10 – 11. We should consider, though, that this discrepancy might be due to careless editing.

252

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

rence of the theme throughout the composition.⁶¹ The author’s oddly deep interest in Jewish loyalty may be best illustrated by his tendency to refute allegations to the contrary. This becomes all the more evident when he goes so far as to include such allegations into his narrative.⁶² Furthermore, 3 Maccabees not only counters allegations of Jewish disloyalty to Gentile sovereigns, but also emphasizes the Jews’ faithfulness to their own religion.⁶³ We may also recall here that Josephus emphasizes the loyalty of Onias and his men to the Ptolemaic queen Cleopatra II, implying that this loyalty led to the detention of the Alexandrian Jews in the hippodrome.⁶⁴ Josephus seeks to refute Apion’s allegations of Jewish disloyalty, in light of their participation in the alleged mass mutiny against Physcon’s rule, a reigning power, which, in Apion’s view, was the legitimate political force.⁶⁵ Josephus’ strategy in countering Apion’s allegations was to stress the loyalty of the Jews to Cleopatra II, who in his eyes had the right to rule (C. Ap. 2.52). Nonetheless, even apart from refuting anti-Jewish allegations, the virtue of loyalty must have been a crucial one, particularly for Jewish mercenaries. This also holds true for the Jewish combatants (i. e., Onias’ men) who helped to

 3 Macc. 3:3: “The Jews, however, continued to maintain goodwill and unswerving loyalty toward the dynasty…” In 3 Macc. 5:31, the king utters that “the Jews, who give me no ground for complaint and have exhibited to an extraordinary degree a full and firm loyalty to my ancestors.”  3 Macc. 3:7: “…instead they gossiped about the differences in worship and foods, alleging that these people were loyal neither to the king nor to his authorities, but were hostile and greatly opposed to his government.” In other instances the alleged disloyalty of the Jews is referenced, wherein the Jews are labelled as traitors. See 3 Macc. 3:24 and 7:5. Johnson notes that the entire narrative of 3 Maccabees is framed by the theme of Jewish disloyalty. S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 155.  S. R. Johnson Historical Fictions, 157.  C. Ap. 2.53. E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 229 and S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 186 – 187 have, in my view, correctly argued that Josephus assigns the story to the reign of Physcon precisely for the purpose of emphasizing the loyalty of Onias’ men to Cleopatra II. They argue that Josephus deliberately placed his sources of legendary nature into the hands of Physcon in order to counter Apion’s slander against the disloyalty of Onias’ men. Josephus, in his rendition of the story, suggests that Onias and his men were loyal to their rightful sovereign, i. e. to Cleopatra II. While Josephus could thus fulfil an apologetic purpose, which was obviously the reason for him to provide the story in the first place, I once more argue that this does not preclude that the events narrated by him really occurred during the reign of Physcon. Legendary though they are, his sources could indeed have mentioned Physcon as the Ptolemaic king mentioned there. We should acknowledge that Josephus, sometimes felicitous, sometimes not, attempted to be a careful historian (see Ant. 1.17; 20.260). Again, we should search for the reason for his arrangement of the story in Contra Apionem in his sources that led him to place the events into the time of Physcon.  See S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 186 and above, n. 10.

5 The Plot Thickens: On Loyalty, Court Gossip, Legitimacy, and Hades

253

free their compatriots detained in the hippodrome. The importance of loyalty is reflected both in 3 Maccabees and in Josephus’ version of the story, in different but complimentary ways.⁶⁶ Focusing further on 3 Maccabees, there are yet more passages to which I will turn, which strengthen my claim that the author of 3 Maccabees belonged to the Oniad community of mercenaries. These passages include the author’s remarks, both directly and implicitly stated, regarding Jewish military activity. For instance, in his repentance speech in 3 Macc. 6:25, the king praises the Jews for faithfully keeping “our country’s fortresses,” and in 3:21, the Jews are praised for their loyal alliance in combat (συμμαχίαν).⁶⁷ We are prompted to ask, then: Why should the author find it worthwhile to stress these points, unless he shared some affiliation with Jewish soldiers? I argue that the author emphasizes the theme of Jewish loyalty for apologetic reasons, but he also wishes to illustrate the pride of the Jewish soldiers who fought loyally for their sovereign rulers. Once again, the emphasis on loyalty reflects the Oniad background of the author, who most likely came from a milieu that encouraged pride in Jewish military involvement.

 Another point of contact between 3 Macc. and Josephus’ Contra Apionem is the mention of the specific Jews entrusted with governmental affairs. Compare Josephus’ somewhat exaggerated note that: “Again Ptolemy Philometor and his consort Cleopatra entrusted the whole of their realm to Jews, and placed their entire army under the command of Jewish generals, Onias and Dositheos (C. Ap. 2.49)” with the words of the royal decree in 3 Macc. 3:21: “Among other things, we made known to all our amnesty toward their compatriots here, both because of their [i. e., the Jew’s] alliance with us and the myriad affairs liberally entrusted to them from the beginning.”  Another somewhat unclear detail appears in 3 Macc. 4:11. Here, it is said that the Jews of the chora (!) were detained in the hippodrome inter alia, “so that they could neither communicate with the king’s forces…” We are perhaps prompted to ask: Why would anyone attempt to prevent this communication and why would they want to communicate with the king’s forces (in Alexandria), who are obviously guarding the premises in which the Jews are contained? We may solve this problem with Willrich, in assuming that those Jews from the chora detained in the hippodrome were (in part) Jewish mercenaries possibly serving in Oniad units; for it would make sense that the soldiers detained in the hippodrome could seek reinforcements stationed in the city. Willrich finds that the Jews of the chora do not bear the features of a harmless and innocent group, but rather fit the profile of the “kriegerischen Oniasjuden.” H. Willrich, “Der Historische Kern,” 246. See also J. Tromp, “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees,” 317, who concedes that the military context as provided by Josephus’ story, in fact, corresponds to this passage of the story in 3 Maccabees.

254

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

II Court Jews and Their Gossip In many instances, 3 Maccabees offers us insight into the dealings of the court of Philopator, the interactions with his direct subjects and servants and, finally, various court intrigues.⁶⁸ It seems that, although the references to gossip in the text may have been inserted partly to enliven the narrative, the author himself had a more specific interest in the dealings of the court.⁶⁹ That the author was familiar with Ptolemaic protocol becomes evident from the documents he cites, which, although commonly acknowledged as forged, reveal the author’s familiarity with these types of documents.⁷⁰ In addition, the author of 3 Maccabees apparently had intimate knowledge of the Ptolemaic court and its staff during the time of Philopator. This familiarity may be explained by the various reliable sources and material at his disposal. We shall not overlook the possibility, however, that his knowledge could just as well have derived from personal information or from contact with people close to the king.⁷¹ Arguing again for an Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees, we recall that not only Onias himself, but also his staff, which most likely included members of his community who had liaisons with the Ptolemaic court, were acquainted with many courtiers and knew the court’s protocol and its dealings.⁷²

III The Legitimacy of the Oniad Temple In my discussion of the relationship between Josephus’ Contra Apionem and the parallel story in 3 Maccabees, I have concluded that the latter work aimed to pro-

 See e. g., 3 Macc. 1:2– 3; 5:1– 5; 5:14– 22.  See A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden und Oniaden, 207; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 147, 170, 178. Intriguingly, Johnson (Historical Fictions, 170) mentions almost exclusively Oniads as examples of successful Jewish courtiers.  3 Macc. 2:28 – 29; 3:12– 29; 7:1– 9; 7. See e. g. E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 230.  Johnson identifies here a hint at the intended readership of 3 Maccabees. She argues that the author evidently expected his audience to be familiar not only with official court protocol, but with court history and gossip as well. She is convinced that the audience must have been comprised of Hellenized, upper class Alexandrian Jews. While we endorse the view that 3 Maccabees’ readership comprehended these references, we note that not only the privileged Jewish upper class was capable of understanding these references, but likewise so did the members of the Oniad community. S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 178.  See for instance CPJ 132, where Onias (whom we identify as Onias III) emerges as an important Ptolemaic administrative official and also Josephus’ reports in BJ 1.33; 7.423 – 426; Ant. 12.387; 13.62– 71, which convey Onias’ intimate relations with the Ptolemaic court.

5 The Plot Thickens: On Loyalty, Court Gossip, Legitimacy, and Hades

255

mote a festival commemorating the deliverance of the Jews of Alexandria. It was arguably intended for an Alexandrian readership, and sought to defend the legitimacy of Onias’ Temple, particularly before that stratum of the Jewish population. I have promised to discuss one more passage, 3 Macc. 7:20, which contains a possible allusion to royal permission to build the Oniad Temple: Then, after inscribing them as holy on a pillar and dedicating a place of prayer (τόπον προσευχῆς) at the site of the festival, they departed unharmed, free, and overjoyed, since at the king’s command they had all of them been brought safely by land and sea and river to their own homes.⁷³

At first glance, nothing in the contents of the passage eo ipso seems peculiar. The term proseuche commonly appears in texts from Ptolemaic Egypt, designating a synagogue.⁷⁴ However, we are somewhat astonished that the author of 3 Maccabees adds the word “τόπος (place)” to the term proseuche, as Jewish inscriptions never combine proseuche with the additional specification topos. ⁷⁵ We are hence inclined to wonder if the author of 3 Maccabees here implies the foundation of something of a much larger scale, perhaps a temple. And indeed, we find the term proseuche designating the Temple in the Septuagint. ⁷⁶ We may thus assume that the passage speaks of the permission to found not merely a “house of prayer,” but a temple. Moreover, the passage resembles Josephus’ mention of the royal permission given to Onias to erect his temple in the nome of Heliopolis

 Italics are mine, M. P.  See JIGRE 9, 13, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 105(?), 117, 125, 126. M. Hengel, “Proseuche und Synagoge: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palästina,” in Tradition und Glaube: das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by G. Jeremias (et al.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 157– 184; I. A. Levinskaya, “A Jewish or Gentile Prayer House? The Meaning of ‘Proseuche’,” TB 41 (1990): 154– 155; A. Kasher, “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’ and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt,” in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, ed. by D. Urman and P. V. M. Flesher (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 208; L. I. Levine, The Ancient Synagogue, 76 – 89.  See my previous note.  See e. g., LXX Isa 56:7; 60:7, where the term is employed to designate the Temple (οἶκος προσευχῆς). See A. Kasher, “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’,” 208 – 210. The term is distinct from its synonym “synagogue” (συναγωγή), which designates a place of assembly. Compare CPJ 138, which serves as an example for this difference in meaning, as the text employs both terms sideby-side. Note that in 2 Macc. 1:29; 3:2; 5:16; 8:17, the word τόπος denotes the Temple. On these and other occurances of the term bearing this meaning in Jewish literature, see D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 188 (“Note on 3:2”).

256

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

in Antiquities 13.63. In his appeal to the Ptolemaic king Philometor, we recall that Onias informed the king that he “found a most suitable place (τόπον) in the fortress called after Bubastis-of-the-Fields (Ant. 13.66),” where he wished to erect a temple. The king eventually granted him permission, but duly wondered whether building a temple in “a place (τόπῳ) so wild” would be pleasing to God.⁷⁷ As these references illustrate, Josephus intimately links the term topos with the building of Onias’ Temple, which is after all quite logical considering that a project of such scale requires the corresponding physical space. If we thus assume that the royal permission to build a “place of prayer” in fact means the permission to build the Oniad Temple, this uncommon expression is suitably explained. I have mentioned that the Oniad Temple was not recognized as a legitimate temple by all Jews, including those of Alexandria. Therefore, given that the author came from an Oniad background, we may conclude that this reference, which stresses a legitimate foundation of a place of prayer (temple), was introduced in order to encourage acceptance of the Oniad Temple. We should also keep in mind that the whole story, as the Book of Esther, is of a liturgical nature and was read publically once a year, as is indicated by the “Amen”, which concludes the book.⁷⁸ Assuming that the story was read in the Oniad Temple, we may further speculate that it also became known among its worshippers and pilgrims, which certainly included a number of Alexandrian Jews. This suggestion would likewise explain why the story became a legend, and, as Josephus’ version demonstrates, apparently a popular one.

IV The Afterlife of the Oniad Jews and 3 Maccabees: The Concept of Hades 3 Maccabees includes four distinct references to Hades: – 4:8 is a passage that laments the detention of the Alexandrian Jews in the hippodrome. The passage describes how the young people of Alexandria, instead of celebrating their weddings, now have to face Hades. – 5:42 describes the king, who, in a state of madness, pledges to send the Jews into Hades. – 5:51, is a narration describing the Jews’ entrapment in the hippodrome, standing at the “gates of Hades”. – 6:31, belongs to the description of how the Jews are pardoned by the regretful king and how the festival of their deliverance is being prepared. Once

 Ant. 13.70 – 71.  See also F. Parente, “The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological Document,” 175.

5 The Plot Thickens: On Loyalty, Court Gossip, Legitimacy, and Hades

257

more, reference is made of how the Jews were brought “near Hades, nay, to its very gate…” Jewish references to the Greek concept of Hades – a concept that is often claimed to be congruent with the Jewish belief in the Sheol (‫ – )שאול‬do not indicate a turn towards polytheism.⁷⁹ The four textual appearances of Hades in 3 Maccabees, however, lead us to the conclusion that the author (and most probably a great deal of his audience) had a firm belief in this ancient concept of the underworld. As I have noted, while the concept of Hades was not alien to the Jewish thought of the time after death, nevertheless we find references to it only very rarely.⁸⁰ Among the most striking exceptions, aside from references in 3 Maccabees, are the (Jewish) funerary inscriptions from the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh (JIGRE 31, 34, 38, 39), which contain frequent mentions of the underworld. Although we indeed can expect to find such references in a funerary context, let me note that, with one exception,⁸¹ all textual references to Hades in Jewish epi-

 We may additionally find mention of “Hades” in the Septuagint (e. g. LXX Gen 37:35; 42:38; Num 16:30; 16:33 and, inter alia, very prominently in the Psalms [9:18; 15:10; 138:8; 140:7]), as well as in various other instances in the ancient Jewish corpus of Hellenistic literature (see e. g., Ben Sira 28:21; Tobit 13:2 and in 2 Macc. 6:23). Philo (De posteritate Caini 31; De Vita Mosis 1.195; 2.281; Leg. ad Gaium 235) also seems to substitute “Hades” for “Sheol.” Josephus deliberately introduces “Hades” when referring to Jewish concepts of an afterlife, particularly to appeal to his nonJewish audience (BJ 1.597; 2.156, 165; 3.375; Ant. 6.332). See in particular BJ 2.156: “The Greeks, I imagine, had the same conception…” On Josephus’ efforts to translate and to explain Jewish conceptions and terminology for his non-Jewish readership, see S. Mason, “Philosophiai: GrecoRoman, Judean, and Christian,” in Voluntary Associations in the Ancient Mediterranean World, ed. by S. G. Wilson and J. S. Kloppenborg (London: Routledge, 1996) 31– 58. See also J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 131; W. Horbury and D. Noy, JIGRE, 92– 93; J. S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000) 23 – 24, 31– 32, 37, 176.  See the previous note and S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 219 – 220. Note that Hades is also thrice referred to in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles (3.393, 458, 480), a composition believed to have been written at Onias’ Temple. See in particular J. J. Collins, “The Provenance of the Third Sibylline Oracle,” 1– 18 and the previous chapter (Chapter 8).  The inscription was found at Beth She’arim and dates to the 3rd century CE. It was published by M. Schwabe and B. Lifshitz, Beth She’arim: The Greek Inscriptions (2 vols.; New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1974) 2:97 (no. 127). The text reads as follows: “I, Justus, son of Leontius and Sappho, lie here dead. I plucked the fruit of all kinds of wisdom and then left the light. I left my poor parents in endless mourning, and also my brothers in Beth She’arim, alas! And having gone to Hades, I, Justus, lie here with many of my own kindred, since mighty Fate so willed. Be of good courage, Justus, no one is immortal.” For further comments on the inscription, see J. Kaplan, “‘I, Justus, lie here:’ The Discovery of Beth Shearim,” BA 40 (1977): 167– 172; P. W. van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE-700 CE) (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 151– 152 (no. 8), and P. W. van der Horst,

258

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

taphs are from Tell el-Yahoudieh. We thus observe that the worldview expressed in 3 Maccabees seems strikingly akin to the one exhibited in the funerary inscriptions of the Oniad community’s deceased members, as these texts repeatedly report a common belief in Hades.⁸² The shared belief in Hades likewise indicates an affiliation of the author of 3 Maccabees to the Oniad community, further enforcing my argument.

6 Conclusion I conclude here with a general overview of my arguments. 3 Maccabees reports the near extinction and miraculous deliverance of the Jews imprisoned under Ptolemy Philopator’s rule in the Alexandrian hippodrome. A parallel account of the story may be found in Josephus’ report in C. Ap. 2.49 – 55, setting the same account during the Alexandrian civil war of 145 BCE, under the reign of Ptolemy Physcon. 3 Maccabees and Josephus both present the deliverance of the Jews as the reason for the institution of a commemoration festival. According to Josephus’ account, which underscores Onias’ (and his troops’) involvement in the Ptolemaic civil war, we must assume that Onias and his men greatly contributed to the rescuing of the Jews from the hippodrome and not necessarily divine miracles. Since we have good reason to believe that Josephus’ report, as opposed to its parallel in 3 Maccabees, should be considered the more historically reliable, I “Jewish Funerary Inscriptions: Most are in Greek,” BAR 18 (1992): 46 – 57. The Jewishness of this inscription has lately been contested, see T. Ilan, “’Kever Israel’,” 251– 253; this aside, however, we wish to point to the chronological distance of almost three centuries and, notably, the different provenance (i. e., Late Roman Palestine) of the epitaph from the Tell el-Yahoudieh inscriptions dating from the time of Augustus. I owe this reference to Prof. T. Ilan.  Apart from the quite astonishing evidence regarding the concept of Hades, we also find a remarkable congruence of some epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh with 3 Maccabees. In 3 Macc. 1:19; 4:6, and 4:8, there exist lamentations concerning unlucky grooms and brides who are not allowed to celebrate their wedding and are forced to abandon their “bridal chambers”. References to marriage, brides or grooms are made in six inscriptions from the cemetery at Tell elYahoudieh (see JIGRE 32, 33, 35, 38, 57, 83). Such lamentations, however, may reflect corresponding passages in Jer 7:34; 16:9; 25:10; 3:11 (this being the case for 3 Maccabees as much as for the funerary inscriptions from Tell el-Yahoudieh). For the view that the theme is influenced by Graeco-Roman literature, see J. S. Park, Conceptions of Afterlife, 78 – 79 and Sophocles’ Antigone 810 – 813: “… for Hades, who brings all people to their final sleep, leads me on, while I’m still living, down to the shores of Acheron. I’ve not yet had my bridal chant, nor has any wedding song been sung – for my marriage is to Acheron.” In these instances, we merely wish to further stress the similarities between 3 Maccabees and the funerary epitaphs of Tell el-Yahoudieh.

6 Conclusion

259

have asked if the promotion of the festival commemorating the Jews’ deliverance from the hippodrome – and thus 3 Maccabees as a whole – seeks to aggrandize the Oniads, who were involved in rescuing the Jews from their oppressors. I have argued that the author of 3 Maccabees must have belonged to the Oniad community, with the following evidentiary points in mind: (1) The first of the prefixed letters in 2 Maccabees (1:1– 9) provides evidence of the Jews’ distress in Egypt in the years 145 – 143/2 BCE, which underpins Josephus’ mention of a Jewish persecution during the reign of Ptolemy Physcon. (2) The letters’ purpose is to promote the acceptance of the Hasmoneans as the rulers of Judaea and the Temple among Egyptian Jewry in the wake of the newly gained Judaean independence. They seem to advocate Hasmonean interference and defense of Egyptian Jews. 3 Maccabees, as I have argued, responds to 2 Maccabees, and conveys the view that the Jews of Egypt are not in need of Hasmonean assistance. (3) The theme of competition between the Jews of Egypt and the Jews of Jerusalem becomes especially evident in the references to the prayers of the Jerusalemite high priest Simon and his Egyptian counterpart Eleazar. The latter’s prayer exceeds that of Simon both in acceptance and outcome. The implied contest between these two protagonists seems to mirror the rivalry between the Jerusalem Temple, ruled by the Hasmoneans (embodied by Simon), and the Oniad Temple of Heliopolis (embodied by Eleazar). (4) Further evidence for an Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees is the narrative’s emphasis on the role of priests, which testifies to a priestly worldview. Such a worldview is also documented in the funerary inscriptions of the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh, which was part of the “Land of Onias.” (5) 3 Maccabees displays adherence to the concept of the afterlife (Hades), which is also documented in the epitaphs of the Oniad community from Tell el-Yahoudieh. (6) The following textual references in 3 Maccabees that seem to betray an Oniad authorship include: – References to Jewish loyalty and Jewish mercenaries, both of which allude to the Oniad community’s mercenary character. – References to court protocol and court gossip, both of which indicate a certain closeness of the author to the Ptolemaic court. Such references also match the profile of the Oniad Jews, many of whom held influential and important positions in the Ptolemaic administration.

260

–

Chapter 9 Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?

The expressed notion of the Oniad Temple’s legitimacy. This notion appears to parallel the mention of the royal permission to build a “place of prayer” in 3 Macc. 7:20, and seems to refer to the building of the Oniad Temple.

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship? 1 Introduction One of the first Hellenistic authors ever to mention the Jews qua Jews was the 4th century BCE historian and philosopher Hecataeus of Abdera, who was prominent during the reign of Ptolemy I Soter (nick-named “Lagos,” 323 BCE – 283 BCE and the first Macedonian ruler of Egypt and the founder of the Ptolemaic dynasty).¹ Five textual passages attributed to Hecataeus mentioning Jews have come down to us in the citations of various ancient authors; in particular two longer accounts of Hecataeus’s work, which are preserved in the writings of Diodorus and Josephus.² These passages are said to belong to a larger composition entitled ‘On the Jews’ (Περί ’Ιουδαίων), which was allegedly authored by Hecataeus and was part of a digression on Egyptians and Egyptian culture in his Aegyptiaca, which served as a source for Diodorus and Josephus.³

 On Hecataeus of Abdera see F. Jacoby, “Hekataios von Abdera,” PWRE 7 (1912): 2750 – 2769; H. Lewy, “Hekataios von Abdera Περί Ιουδαίων,” ZNTW 31 (1932): 117– 132 and in particular M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: The Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974) 1:20 – 24 (henceforth: GLAJJ), including the literature cited there (p. 25). Moreover, Hecataeus is believed to have been the first pagan author to ever have mentioned Moses. J. G. Gager, Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (SBL Monograph Series 16; Atlanta: SBL 1989) 26; R. E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus. Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (New York / London: T & T Clark, 2006) 65 – 66.  The first text is believed to have come from a larger composition called On Abraham, or On Abraham and the Egyptians and is cited by the Church Fathers Eusebius (Praep. Ev. 13.13.40) and Clemens Alexandrinus (Stromata 5.113) and are alluded to by Josephus in Ant. 1.159. The second text is cited in the Letter of Aristeas 31 (see also Josephus’ paraphrase of the Letter of Aristeas in Ant. 12.38). The third passage is a paraphrase of Josephus (C. Ap. 2.43 = GLAJJ # 13) that also supplies us with the fourth and longer passage that is of our present concern, namely C. Ap. 1.183 – 204 (= GLAJJ # 12). The fifth passage – and the second longest account on the Jews – is preserved in Diodorus Siculus 40.3, who, we may add, also preserved two short notices on Jews and Judaism in his first Book of his Bibliotheca Historica, which focus on ancient Egypt (1.28.2– 3; 1.55.5). The latter two passages are believed to be of Hecataean origin as well. We should note here, that with the exception of the Diodoran passages (1.28.2– 3; 1.55.5; 40.3) and perhaps our second text too, all other references are suspected to be Jewish fabrications. I shall address that issue below.  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 122; D. R. Schwartz, “Diodorus Siculus 40.3 – Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-016

262

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

Although both authors cite passages dealing with Jews, the Hecataean authorship of the passages cited by Josephus (in Contra Apionem 1) was quickly suspected of being inauthentic.⁴ Instead, it has been suggested that these texts were authored by an anonymous Jew – a “Hecataeus in disguise” – known later as “Pseudo-Hecataeus.”⁵ Assuming the existence of a Pseudo-Hecataeus, however, compromises the historicity of the narrated events that purport to have taken place during the reign of Ptolemy I. Indeed, it has been pointed out that several chronological references in the text seem to relate to a different chronological context than that posited by the narrative.⁶ These anachronistic chronological references, by and large, point to a Hasmonean dating, more precisely, and in concert with Bar-Kochva’s view, to the beginning of Alexander Yannai’s reign (103 – 76 BCE).⁷ Indeed, Bar-Kochva’s hypothesis of the existence of a Jew-

Mishnah and the Temple: A Collection of Articles, ed. by M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, and D. R. Schwartz (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003) 197. Josephus – much in line with one of his main aims in his apologetic work Contra Apionem – used Hecataeus’ accounts on the Jews in order to prove the antiquity (and thus superiority) of the Jews vis-à-vis other (hostile) nations, such as the Greeks and the Egyptians. A. Kasher, “Polemic and Apologetic Methods of Writing in Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 170; J. R. Levison and J. R. Wagner, “The Character and Context of Josephus’ Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 13 – 14; A. J. Droge, “Josephus between Greeks and Barbarians,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 137– 139. View in this context also Artapanus’ efforts to convey that Jews, in fact, were the harbingers of Egyptian and Greek culture (Frag. 3; Eusebius Praep. Ev. 9.27.4) P. W. van der Horst, “Schriftgebruik bij drie vroege joods-hellenistische Historici: Demetrius, Artapanus, Eupolemus,” ACEBT 6 (1985): 150 and E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 158.  See M. Pucci ben Zeev, “The Reliability of Josephus Flavius: The Case of Hecataeus’ and Manetho’s Accounts of Jews and Judaism: Fifteen Years of Contemporary Research (1974– 1990),” JSJ 24 (1993): 215 – 234; B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 1– 6.  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 120 – 121.  I shall discuss some of those misplaced references below. A more thorough analysis is provided by Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 122– 137.  As so amply propagated by Bar-Kochva, see his Pseudo-Hecataeus, 122, 139, 159, 242– 244, 249 as well as by others, e. g. by D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 190 – 191, 197 and M. Pucci ben Zeev, “The Reliability of Josephus Flavius,” 218. Walter, more specifically, dates the work to the reign of John Hyrcanus I (on account of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ reference to the tithing of priests). See N. Walter, “Pseudo-Hecataios I und II,” in Fragmente jüdisch-hellensitischer Historiker (JSHRZ 1/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976) 148.

1 Introduction

263

ish forger of the Josephan Hecataeus passages called Pseudo-Hecataeus has enjoyed wide acceptation – in spite of some critics.⁸ Recently, D. R. Schwartz has proposed that Hecataeus’ other account on the Jews, that preserved by Diodorus (40.3), too, is the work of the Jewish PseudoHecataeus.⁹ Schwartz presents strong arguments in favor of a Jewish authorship of the Diodoran passage and shows that the piece, in fact, complements the work preserved by Josephus in C. Ap. 1, each recording events from a different period in (Jewish) history.¹⁰ The Diodoran fragment delineates Jewish history

 Those are summarized by M. Pucci ben Zeev in “The Reliability of Josephus Flavius,” 221– 224 and include herself (p. 234).  D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 181– 197. Notably, Schwartz is not the only scholar who has challenged the authenticity of Diodorus’ report. R. E. Gmirkin, too, argued that the Diodoran Hecataeus passages are not authentic, but, in contrast to Schwartz, does not proceed on the assumption of a Jewish author. Instead, Gmirkin opines that the Diodoran passages are a version of a combined report based on the original ethnographic treatise on the Jews by Hecataeus of Abdera and a similar treatise on the customs of the Jews authored by the Pompeian biographer, Theophanes of Mytilene. Cf. R. E. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, 34– 71 and in particular his Appendix B, 259 – 263. Apart from both Schwartz and Gmirkin, who cite other scholars refuting the authenticity of the Diodoran Hecataeus passages (see Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, 40 [n. 45]), Rooke too, has expressed her doubts regarding the authenticity of those passages. See D. W. Rooke, Zadoks’s Heirs, 246 – 250. For a rather forced effort to refute the arguments put forward by the scholars just mentioned, cf. L. L. Grabbe, “Hecataeus of Abdera and the Jewish Law: The Question of Authenticity,” in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. by I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008) 613 – 626.  Compare Gruen’s remark that the arguments put forward by Schwartz are insufficient, in spite of the fact that he acknowledges that some details in the Diodoran passage may be best explained by assuming a Jewish authorship as Schwartz proposes. Cf. E. S. Gruen, “The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story,” JH 12 (1998): 108 and there n. 47. Gager too, is puzzled by some references in the Diodoran passage, whose origin (i.e. their source) he ascribes to Hecataeus’ alleged Jewish informants from Alexandria. Among those references (40.3.5 – 6), he notes, are biblical laws that are said to have been introduced by Moses which are congruent in content and also very similar in language to the respective laws in the Septuagint (Lev 26:46; 27:34; Num 36:13; Deut 28:69 [LXX 29:1 or LXX 32:44]). Since, as he contends, the text was written by Hecataeus who had lived and worked in the late fourth century BCE, during the time when the Septuagint had yet to be translated, he is puzzled by their appearance in narrative. He explains the phenomenon, however, with the assumption that earlier halakhic traditions existed that later found their way into the LXX. That sort of information, according to Gager, was supplied to Hecataeus by his Jewish Alexandrian informants. Cf. J. G. Gager, Moses, 32, 37. Gmirkin too noted that the same passage singled out by Gager alludes to the Bible (esp. Deut 28:69), but instead of suggesting an Egyptian Jewish priestly source, in his effort to prove the authorship of Theophanes of Mytilene, he suggested that the Jewish source was none other than Hyrcanus II with whom Theophanes allegedly spent much time in Damascus

264

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

from the Exodus to the Macedonian conquest of Palestine, while Josephus’ fragment chronicles the fate of the Jews beginning from the early Hellenistic period in the days of Ptolemy I Soter until the author’s present.¹¹ The fact that both, the author of the Josephan Hecataeus passages and the author of the Diodoran Hecataeus passages were Jewish gives rise to the speculation that both are one and the same person. Since this assumption is more economical too, Schwartz concludes that the two authors were indeed one and the same individual. We shall see below (p. 265 – 270) that this assumption has indeed much to recommend it. Hence, I concur with Schwartz’s presumption that both accounts on the Jews, Josephus’ and Diodorus’, were authored by Pseudo-Hecataeus during the Hasmonean period. But before delving into a more detailed discussion, let me underline the fact that our author was of Egyptian origin, which is an imperative detail for our discussion. This emerges, in part, from the fact that both the Diodoran and the Josephan Hecataeus texts are placed in an Egyptian setting. In addition, we note that the Josephan passage greatly praises Ptolemy I Lagos, something that is not matched by other accounts of Ptolemy I Lagos.¹² In addition and in context of the assumed Egyptian origin of the work, let me point out a small detail in the narrative that betrays an Egyptian background of the work. Namely, Pseudo-Hecataeus, when speaking about the land inhabited by the Jews, employs the measure of arourae (ἄρουρα), a well-known system of measurement prominently used in the Ptolemaic period.¹³ Due to the author’s display of substantial knowledge of, and interest in, the Jewish sacrificial cult and the appurtenances (in particular its altar) of the Jerusalem Temple,¹⁴ some have argued that Pseudo-Hecataeus must have been a Jer-

while auditioning before Pompey. View R. Gmirkin, Berossus and Gensis, 55 – 57. We, however, who embrace the view that the Diodoran passage too is entirely of Jewish origin, do not need to resort to such forced explanations. The example illustrates that, both in terms of content and chronology, the passage could have been written by Pseudo-Hecataeus; the more so, if we take into consideration that Pseudo-Hecataeus lived in a time when the Septuagint version of the Pentateuch seems to have been completed already. Bar-Kochva has pointed out that the Bible was used by Pseudo-Hecataeus as a source and by assuming that Pseudo-Hecataeus was the author of the Diodoran passage, we may readily explain the biblical references in that passage. See B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 28, 169, 250.  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 196 – 197.  C. Ap. 1.186. Note that the Letter of Aristeas 31 and Josephus himself in Ant. 12.3 – 6, in contrast to C. Ap. 1.186, are less sympathetic towards Ptolemy I Lagos. See below, n. 71.  C. Ap. 1.195.  C. Ap. 1.197– 198.

2 The Diodoran Passages (40.3): Pseudo-Hecataeus and the Jewish Monarchy

265

usalemite priest who immigrated to Egypt.¹⁵ A closer look at the author’s geographical description of Judaea, however, which is riddled with mistakes, is evidence enough to reject this assumption. The author’s geographical references, as has been noted by Bar-Kochva, rather reveal his intimate knowledge of the geography and demography of Alexandria.¹⁶ We can securely maintain, then, that Pseudo-Hecataeus was an Egyptian Jew who lived during the Hasmonean period in Ptolemaic Egypt and was responsible for the composition of the fragmentary ‘On the Jews’ preserved in Diodorus (40.3) and Josephus (C. Ap. 1). With these details in mind, I shall proceed with a thorough analysis of his writings in our quest to learn more about his possible Oniad origin and the purpose of his work.

2 The Diodoran Passages (40.3): Pseudo-Hecataeus and the Jewish Monarchy Let us now turn our focus to the Diodoran passages. Perhaps the most striking detail of Diodorus 40.3 is its focus on Jewish constitutional issues. In particular the notion that Jews are (or ought to be) governed by their priests and that something such as kingship has never (and must never) exist(ed) among them.¹⁷ This statement is overtly untrue, as one immediately recognizes and we need look no further than the Davidic and later Israelite kings of the pre-exilic period in Jewish history and the late Hasmonean and Herodian periods for proving the contrary. The concept that only (high) priests should govern the nation, later coined  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 145; Wacholder keenly emphasizes the priestly background of Pseudo-Hecataeus. See B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 265 (and there n. 16), 267, 270 – 271, 273.  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 146 and for a more specific discussion, see pp. 107– 113.  Diodorus 40.3.5. The observation that the treatise is deeply concerned with political philosophy has already been made by W. W. Jaeger, Diokles von Karystos: Die griechische Medizin und die Schule des Aristoteles (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1938) 151– 153 and is stressed also by Gager (Moses, 36). He considers the piece a “political utopia” wishing to deliver the “picture of the ideal Mosaic state” in the likes of Plato’s political thought (Republic 540 A-B). See B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 33; also E. S. Gruen, “Use and Abuse,” 101. See also D. Mendels, “Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish ‹patrios politeia› of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3),” ZAW 95 (1983): 96 – 110 for the issue of the constitutional elements in the text. For Mendels, however, the constitutional references in the text refer to the Persian period, and not to the later Hellenistic period. Diamond, in turn, who does not question the authenticity of Diodorus’ Hecataeus piece, identifies a profound Aristotelian influence on Hecataeus’ depiction of the Jewish constitution. F. H. Diamond, “Hecataeus of Abdera and the Mosaic Constitution,” in Panhellenica: Essays in Ancient History and Historiography in Honour of Truesdell S. Brown, ed. by S. M. Burstein and L. A. Okin (Lawrence: Coronado, 1980) 77– 95.

266

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

by Josephus as theocratic (C. Ap. 2.165), seems to have been a popular conception among a certain stratum of Jewish society in the late Hasmonean period. The issue became relevant in view of the assumption of the royal title by either Yehudah Aristobulus or Alexander Yannai and later, in the wake of the Roman conquest of Judaea by Pompey.¹⁸ To be sure, scholars are generally convinced that the Jews were governed by a high priest during the Persian and early Hellenistic periods; this belief is thought to be supported by Hecataeus, on the notion that his text was authentic, and that he had obtained this detail by a Jewish informant, who described the constitutional reality in Judaea in those days.¹⁹ Considering, however, that the author was (a) Jewish, and (b) a contemporary of the Hasmoneans, the constitutional issue seems to have been much more pressing and relevant in the Hasmonean period than in the late Persian/ early Hellenistic period as the Pseudo-Hecataean piece appears to want us to be-

 This datum continues to puzzle scholars, but is usually considered “a mistake that could only be made by a gentile,” E. S. Gruen in “The Use and Abuse,” 100. Contra Gruen, see D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 193 – 194. R. Gmirkin has argued that the note is an anachronism betraying its source, the Pompeian biographer Thephanes of Mythilene, see above, n. 10 and Grabbe’s criticism, L. L. Grabbe, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 617, 623 – 624. Grabbe asserts that the passage is genuinely Hecataean and that it reflects the political reality of his own time. He concurs with Mendels (see n. 17) that Hecataeus relies here on a Jewish priestly source, representing a priestly perspective. D. Goodblatt too, considers the passage to be authentic and reflecting the political reality of the Persian period, cf. D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994) 11– 13. See also below, n. 41.  See the previous note and: H. Lewy, “Hekataios von Abdera,” 123; B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 28. W. W. Jaeger, Diokles von Karystos, 146; Y. Guttman, The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature: Judaism and Hellenism Before the Hasmonean Period (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1958 – 63) 1:51 [Hebrew]; O. Murray and M. Stern, “Hecataeus of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews and Egyptians,” JEA 59 (1973): 168; J. G. Gager, Moses, 37; F. H. Diamond, “Mosaic Constitution,” 81, 87. E. S. Gruen, “Use and Abuse,” 101; D. Mendels, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 98, 109. Lewy suggested that Ḥezekiah was Hecataeus’ source for the latter’s description of the Temple and Jerusalem. Cf. H. Lewy, “Hekataios von Abdera,” 128. Wacholder proposed, on the grounds of the use of the first person singular in the account of the story of the Jewish archer Mosallamus that the story was written by a fellow Jew, whom Wacholder labels “Pseudo-Hecataeus I,” and who was a contemporary of the narrated events, i. e. an eye-witness. Wacholder furthermore held him to be personally acquainted with Ḥezekiah and himself a priest, who resigned from office in order to accompany Mosallamus in battle (i. e. the battle of Gaza in 312 BCE), which accounts for the note on Ḥezekiah’s age (66 years old). B. Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 265, 267– 268. Of course, Wacholder was correct in identifying Pseudo-Hecataeus as a Jew; he however, and unfortunately, failed to give the numerous anachronisms in the text, which point to the Hasmonean period, any real deliberation. In all, Wacholder identifies a staggering amount of three authors, or Pseudo-Hecateuses, each being responsible for different passages extant today. See B. Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 266.

2 The Diodoran Passages (40.3): Pseudo-Hecataeus and the Jewish Monarchy

267

lieve. All the more so, when we consider that Diodorus’ report in 40.3 is a digression on things Jewish that is only introduced into the narrative because it is juxtaposed with an account on the Pompeian conquest of Jerusalem (40.2) that precedes the digression of the Jews.²⁰ In addition, we note that the narrative in 40.2 is strikingly similar to Josephus’ account of the same events in Ant. 14.41– 47 making it natural to assume that Diodorus and Josephus shared the same source.²¹ If indeed both authors used same sources, it is hardly surprising that we encounter the claim in Diodorus (in a note on the customs of the Jews) that Jews never had kings (40.3.5). And Josephus too, addresses the issue of Jews and monarchy in § 41.²² What is of importance for our purpose is that we discover in both the cases of Diodorus and Josephus (Antiquities 14) a unanimous assertion: Jews should be governed by priests, and monarchy (in its royal sense) should be abolished in favor of high priestly rule. We may further argue that the statement in Diodorus (40.3.5) was clearly introduced to promote that very constitutional concept. Although the author of the piece relates these events to the foundation of Jerusalem by Moses (!), his aim in doing so is to stress that the Jews were governed in a certain way ever since the foundation and settlement of their nation, which certainly is a strong statement to make.²³ The greater importance lent to priests over kings accentuates a certain interest in the Temple, its cult and its cultic personnel, all of which are addressed by the author.²⁴ That fact that has been noticed by many commentators and is consistent with the assumption that “Hecataeus,” when composing this piece, relied on information provided by a Jewish priest contemporary to the period in which Hecataeus was active.²⁵ The single amendment to this assumption is that the author of this piece was not Hecataeus himself and, quite obviously, none of his

 See the subsequent note and R. Gmrikin, Berossus and Genesis, 40 – 44; 54– 55.  Schwartz opts for the Pompeian historian Theophanes of Mytilne. D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 188 – 189, and so does B. Eckhardt, “Die jüdischen Gesandtschaften an Pompeius (63 v.Chr.) bei Diodor und Josephus,” Klio 92 (2010): 388 – 410, although he considers Hecataeus’ account genuine.  D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 188 – 189.  Cf. F. H. Diamond, Mosaic Constitution, 87, who harshly notes that “Moses’ constitution had no place for a king.”  Much attention has been given to the note in § 4, which relates that it was Moses who chose the priests. See e. g. R. Gmirkin, Berussos and Genesis, 54– 55; L. L. Grabbe, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 622. Indeed, this note seems somewhat awkward, but we should not forget that Moses’ brother, Aaron, is described in the Jewish tradition as the very first high priest, which perhaps clarifies this note in view of the familiar relations between the two.  See above, n. 19.

268

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

contemporaries. In other words, the author’s concern for the Temple, its cult, and its priesthood, speak in favor of the assumption that our author was a priest. Of further note is that the Diodoran fragment contains an appendix to the Jewish law concerning the laws of warfare (§ 6), which the author juxtaposes with the claim that Jews are renown for their manliness, steadfastness, and endurance of hardship.²⁶ This statement is then followed by another one about Moses’ military expeditions against the neighboring tribes and allotments of territories to the nation, with a preference for priests.²⁷ These remarks are noteworthy, as they may be read against the Egyptian background of the author.²⁸ We take note of the fact that also in Artapanus’ writings (and in Josephus’ Antiquities 2.239 – 253) we encounter traditions relating Moses’ military prowess, which indicates that the authors of those traditions wrote at a time when Jewish military service in the Ptolemaic army was at its peak. We may surmise that the authors of these traditions most probably originated from such a milieu themselves.²⁹ In the same vein, the note on the allotment of territories by Moses has a parallel in Artapanus (Frag. 3 in Praep. Ev. 9.27.1– 37.), who claims that Moses had done similarly for the Egyptian people. In the latter case, when considered against a military backdrop, the information regarding the allotment of lands for the people (…κατεκληρούχησε,…ποίησας κλήρους) is reminiscent of the Ptolemaic system of the klerurchiai (κληρουχίαι), i. e. military settlements. Finally, this observation is mirrored in the language employed in the relevant passage.³⁰ Thus, the emphasis on military subjects in the text seems to indicate that the author, in addition to being a priest, was not unfamiliar with – and we may even say proud of – Jewish mercenary settlements and military achievements. The au We may add that the virtues listed there were generally revered in the ancient Graeco-Roman world and predominantly attributed to the Spartans. It has often been noted that this statement recalls Josephus’ in BJ 2.152– 153, ascribing the very same virtues to the Essenes. See E. S. Gruen, “Use and Abuse,” 101 and S. Mason, “Essenes and Lurking Spartans in Josephus’ “Judean War”: From Story to History,” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, ed. by Z. Rodgers (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 219 – 261; R. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, 53; F. H. Diamond, “Mosaic Constitution,” 88 – 89 and compare for instance, Aristotle Pol. 1267a 20; 1334a 3.  Note that the notion of Moses as a military leader and successful conqueror also appears in Artapanus (Frag. 3 in Eusebius Praep. Evang. 9.27.1– 37) and in Josephus (Ant. 2.239 – 253). It appears to have been a common motive. On the question whether Josephus’ note depends on Artapanus see T. Rajak, “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature,” JJS 29 (1978): 111– 122; D. Runnalls, “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” JSJ 14 (1983): 135 – 156.  See R. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, 57.  Similarly, M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 30, for whom the contents of those stories indicate a chronological reference of the time in which Jewish mercenarism was at its peak.  It has been noted that Pseudo-Hecataeus, similarly, employs language typical of describing the foundation of Greek colonies (ἀποικίαι). See D. Mendels, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 99.

2 The Diodoran Passages (40.3): Pseudo-Hecataeus and the Jewish Monarchy

269

thor’s emphasis on subjects related to the military in the textual fragment explains his military interest as much as his priestly background accounts for his interest in the Temple, the cult, and, later, in priestly prostasia (i. e. the rule of priests).³¹ Finally, I wish to make one more observation which concerns the narratological structure of the work. The narrative begins with an explanation of why the Jews left Egypt and how they came to settle in Judaea. In other words, it explains the Jews’ origin. ³² The departure from Egypt and the settlement in Judaea was conducted by an illustrious man named Moses, who is the main protagonist of the piece and the founder of the Judaean nation, its capital of Jerusalem, and its Temple. The narrative further describes the Jewish constitution, emphasizing the notion that Jews ought to be governed by a high priest and thus never lived under a ruling king. We further learn of regulations concerning warfare and about military exploits of Moses. Finally, the narrative is rounded off by the note that Judaea came under foreign rule. We shall keep this narratological structure in mind as we proceed to analyze the Josephan Hecataeus passages. For the

 On the concept of priestly prostasia in the context of our Diodoran text, see D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 190, and in a more general sense, D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community,” 30 – 52.  We take note of the remarkable rendition of the Exodus story by our author, who picks up on the negative (anti-Jewish) version propagated by Manetho and others that the Jews were expelled from Egypt. Here, Pseudo-Hecataeus seems to concede to the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt by rationalizing the religious reasons of the Egyptians in doing so. This is quite a remarkable statement to make and therefore, this text has long been taken as proof against the notion that its author was a Jew. See recently, L. L. Grabbe, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 615 – 617; E. S. Gruen, “Use and Abuse,” 99; and Bar-Kochva’s comments in B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 227, 229, 232; see also D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecateaus?” 194. The presentation of the Exodus as it is found here, however, allows Pseudo-Hecataeus to elegantly avoid any explanation needed to justify an Exodus for Jews who do reside in Egypt, while he can, at the same time, claim that Jews are colonists just as the Greeks were. This on the other hand serves to express the notion that Greeks and Jews are not as different as one may think – a notion which would certainly have appealed to Hellenized Jews (or as Schwartz calls them: “Jews posing as Greeks”) as well as members of any Hellenistic audience. See D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecateaus?” 192. On the notion that celebrating the Exodus (i. e. Passover) was an embarrassing act for Egyptian Jews, see B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 280 – 282; E. S. Gruen, “Use and Abuse,” 106; and B. Bar-Kochva, The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period (Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2010) 330 – 331. Among the papyri discovered at Elephantine was one document (C 21 = TAD A4.1) dated to the year 419 BCE, the so-called “Passover-Papyrus.” This papyrus attests the celebration of the feast by Egyptian Jews in the 5th century BCE and simultaneously constitutes the earliest evidence for the celebration of the feast in that way. See A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005 [repr.]) 60 – 61; B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 280 – 282.

270

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

meantime, we adopt the preliminary conclusion that our author was Pseudo-Hecataeus, the Jewish composer of the aforementioned passages, as well as the author of several texts to which we shall turn our attention next. My analysis of the fragment preserved in Diodorus 40.3 has led us to the conclusion that he was of priestly descent and a contemporary of the Hasmonean period in Egypt. Furthermore, he seems to have been familiar with Jewish mercenary activity in which he takes much pride in his work.

3 The Josephan Passages (C. Ap. 1.186 – 204) I just concluded our discussion of the previous text (Diodorus 40.3) with a breakdown of its narrative. It therefore seems wise to commence by carrying out the same kind of examination of the Hecataean passages preserved by Josephus. Chronologically, Josephus’ text begins where Diodorus’ Hecataeus left off, namely, in the early Hellenistic period. As in the latter, the former too, commences with a story describing the whereabouts of the Jews, who, in the meantime, have returned to Egypt in the days of Ptolemy I Lagos on the initiative of a Jewish high priest by the name of Ezechias (henceforth: Ḥezekiah). The story thus constitutes an origio-story with which we are familiar from other ethnographical treatises, and which became popular at the time.³³ We learn that Ḥezekiah publically read from a scroll³⁴ containing the story of their settlement and their constitution (τὴν κατοίκισιν αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν πολιτείαν, § 189). We then find in the text a description of Jerusalem, followed by an elaborate description of the Temple, its cult, cult personnel (i. e. the priests) and appurtenances. The account is

 J. G. Gager, Moses, 36; B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 250.  διαφοράν. The term actually denotes “variance, difference, or distinction (LSJ).” Notably, that kind of translation does not make much sense in this context and therefore its reading was proposed to be emended by Lewy to διφθέραν (scroll) which fits the context much more accurately. H. Lewy, “Hekataois von Abdera,” 123. See also M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:42; D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecateaus?” 195; B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 221– 224. Capponi rejects that emendation and opts for understanding the term διαφοράν as a philosophical one denoting a characteristic, or fundamental difference of a certain species (differentia), or in this case, people (see Aristotle, Metaphysics 1057b 7; Topics 139 a 29). Cf. L. Capponi, “Ecateo di Abdera e la prima “katoikia” di Giudei in Egitto (Giuseppe, “Contro Apione” I 186 – 9),” MG 10 (2005): 236 – 238. As such, the passage would read something along the lines of: “…and explained to them all the circumstances of their people; for he had all their habitations and polity read out loud. (C. Ap. 1.189).” This in contrast to the LCL (Thackeray, C. Ap. 1.189), which renders: “…for he had in writing [on a scroll διφθέραν, M.P.] the conditions attaching to their settlement and political status.”

3 The Josephan Passages (C. Ap. 1.186 – 204)

271

rounded off by a rather long story, allegedly based on an eye-witness report of the author himself, about the exploits of a certain Mosollamus, a Jewish mounted archer (who is greatly praised for his skills [§ 201]).³⁵ In the text he ridicules the superstitious Greek belief in oracles and signs.³⁶ Here, it merely suffices to point out that the story takes place in a military milieu. What emerges from the breakdown of the text is a narratological pattern which may be outlined as follows: 1) origio 2) constitution and laws 3) a description of Jerusalem 4) a description of the Temple and its cult and priests 5) military affairs and pride in Jewish soldiers Notably, this pattern matches exactly the one we have illustrated in the Diodoran Hecataeus passage (40.3), a fact which, to my mind, provides sufficient evidence to bolster Schwartz’s view that both the Diodoran and the Josephan Hecataeus passages derive from the same hand, namely that of Pseudo-Hecataeus. Once more, let me emphasize that the Josephan fragment continues where the Diodoran fragment has left off; there are, in fact, no contradictions to be found between the two texts. Thus, Pseudo-Hecataeus provided an origio-account of the Jews since Moses and their past in Egypt (preserved in Diodorus) as well as a complementary story set in Hellenistic times (preserved in Josephus). It seems logical here to continue with the notion of pride of Jewish soldiers and the story of Mosollamus. The purpose of the story is to ridicule Greek beliefs in signs and omens, while simultaneously illustrating and strengthening the Jews’ faith in their own laws. The faith of the Jewish soldiers, mercenaries, and military settlers, who were exposed to foreigners – and thus to foreign cults too – was of particular importance to the story’s reception. In addition, and quite obviously, the story underscores the reputation of Jewish combatants  On the latter episode see also A. Kasher, “Hecataeus of Abdera on Mosollamus the Jewish Mounted Archer (“Contra Apionem”, I, 200 – 204),” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 1:147– 158. Kasher, however, strongly argued in favor of the authenticity of the passage, i. e. he claims it was Hecataeus who wrote that piece.  Although Kasher as well, concurs that Josephus used the story to bring that point across, he maintained that the story, in fact, and apparently following Lewy (“Hekataios von Abdera,” 129), should reflect and aggrandize the behavior of an educated and enlightened Greek living a philosophical life. See A. Kasher, “Mosollamus,” 156 – 158. There is, however, no need to provide so forceful an interpretation. Assuming that the author of this story was Jewish eliminates such forced interpretations.

272

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

serving in the Hellenistic armies and turns the issue of Jewish mercenarism into a matter of pride. What is of particular importance here is the military context in which the story is embedded. What strikes us is that such a story would less likely appear in any other context of shared Graeco-Jewish life in the Diaspora than that of a mercenary community. The author’s deliberate choice of a military setting for the episode is not arbitrary and says much about his origins and audience. To this I add that the story of Mosollamus is allegedly an eye-witness report (C. Ap. 1.201). While the contents of the story seem to border on fabrication, one should stress that the author maintains that it is an eyewitness account.³⁷ This, of course, is meant to enhance the credibility of the story, but it also leaves us with the impression that the author proudly associates himself with soldiery. Thus Pseudo-Hecataeus seems to carry a torch for Jews in military service in Hellenistic armies.³⁸ Moreover, we note that the military details in his story are clearly modelled on the reality of Jewish mercenaries serving in the Ptolemaic army, which, as already stated, is not surprising considering the Egyptian provenance of our author.

 Therefore, we experience the change of the persona narrator from the neutral third person to the first person singular, as has often been observed by several commentators, e. g., H. Lewy, “Hekataios von Abdera,” 130. Lewy, for instance, thought that the Mosollamus-episode is founded on a “Reisebericht” of his exploits during the Syrian War under Ptolemy I. Wacholder conjectured that the passage indeed constitutes an eye-witness report and that it was written by a native priest living in the 3rd century BCE (someone in the likes of Berussos and Manetho) and that it was intended for Ptolemy I Lagos. According to Wacholder, the report was later forgotten and attributed to Hecataeus instead, who obviously made ample use of it. B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 263. Curiously, however, Wacholder remarks too that if the text is a forgery, it should be dated to the 2nd or 1st century BCE; B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 263. See also Stern’s comments in M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:22 and B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 101, who emphasizes that the Mosollamus-episode “was certainly not written by Hecataeus.”  In this context we may add the observation that Jewish mounted archers were already renowned for their skills in early Hasmonean times, which catapults the episode closer to our proposed chronology. On Jewish mounted archers in the early Hasmonean period, see 1 Macc. 10:73, 80 and B. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 68, 72, 74. Curiously, Bar-Kochva notes that certainly after the time of Pseudo-Hecataeus, i. e. in the reign of Alexander Yannai, there were Jewish fighters trained in that skill as may be deduced from his mention of the story of Mosallamus, while we cannot be sure of the existence of Jewish mounted archers in the time of the Maccabees. B. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 74 (n. 19). Be that as it may, all we need to know is that the Mosallamus story seems to provide a chronological reference pointing to the Hasmonean period, rather than to an early Hellenistic date, which matches our (and Bar-Kochva’s) proposed chronology of the reign of Alexander Yannai for Pseudo-Hecataeus.

3 The Josephan Passages (C. Ap. 1.186 – 204)

273

This observation coincides well with the language employed by Pseudo-Hecataeus and his references in the text to the division and allotment of territories and to the establishment of settlements. The language of the work is clearly borrowed from the world of the military settlers in Ptolemaic Egypt: κατεκληρούχησε; ποίησας κλήρους (Diodorus 40.3.7); τὴν κατοίκισιν (C. Ap. 1.189), in particular the reference to arourae (C. Ap. 1.195), a territorial measure popular in the Ptolemaic period which appears in the context of land distributions of military settlers in several extant (Jewish) papyri.³⁹ The presence of such a vocabulary again suggests that Pseudo-Hecataeus himself may have originated in a milieu of Jewish mercenaries in Ptolemaic Egypt during the Hasmonean era. If indeed Pseudo-Hecataeus had such a background, we can further understand the emphasis of the details referred to above and the general Sitz im Leben of the text. In assuming a Hasmonean dating of Pseudo-Hecataeus based on the above-mentioned chronological considerations, we may combine this assumption with the military references in our text and further suggest that Jews were still prominently represented in the Ptolemaic army (which ceased to be so with the introduction of Roman rule of Egypt in ca. 30 BCE).⁴⁰ Since the Diodoran passage, which, I contend, derives from the same author, shows traces of opposition to the assumption of the royal title by the Hasmoneans in the years 104/103 BCE (or a short while later), we can therefore narrow down the dating of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ text to the same date (i. e., ca. 104/ 103 – 30 BCE). This dating would certainly be relevant to those who believe that the royal title was first assumed by Aristobulus I, and/or 95/ 94/3 – 30 BCE to those, including myself, who are of the conviction that Alexander Yannai was the first Hasmonean king of Judaea.⁴¹

 See e. g. CPJ 24; P. Köln Inv. 21041 (Politeuma # 8); P. Vindob. G. 57704 (Politeuma # 12). On Jewish military settlers in Ptolemaic Egypt see Chapter 12. Capponi, in my view correctly, identifies Josephus’ Pseudo-Hecacateus passage as a report on the foundation of a Jewish military colony in Egypt. We only disagree with regard to her proposed date and context for the story. L. Capponi, “Ecateo di Abdera,” 233 – 240.  See G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 35 – 36 and L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province (New York and London: Routledge, 2005) 19, 22– 23.  Compare B. Bar-Kochva’s proposed date of 107 or 103/102– 96 BCE for the Josephan fragment of Pseudo-Hecataeus. B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 122, 139. On the question of the identity of the first Hasmonean monarch, see: BJ 1.70//Ant. 13.301. There are good reasons to doubt this datum. The first is a statement by Strabo (Geographica 16.2.40) that clearly negates Josephus’ note in Ant. 13.301 that Aristobulus I first assumed kingship and, instead, attributes the assumption of the royal title to Alexander Yannai and not to his brother. In support of this piece of literary evidence, we should add the numismatic evidence which corroborates the assumption that Yannai was the first Hasmonean king. See E. Main, Les Sadducéens et l’origine des partis Juifs de

274

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

We next turn to the issue of the importance of the Temple and the priesthood in the Diodoran and Josephan Pseudo-Hecataeus passages, as well as to the references to Jerusalem. Regarding the latter, we observe that Jerusalem is referred to in both texts (Diodorus 40.3.3 and C. Ap. 1.196 – 197) simply as city (πόλις) in contrast to other contemporary sources, referring to it as “mother-city,” or as the “Metropolis of the Jews⁴².” Moreover, Jerusalem is designated as the capital of Judaea and is accordingly described so in C. Ap. 1.196. But, as many commentators have stressed, the geographical excursus on Jerusalem and Judaea was written by someone who seems to have never set foot on that territory, for the descriptions of the country and the city are defective.⁴³ Clearly, we would expect a geographical excursus in an ethnographic composition entitled ‘On the Jews.’ Moreover, that excursus serves to fulfill yet another requirement dictated by the ethnographic genre, namely to refer to the religion of a people, which is, in the case of the Jews, centered on the Temple and its cult. But Pseudo-Hecataeus does not introduce the subject of the Temple merely due to formal necessities; it seems to be of chief concern for him.⁴⁴

la période du second temple (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2004) 375 – 389 (esp. 384– 387). We may add two more observations which allow us to doubt Josephus’ claim. One is Josephus’ own statement in Ant. 14.44, in which we hear that the members of a Jewish delegation to Pompey speak about the royal title as assumed by Aristobulus’ II father (i. e., Yannai). The second is a text from Qumran (4Q425[4QPseudo-Daniel]) that constitutes a list of Jewish high priests and kings. There, intriguingly, the last mentioned high priest is Aristobulus I, while the individual that heads the list of kings is Alexander Yannai. See M. O. Wise, “4Q425 and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” DSD 12 (2005): 339. On the question of the historicity of the assumption of kingship by Aristobulus I, see also e. g. E. Schürer The History of the Jewish People, 1: 217 (and there n. 5), 219; M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:307 (n. 40). For these reasons, I prefer the 95/94– 93 BCE dating of Pseudo-Hecataeus based on the date of the assumption of the kingship by Yannai.  See e. g. Philo In Flaccum 42– 43 and Leg. ad Gaium 241 (μητρόπολις) and S. Pearce, “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-City’ in the writings of Philo of Alexandria,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, ed. by J. M. G. Barclay (London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004) 19 – 37. Note that also the author of 2 Maccabees conceives of Jerusalem as “the city” (ἡ πόλις), see on this issue D. R. Schwartz, 2 Maccabees, 3 – 7.  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 145 – 146 and see M. Stern’s comments in GLAJJ, 1:30. Lewy has stressed that the description of the Jerusalem and the Temple corresponds with idealized Greek perceptions of how a city and a temple should look and be proportioned. H. Lewy, “Hekataios von Abdera,” 126, 128.  That Pseudo-Hecataeus reveals a strong interest in the Temple and that he exhibits great knowledge of it and its cult is also stressed by Bar-Kochva (Pseudo-Hecataeus, 113, 160 – 161). Regarding the literary conventions of ethnographic compositions and their relation to PseudoHecataeus’ composition see B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 220, 250. On the genre of ancient ethnographies, see K. Türdinger, Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie

3 The Josephan Passages (C. Ap. 1.186 – 204)

275

The description of Jerusalem and its Temple, should not, however, imply a strong affinity of Egyptian Jews to Jerusalem. We recall that our author was obliged to include a presentation of Jerusalem, the capital of the Jews’ country of origin, in his ethnographic treatise. It further seems that his (geographical) description of the city (apart from being flawed, as we have seen) is rather neutral and, in fact, refrains from emphasizing any superiority of Jerusalem vis-à-vis other locations of Jewish residence.⁴⁵ Coming to describe the city’s sanctuary, the author becomes far more enthusiastic, which may be similarly interpreted to express Jewish Diasporan fervor for the Temple. I suggest here too that, instead of understanding the references as an unanimous expression of loyalty to the Jerusalem Temple by Diasporan Jews, what stands behind those enthusiastic passages on the Temple and (especially) its cult, is the enthusiasm of someone for whom the Temple (or more likely a temple) formed an integral part of his daily routine. The only person who would fit such a profile, as we have noted above, would be a priest. In view of the fact that Diaspora Judaism usually distinguishes itself from Judaean Judaism, it is the former’s lack of a holy place on which the priesthood is centered that stands out (with one exception, namely that of Onias’ Temple in Egypt). Now, keeping in mind that our author resided in the Egyptian Diaspora and is personally interested in the cult and worship at a temple, and also in mercenaries, there is another alternative to explain this phenomenon: The great enthusiasm for the Temple and its cult, paired with a rather neutral stance vis-à-vis Jerusalem, lack of familiarity with Judaean geography, and praise for mercenaries fighting with Greeks, seems to point to and could best be explained by an association of our author with the Oniad Temple and its priesthood.

(Basel: E. Birkhäuser, 1918); A. Dihle, “Zur Hellenistischen Ethnographie,” in Grecs et barbares: Six exposés et discussions, ed. by H. Schwabl (et al.) (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 8; Vandoeuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1962) 205 – 239; K. E. Müller, Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung: Von den Anfängen bis auf die byzantinischen Historiographen (2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1972– 1980).  All that is actually said about Jerusalem in the Diodoran text is that the city was renowned (40.3.3). We also note that the passage that glorifies Jerusalem and describes it as “inhabited from remote ages” and “of great beauty and extent” (C. Ap. 1.196) are Josephus’ own words. Pseudo-Hecataeus’ citation supplied by Josephus is actually quite clinical: “The Jews have many fortresses and villages in different parts of the country, but only one fortified city… they call it Jerusalem (C. Ap. 1.197).”

276

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

4 Was Pseudo-Hecataeus an Oniad Jew? A critic of this idea might point out that although Pseudo-Hecataeus’ treatise ‘On the Jews’ is a work written in the Jewish-Egyptian Diaspora and displays characteristics I have identified as reflecting a corresponding Sitz im Leben, it fails to make explicit mention of the Oniad Temple.⁴⁶ However, apart from the indications mentioned above, there remains a pièce de résistance; one specific passage that seems to enforce the notion that Pseudo-Hecataeus was indeed an Oniad priest. This particular passage is rendered by Josephus in C. Ap. 1.186 – 189 and appears to contain a tradition modeled on the Oniad Temple’s founder, Onias III.⁴⁷ The passage reads as follows: Hecataeus goes on to say that after the battle of Gaza Ptolemy became master of Syria,⁴⁸ and that many of the inhabitants, hearing of his kindliness and humanity,⁴⁹ desired to accompany him to Egypt and to associate themselves with his realm (§ 186). Among these (he says) was Ezechias [sic], a chief priest (ἀρχιερεύς) of the Jews, a man of about sixty-six years of age, highly esteemed by his countrymen, intellectual, and moreover an able speaker and unsurpassed as a man of business (§ 187). Yet (he adds) the total number of Jewish

 Regarding Pseudo-Hecataeus’ origin and Sitz im Leben, see B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 250 – 252.  This hypothesis, admittedly, is not new and has already been proposed by H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 31– 32; 80 – 82. Willrich contended that the story is an anachronistic version of the emigration of Onias and his followers to Egypt and their settlement at Heliopolis at the time of the religious persecutions by Antiochus IV. Ḥezekiah, thus, is a pseudonym of Onias III and elsewhere, Willrich coins Pseudo-Hecataeus “den Leontopolitaner Pseudo-Hekataios” (H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 166). See against this view, B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 90, although he acknowledges that it is “highly probable” that the migration and settlement of Onias had some influence on the shaping of the Ḥezekiah story (B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 91– 91), which is essentially what we are saying too.  In ca. 312 BCE, see G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 19 – 20.  Compare the Letter of Aristeas 12– 13 and Ant. 12.3 – 10, where Ptolemy I is not praised in that way; rather to the contrary: it is said of him that he was the exact opposite of what his attribute soter (savior) (Ant. 12.3) suggests and that he was cruel, deceitful, and cunning. By means of comparison, view Lagos’ characterization by Agetharchides of Cnidus apud Josephus in C. Ap. 1.209 – 11. What distinguishes Pseudo-Hecataeus’ account from the ones cited above is that Pseudo-Hecataeus underlines the Jew’s voluntary exile, whereas the other accounts emphasize the forced immigration of the Jews to Egypt. See also C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. I: Historians, (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983) 325 (n. 10). Note that Gruen claimed that Pseudo-Hecataeus’ treatise is part of a process by later Jews in Egypt to tidy up the unflattering details about the early Jewish relations with Lagos. E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 202– 203. Lewy notes that the praise of Ptolemy I Lagos’ character is reiterated in very similar detail by Hieronymus of Cardia (Diodorus 19.86). H. Lewy, “Hekataios von Abdera,” 121.

4 Was Pseudo-Hecataeus an Oniad Jew?

277

priests who receive a tithe⁵⁰ of the revenue and administer public affairs is about fifteen hundred (§ 188).⁵¹ Reverting to Ezechias he says: ‘This man, after obtaining this honour 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 writing⁵² the conditions attaching to their settlement and political status’ (§ 189).⁵³

Having noted that Pseudo-Hecataeus wrote at a much later time than he purports, namely sometime in the Hasmonean period, and considering the contents of the story now cited, we note that the story bears a strong resemblance to the story of Onias’ (III) flight to Egypt in the wake of the Seleucid invasion of Jerusalem and the defilement of the Temple in 169/168 BCE.⁵⁴ First of all, let us state the obvious: both figures are designated as high priests and both came to Egypt. However, while Ḥezekiah’s exile is reported to have been absolutely voluntary, Onias’ was forced. Did our author embellish this account? Indeed, that seems to be the case, for we shall see that, what is portrayed in Pseudo-Hecataeus’ story is, of course, tendentious and designed to convey a certain message to readers. Pseudo-Hecataeus wished to convey the following messages by means of this story: First, that “all is fine” for Jews in Egypt, and second, that a Jewish presence and residence in Egypt is legitimate. The legitimacy of Jewish presence in Egypt is chiefly expressed in § 189 and is, for that matter, the whole point of the narrative. Nonetheless, we find that this statement appears to be rather forced.⁵⁵

 Another anachronism in the text, which, according to several scholars, betrays the chronological setting of the Hasmonean period. M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:41– 42; C. R. Holladay, Fragments, 326 (n. 13); B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 159. The custom of tithing was in practice before the Exile, when tithe was given to the Levites, who in turn exerted a tenth to the priests, see Num 18:21, 24; 2Chr. 31:2– 10; Neh 10:38 – 39; 12:44;13:5, 10. After the Maccabean revolt, however, this custom changed; see Ant. 20.181, 206; Vita 63, 80; Heb 7:5; Philo Virt. 95. But see against that notion, J. G. Gager, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 137– 138.  That number is highly polished. See M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:42 and C. R. Holladay, Fragments, 327 (n. 14). What is of note here is that our author wishes to emphasize that a substantial number of priests accompanied him to Egypt. Note Ant. 13.73, where it is implied that Onias fled with a substantial number of priests from Jerusalem to Egypt, too.  See above, n. 34.  C. Ap. 1.186 – 189, Thackeray’s translation (LCL).  BJ 1.31– 33.  That the legitimization of Jewish residence in Egypt is the chief purpose of the incorporation of the Ḥezekiah-story is underlined by Bar-Kochva, see B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 219 – 233, 251.

278

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

We are perhaps now tempted to ask: If all is promising for Egyptian Jewry, why has Pseudo-Hecataeus’ Ḥezekiah reminded his followers to remain in Egypt and enjoy all the privileges they have apparently attained, when everybody came there by their own free will? As has been conjectured earlier, this reminder reads more like an attempt to convince or promote. Clearly, this passage is designed to do exactly that, namely to reinforce and encourage those who might have come to Egypt in less of a voluntary spirit.⁵⁶ In this context we may refer to the Deuteronomistic prohibition (Deut 17:16) of returning to Egypt, which surely must have been a sore spot for Jews residing in Egypt, and a factor to consider for those who planned to move there.⁵⁷ True, as Bar-Kochva has claimed, the Ḥezekiah-story was aimed at legitimizing and justifying Jewish residence in Egypt essentially for conservative Jews.⁵⁸ However, we are perhaps more likely to presume that the story was aimed at a different audience altogether, namely at political refuges, asylum seekers, and/or those seeking a better life or job opportunity. Markedly, these conditions, if we shift from a literary to a historical viewpoint, suit the situation of Onias and his followers upon their arrival in Egypt.⁵⁹ The targeted audience of this story is thus twofold: First, it must have been directed at Jews, primarily residing in Judaea, who opposed and/or considered emigration to Egypt, while at the same time serving as a legitimization of Jewish presence in Egypt. In addition, it sought to comfort those Jews who had already

 See also B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 79, who stresses that not even the pro-Ptolemaic Letter of Aristeas contains a note on friendly relations between Ptolemy I Lagos and the Jews. Nor does it record a voluntary immigration in Lagos’ day. Moreover, Bar-Kochva wonders whether a 66-year-old high priest from Jerusalem would simply pack his bags and emigrate to Egypt at free will, especially if there is a biblical commandment prohibiting such a project (p. 234– 236). In that context he notes, though, that immigration was usually triggered by severe drought, deportation, or invasion from the north, but nothing of that sort would fit substantially into the time of Lagos’ reign. Our author, then, seems to have transformed the story of forced exile into one of voluntary emigration.  The verse reads: “Even so, he must not acquire many horses for himself, or return the people to Egypt in order to acquire more horses, since the LORD has said to you, ‘You must never return that way again.’ (NRSV).” Note that Philo cites this passage, but elegantly leaves out the part on Egypt, see De spec. leg. 4.158. See also J. Maier, “Grundlage und Anwendung des Verbots der Rückkehr nach Ägypten,” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (BZNW 97; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 225 – 244.  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 233 – 234, 246, 251. He also claims that the composition was written at the heyday of the Hasmonean state and that, especially in the military sector, manpower was needed in Hasmonean Judaea. Therefore, and in light of the outright success of Jewish mercenaries in Egypt, emigration was not well looked upon.  Ant. 13.63, 73.

4 Was Pseudo-Hecataeus an Oniad Jew?

279

come to Egypt, probably as (voluntary) military settlers or political refuges, and must have found life there somewhat difficult or were just simply homesick.⁶⁰ That said, let us turn to other relevant points in the story. I will begin with the person of Ḥezekiah. In our piece (§ 187), he is referred to as high priest (ἀρχιερεύς), but a high priest by that name in the age of Ptolemy I is unknown to us.⁶¹ Notably, the high priest we know to have lived during that time is one by the name of Onias, namely Onias I, Onias’ III great grandfather. However, in 1931 a coin was discovered in the Beth Zur excavations, which was believed to date to the fourth century BCE; on the coin appear the names of Ḥezekiah (‫ )חזקיהו‬and perhaps Yehoḥanan (‫)יהחנן‬.⁶² The latter was identified with Onias the high priest (Onias I), while the former was believed to have served as Onias’ treasurer.⁶³ This suggestion had a profound impact on the scholarship of Hecataeus, as scholars now began to accredit his account of the Jews’ resettlement of Egypt with some reliability.⁶⁴ The identification of Ḥezekiah with his namesake on the coin, however, is problematic, while the historicity of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ note on a high

 Compare this perception of exile/Diaspora with the one expressed in 3 Macc. 6:3, where Jews consider themselves “foreigners in a foreign land.” We recall that in Chapter 9, I have opted for an Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees and if Pseudo-Hecataeus too, shares an Oniad background, as I indeed claim here, we may identify here a common (Oniad) perception of the dilemma of exile and residence in the Diaspora. Bar-Kochva too, identified that notion in Pseudo-Hecataeus’ text. B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 245.  J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 116 – 118. No one by that name appears in our extant lists of high priests, see 1Chron 6:16 – 30; 50 – 53; Ant. 10.151– 153; 20.224– 251. Josephus mentions a Ḥezekiah, a brother of the high priest Ananias (BJ 2.429), which led Stern to assume that the Ḥezekiah mentioned by Pseudo-Hecataeus was not necessarily the high priest of Jerusalem, but rather someone belonging to a high priestly family. See M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:40. Stern reasons his conjecture by arguing that the title of high priest in the late Second Temple period, was a collective term denoting not only the holders of that office, but also members of high priestly families in general and even chief dignitaries of the Temple in Jerusalem. See also M. Stern’s unpublished Doctoral Thesis, The Great Families of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, 127– 128 [Hebrew]. While that observation is certainly valid for the late Second Temple period, our text – though found in the writings of a late Second Temple contemporary – derives from a different period altogether, namely circa mid-2nd century BCE. Stern’s argument, therefore, cannot be maintained. See also B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 84– 85, who makes the same point.  O. R. Sellers and W. F. Albright, “The First Campaign of Excavations at Beth Zur,” BASOR 43 (1931): 10.  O. R. Sellers, The Citadel of Beth Zur: A Preliminary Report of the First Excavation Conducted by the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Chicago, and the American School of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, in 1931 at Khirbat et Tubeiqa (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1933) 73 – 74.  View C. R. Holladay, Fragments, 325 – 326 (n. 11) and see e. g. M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 46 (n. 163); B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 267, and there n. 27.

280

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

priest named Ḥezekiah, who flourished in Ptolemy’s I Lagos time, still remains doubtful. Some numismatists have rejected the reading of Yehoḥanan (‫)יהחנן‬ on the coin in favor of adopting the new reading: Yehud (‫)יהוד‬.⁶⁵ This new conclusion is bolstered by other coin-finds from that period that also featured a Ḥezekiah; this time however, in connection with the Persian administrative title Peḥah (‫)פחה‬. This discovery corroborates the notion that Ḥezekiah was not a high priest, but the governor of Judaea in the Persian period.⁶⁶ The new numismatic evidence, which seriously jeopardizes the identification of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ Ḥezekiah with the one on the coins, however, still did not convince some scholars, who argue that the rule of Judaea in the Persian and early Hellenistic time was divided into two separate offices, namely that of high priest (who was in charge of religious matters and the Temple), and that of governor (who would ultimately allow Ḥezekiah the high priest to come to Egypt).⁶⁷ The only problem with this hypothesis, is that it fails to explain why the governor Ḥezekiah appears as the high priest Ḥezekiah in Pseudo-Hecataeus’ work. This conflict may be circumvented by claiming that, while the governor Ḥezekiah indeed could have come to Egypt in Lagos’ time, he could later have been referred to as a high priest by the local people.⁶⁸ This assumption also implies, however, that Ḥezekiah (the former governor of Judaea) retained his high political position in Egypt too. This statement of course cannot be proven, and

 See for instance E. L. Sukenik, “Paralipomena Palaestinensia,” JPOS 14 (1934): 178 – 184; A. Reifenberg, Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1947) 9, 39; L. Mildenberg, “Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of Judaea,” in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed. by O. Mørkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren: NR, 1979) 183 – 196 (and plates 21– 22); J. G. Gager, “Pseudo-Hecataeus Again,” ZNTW 60 (1969): 139; Dan Barag, “The Coinage of Yehud and the Ptolemies,” INJ 13 (1994– 1999): 32– 33; and see BarKochva’s elaborate discussion in Pseudo-Hecataeus, 255 – 270.  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 255 – 270.  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 86 – 87.  Bar-Kochva believes in the existence of two parallel offices during the Persian period, a secular one of governmental nature, and a religious one, namely the high priestly office. He contends that Ḥezekiah was indeed the governor of Judaea during the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods and thus a historical and known person. The reason why he was overlooked by Josephus and is thus absent from his overview of Judaean high priests, according to Bar-Kochva, is because he (only) held the position of governor. He thinks that Ḥezekiah the governor was among those led into captivity by Ptolemy I Lagos in 302/1 BCE. Shortly after his arrival in Egypt, though, he was quickly recognized as the Jews’ leader and attributed with the (honorary) title of high priest. Bar-Kochva, in this context, refers to several other Jewish traditions referring to Moses, Judas Maccabaeus, Eleazar the Martyr, and Jesus as high priest. In Bar-Kochva’s view, the Ḥezekiah story therefore, contains a historic kernel and thus served as an inspiration for Pseudo-Hecataeus. B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 88 – 90, 270.

4 Was Pseudo-Hecataeus an Oniad Jew?

281

even if it were so, it does not account for the association of Ḥezekiah to the religious office of high priest, when he is dealing with the political. We should therefore reject this identification and consider an altogether different explanation.⁶⁹ It is far more likely that the story of Ḥezekiah was modeled on a much more contemporary event by our author, namely that of the arrival of the high priest Onias III in Egypt, circa 168/167 BCE, and the circumstances of the founding of his community as a paradigm for permanent Jewish settlement in Egypt. For that matter, and as I have observed in related cases of Egyptian Jewish-Hellenistic literature such as 3 Maccabees and Joseph & Aseneth, the authors of these pieces dislocated contemporary events into the remote past in order to enhance the credibility of their stories.⁷⁰ This is undoubtedly also the case here; and we may observe this effort using the example of the crass contradiction of what we learn about Ptolemy I Lagos’ relationship with the Jews as preserved in the Letter of Aristeas and Josephus,⁷¹ for instance, as opposed to what is claimed by Pseudo-Hecataeus, namely that the Jews came voluntarily to Egypt because they heard of Lagos’ “kindness and humanity.”⁷² Why, we may then ask, did our author make this blatant change? Perhaps the most obvious answer is that he chose to place his narrative as much as possible into the remote past in order to claim that Jews began to resettle in Egypt as early as the days of the first Ptolemies, i. e. in Lagos’ time. The only obstacles he encountered were the negative traditions about the Lagos’ malicious relationship with the Jews, which our author casually brushed over by means of simple cosmetics: he only had to claim the contrary.  So also J. C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas, 117.  See below, n. 83.  The Letter of Aristeas 31 mentions that Ptolemy I Lagos forcefully transferred Judaean prisoners of war to Egypt so they could serve his purposes. Josephus, similarly, has few positive things to say about him. See for instance Ant. 12.3 – 6, where Josephus states that Lagos conquered Jerusalem by “resorting to cunning and deceit (§ 3).” Curiously, Josephus mentions in Ant. 12.9 that there were not a few other Jews who went to Egypt on their own accord “as invited by the goodness of the soil, and by the liberality of Ptolemy (Lagos, i. e., M.P.).” Bar-Kochva claims that this note was taken out of context by Josephus and in fact originally belongs to the Ḥezekiah-story. Cf. B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 226 and R. Marcus’ comment (note b) ad loc. in the LCL. Be that as it may, Bar-Kochva identified the negative tradition regarding the Jews’ arrival in Egypt – as preserved in the Letter of Aristeas – as the inspiration for the creation of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ counter-story and utilized Onias’ arrival in Egypt as a model for his version of that story. Thus, Ptolemy’s I cruel treatment of the Jews, too, was turned into philanthropia by Pseudo-Hecataeus. See B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 244, 251.  C. Ap. 1.186. On the issue of the reversal of the Jewish attitude towards Ptolemy I Lagos, B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 89, 251.

282

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

A further notable aspect of the text is the choice of the name of Ḥezekiah, the main protagonist of our story. As mentioned, many scholars were adamant to see in Ḥezekiah a historical person.⁷³ True, that behind the character indeed stands a historical person, though not Ḥezekiah. Instead, I wish to propose a literary explanation for the substitution of the name of the high priest who came to Egypt. We may recall that Ḥezekiah (reigned ca. 715 – 686 BCE) was one of the most prominent kings of Judah mentioned in the Hebrew Bible.⁷⁴ Ḥezekiah witnessed the destruction of the northern Kingdom of Israel by Sargon the Assyrian in 720 BCE and himself reigned over Judah when Jerusalem was invaded and besieged by the Assyrian Sennacherib in ca. 701 BCE. The siege was miraculously lifted by a plague that afflicted Sennacherib’s army. Isaiah (and Micah) prophesied during his reign.⁷⁵ As Josiah, Ḥezekiah is praised for having enacted religious reforms, banning the worship of foreign deities in Judah and cleansing the Temple in Jerusalem, thus restoring the worship of YHWH.⁷⁶ If we recall Onias’ fate and the function of the Ḥezekiah story in the work of Pseudo-Hecataeus, some remarkable parallels emerge.⁷⁷ Firstly, like Ḥezekiah, Onias was an antagonist to the Seleucids (= Assyrians). Also in Onias’ days, Syrians came to Jerusalem in a belligerent manner (the outcome was of course different, for the invasion of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV caused Onias’ flight to Egypt). Moreover, the Bible praises Ḥezekiah for purging the Temple from all pagan influences and cults and stresses that he performed its rededication as well. If Josephus’ report in Ant. 13.67 is reliable, which I am convinced it is, then Onias too purged a temple (a former Egyptian one dedicated to Bubastis) of the worship of a pagan deity and rededicated it to YHWH.⁷⁸ The only difference between the two is their means of coping with the Temple crisis: Onias fled to Egypt and erected a new one, while Ḥezekiah stayed on and cleansed the old one.

 Just one example is Bar-Kochva (Pseudo-Hecataeus, 251).  2Kings 18 – 21; 2Chron 29 – 33.  See my subsequent note. I have frequently pointed to the importance of Isaiah and his prophecy for Onias’ project. See in particular Chapter 12, and below, n. 79.  See also Sh. Talmon, “Biblical Traditions on Samaritan History,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press/Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 26 and there n. 85 [Hebrew].  Intriguingly, Willrich too, saw a connection between the two characters of Ḥezekiah (the king of Judah) and Onias III (the high priest) and discussed their relationship. H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 80 – 81. Willrich notes that a comparison of both characters may also account for “die Bezugnahme des Briefe schreibenden Onias auf Jesaja, der Hiskias’ [sic] Berater war (H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 81).”  So also H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 80.

4 Was Pseudo-Hecataeus an Oniad Jew?

283

Another potentially interesting observation to be made in this context is that the prophet Isaiah prophesied during Ḥezekiah’s reign. I have often referred to the importance of his prophecies for the Oniad cause, first and foremost in view of the erection of the Oniad Temple.⁷⁹ In addition, Ḥezekiah is depicted as an utterly successful and good king in Jewish tradition. And so is Pseudo-Hecataeus’ Ḥezekiah in our passage (see C. Ap. 1.187) who, as I posit, was modeled after Onias. Thus, if we consider that the story is in part concerned with promoting the constitutional constraint that Jews ought not be governed by kings, we may argue that it is the high priest Ḥezekiah/Onias, who is in fact represented as an ideal monarch.⁸⁰ What is more, just as Ḥezekiah has been represented as an ideal monarch, we find that the notion of monarchy in its royal sense can easily become oblivious. In other words, one might be inclined to ask: Who needs a king if one has a high priest equal in statesmanship, benevolence, education, and piety? It indeed seems that this is what stands behind the choice of name for the protagonist (that is, the high priest) in the story.⁸¹ It thus seems that the fate of Onias (III) was taken as a model for the character and protagonist Ḥezekiah the high priest by Pseudo-Hecataeus.⁸² As to the purpose of this comparison, I have already referred to the argument that it is common in Jewish-Hellenistic Diaspora literature to shift contemporary historical events into the remote past in order to enhance the story’s credibility.⁸³ Given that the events chronicled by Pseudo-Hecataeus refer to Onias’ III arrival

 Isa 19:18 – 19.  On the notion that the high priestly rule of Judaea in the late Persian and early Hellenistic periods should in fact be considered monarchic in the sense of single rule without any royal connotation, see D. Goodblatt, The Monarchic Principle, 6 – 7. I also employ that term in that sense here.  We may add that, just as in case of Onias’ depiction in 2 Maccabees, Ḥezekiah and Mosollamus (the Jewish mounted archer) are described by Pseudo-Hecataeus as paradigms for educated Greek gentlemen. For the case of Onias in 2 Maccabees, see S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 39 – 40. With regard to Pseudo-Hecataeus’ choice of Onias’ pseudonym for (Ḥezekiah), we note that the name seems to have been quite popular among Jews, as indicated by its 26 occurrences listed by T. Ilan in her Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:96 (our Ḥezekiah is no. 18 on Ilan’s list). This observation weakens the argument that we need to identify Pseudo-Hecataeus’ Ḥezekiah with the one on the Beth Zur coins. The name Ḥezekiah simply enjoyed great popularity at the time. Note for instance, that two individuals with the name Ḥezekiah are listed among the translators of the LXX in the Letter of Aristeas (47). But, in spite of the apparent popularity of the name, we still maintain that the name Ḥezekiah was chosen deliberately and bears deeper implications.  This assumption is shared by Bar-Kochva, although he denies an Oniad authorship altogether. B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 147, 166, 244, 247.  S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 51.

284

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

in Egypt sometime in the years 168/167 BCE, this explanation can be put to work to elucidate why we find the story in the historical context of Ptolemy I Lagos. However, this explanation is only a partial one, since we should consider too, why the composition was written in the first place, and of course, by whom. But first, and to return to the question of the aim of the story, I have already illustrated that, next to a constitutional concern, the story is deeply interested in legitimizing Jewish residence and Jewish life in Egypt among non-Jewish Greeks and Egyptians. Of note is that the treatise seeks to defend Jewish residence in Egypt on two fronts, namely vis-à-vis fellow Jews (presumably mostly of Judaean origin) and vis-à-vis Greeks (and Egyptians), all of whom opposed Jewish residence in Egypt. The treatise underscores that Jews are perfectly and comfortably embedded in their Diasporan life in Egypt since, so the author claims, the Jews originated there.⁸⁴ Living in Egypt too, does not militate against rigorously following Jewish law and the willingness to defend it by laying down one’s lives for it.⁸⁵ Concerning the relationship between Jews and Greeks, we take note that the treatise highlights the point that some Jews even went to Greece as colonists together with Cadmus and Danaus, while others went to Judaea (Diodorus 40.3.2). This was obviously introduced to reinforce the view that Jews and Greeks not only get along well with each other, but share a common heritage.⁸⁶ The Ḥezekiah story, we recall, is deliberately placed into the chronological context of the time and reign of Ptolemy I in order to promote the view that not only were Jews welcomed since his reign, but they were also present in Egypt ever since the first days of the Ptolemaic dynasty.⁸⁷ In addition to that, the story of Ḥezekiah’s arrival not only legitimizes the foundation of Jewish settlements (the meaning of which most probably refers to military settlements),⁸⁸ but also seeks to explain the prominence and overall presence of Jewish administrators

 Diodorus 40.3.1– 2; See also D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 191– 192; B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 252; this is Gruen’s general persception of the Jewish Diaspora, cf. E. S. Gruen, Diaspora, passim.  C. Ap. 1.190; D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 33.  D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 191– 192; R. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, 45 – 47.  D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 196.  See also L. Capponi, “Ecateo di Abdera,” 233 – 240. Capponi, however, argues in favor of the authenticity of the passage, i. e. she thinks that it is originally Hecataeus of Abdera’s report, as she frequently emphasizes. Capponi, “Ecateo di Abdera,” e. g. 234, 238. Overall, she considers the passage as a genuine and historical source for the establishment of the first Jewish military settlements in Egypt, sponsored by Ptolemy I Lagos.

5 Who wrote ‘On the Jews’?

285

in the Ptolemaic government and court.⁸⁹ This brings us finally to the question of the identity of the author of ‘On the Jews.’

5 Who wrote ‘On the Jews’? We have already seen that the treatise, ‘On the Jews,’ was the work of an Egyptian Diaspora Jew, who is designated in modern scholarship as Pseudo-Hecataeus. Because of his eager interest in the Temple, in priests and high priests, as well as his interest in the cult, some scholars have argued that Pseudo-Hecataeus was himself a priest.⁹⁰ In addition to the claim of Pseudo-Hecataeus-as-priest, we have noted his keen interest in military subjects and his admiration for Jewish mercenaries, which strongly suggests that he shared a Jewish mercenary background with his literary heroes, such as Mosallamus. Combining our observations, we thus understand that we are dealing with an Egyptian Jewish priest with an obvious familiarity with the Temple cult, who seems to have a mercenary background, and who lived and wrote sometime in the Hasmonean period. The most appropriate background that serves this kind of profile is Onias’ Temple and its community.⁹¹ Although this is the most obvious conclusion to be drawn from our ob-

 B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 240 – 241.  See n. 19 above and D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 194, who stresses that Diodorus’ text focuses on high priests, just as Josephus’ text focuses on a high priest as well. This is of course quite telling in view of our proposed assumption that both texts are interrelated and stem from the same author. But let us note here that the author of Diodorus’ Hecataeus passages describes characteristics, which are associated with priests at that time; first and foremost, the notion of the priestly prophetic ability and the related ability to expound scripture. See also F. R. Walton, “The Messenger of God in Hecataeus of Abdera,” HTR 48 (1955): 255 – 257. For parallel assumptions at Qumran, see F. García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without a Temple,” 303 – 322; and in the case of Josephus, J. Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” JJS 25 (1974): 239 – 262.  Although Bar-Kochva concedes that the Ḥezekiah story was modeled on the events of Onias’ flight to Egypt (see n. 82 above), he stresses at the same time that Pseudo-Hecataeus seemingly polemicized against Onias’ Temple. He identifies traces of anti-Oniad sentiments in a note in C. Ap. 1.199 that accentuates the fact that the Jerusalem Temple was void of votive offerings. According to BJ 7.428, by contrast, Josephus speaks of votive offerings that were displayed at Onias’ Temple and that observation, in Bar-Kochva’s view, reflects a condemnation of Onias’ Temple. He furthermore finds confirmation for “the absolute commitment of Egyptian Jewry to the Temple in the Holy Land” in Pseudo-Hecataeus’ detailed account of the Jerusalem Temple, its cult object, and practices (§§ 198 – 199) and an aversion against local temples in the Diaspora. Cf. B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 147, 166, 247. With regard to the votive offerings dis-

286

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

servations, there are indeed more indications pointing to an Oniad origin of Pseudo-Hecataeus.

6 On Moses in Judaea and How to Bury a Jew I wish to draw attention to two more details in Pseudo-Hecataeus’ treatise ‘On the Jews’ (including the Diodoran passage) which in my view allude to the author’s possible Oniad background. The first hint of this involves a detail about Moses’ handling of affairs in Judaea (40.3.3) and the second one is a rather fleeting note about the burial customs of the Jews (40.3.8). Our first note (40.3.3) addresses Moses’ division of the population of Judaea into twelve tribes, which is said to correspond with the months of the year. The noteworthiness of this passage is not related to Moses’ division of the population but rather to the text’s reference to the months of the year; that is, here we find the presence of a calendrical issue. The twelve months of the year signify a calendar based on the sun, such as that used by the Qumran community and, important for our discussion, in Egypt.⁹² Since Diodorus 40.3 connects Moses with Egypt, it is hardly surprising to find an allusion concerning the sun-calendar in an Egyptian context, because it is a known fact that the solar-calendar was prominent there. But there is good reason to assume that the sun-calendar was used in Onias’ Temple too, as we shall see in Chapter 12.⁹³ Given that the author, whom I believe to have originated from the Onias community, emphasizes the issue of the calendar, is thus quite revealing. In that context we note too, that calendarical issues involved controversy between the Qumran community and the Hasmoneans in Jerusalem.⁹⁴ Therefore, the allusion to the solar-calendar in 40.3.3 may be read in a somewhat polemical context of Oniad criticism of Hasmonean practices, tangible all throughout Pseudo-Hecataeus’ piece.

played in Onias’ Temple and the alleged lack thereof in the Jerusalem Temple, it suffices to draw attention to a passage in 2 Maccabees (5:15 – 16) that specifically mentions that votive offerings were presented in the Jerusalem Temple too. Therefore, Bar-Kochva’s argument – which, as we note, is the only one referring to an alleged antagonism against Onias’ Temple in this context – should be rejected.  See M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 171– 190.  Chapter 12, pp. 386 – 389 (“The Sun: Same Calendar, Same Community?”).  The literature on that issue is quite extensive. It suffices to refer to L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York/London: Doubleday, 1995) 120, 304– 306 and J. C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London/New York: Routlegde, 1998) 43 – 70.

6 On Moses in Judaea and How to Bury a Jew

287

This brings us to our second and last point, which involves a note on Jewish burial practice. In 40.3.8., our author states: “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.”⁹⁵ Despite the fact that references to a people’s burial and marriage practices constituted somewhat of a sine qua non in ethnographical treatises,⁹⁶ we take note of the fact that our author finds it worthy to accentuate that Jews gradually changed their traditional burial customs due to their exposure to foreign customs and culture. In other words, Jews slowly assimilated to the burial customs of their surrounding cultures, which – in case of Hellenistic Egypt – were Greek and Egyptian. Moreover, we discover that our author seems to be very lenient toward the issue of assimilation and reveals no negative attitudes against, or condemnation of, the new and foreign environment of the Jews in the text. Keeping in mind the likelihood of an Oniad background of our author, we notice a similarly permissive attitude regarding Jewish burial customs at Tell el-Yahoudieh, one of the Oniad settlements.⁹⁷ Several funeral epitaphs illustrate quite clearly that the Jews laid to rest there were not afraid of their surrounding Graeco-Egyptian culture. This becomes evident from several facts. Firstly, the cemetery seems to have been of mixed nature;⁹⁸ secondly, all the funerary epi-

 M. Stern, GLAJJ, 1:26 – 29 (# 11).  B. Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 220. See also F. H. Diamond, “Mosaic Constitution,” 85, who considers the reference to the difference in marriage and burial customs a topos of cultural-historical writings of the day and claims that it was only introduced in order to arouse and enhance the reader’s attention and curiosity. She also contends that the institution of those customs, according to Aristotle (Pol. 1334b 29), fall into the province of the lawgiver (F. H. Diamond, “Mosaic Constitution,” 90). Curiously, Gruen, who denied the possibility that the Diodoran Hecataeus passage could have been authored by a Jew who had lived later than is suggested by the chronological context of the work, on the other hand, notes that the reference to the burial custom derives from Diodorus himself. He correctly observes that in Hecataeus’ time, i. e. in the late 4th century BCE, he would not have been in any position to assess the effects of Macedonian rule. E. S. Gruen, “Use and Abuse,” 117 (n. 38). Gmirkin similarly remarks that the description of marriage and burial customs cannot stem from Hecataeus, but from Theophanes of Mytilene’s treatise on the customs of the Jews in Pompey’s days. Cf. R. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, 58 – 59. While that would explain our authors “anachronistic” reflection on the change of these customs in the Hellenistic period, it still fails to explain the slightly commiserative undercurrent of that note, which could only have come from a Jew and hardly from a Gentile.  For relevant literature and the discussion of the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh, see Chapter 6.  T. Ilan, “The New Jewish Inscriptions,” 79 – 80.

288

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

taphs found at the cemetery are composed in Greek – the language of their Graeco-Egyptian abode; thirdly, many of the funerary-texts were in some way or another influenced by Greek culture (i. e., be it that they were written in metric rhymes or that they refer to Greek religious concepts such as Hades); and finally, some scholars have even identified Egyptian burial practices applied by Jews.⁹⁹ Of course, I do not claim that the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh is the only Jewish cemetery in Hellenistic-Roman Egypt that exhibits signs of Hellenistic-Roman influence. For that matter, I point to the rather passive attitude witnessed by our author in a context which only strengthens our proposal of his Oniad origin. As I have attempted to show, assuming an Oniad background of our author (even for Diodorus’ text of Hecataeus) helps to elucidate and further understand these references.

7 The Date and Purpose of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ ‘On the Jews’ I have previously remarked, together with Bar-Kochva, that the time of composition of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ work should be situated in the Hasmonean period.¹⁰⁰ No doubt that one ample objective of the composition is concerned with promoting a certain outlook on how a proper Jewish constitution should work, namely the conviction that Jews should be ruled by a high priest and not by a king (as the author anachronistically emphasizes by stating that the Jews never had a king). That datum is best to be placed into a historical context in which such a debate is of immediate concern. And the most suitable moment for such constitutional debates in the Hasmonean period was the assumption of kingship by either Aristobulus I or Alexander Yannai, i. e. either in 104/103 BCE or in 95/ 94– 3.¹⁰¹ Once more, I, for the reasons stated above (n. 41), prefer the later dating. Now, the assumption of kingship by Alexander Yannai caused an array of reactions, which were in most cases negative in nature, and at worst resulted in the outbreak of an extremely bloody and strenuous civil war.¹⁰² Such an outcome emerges from our extant sources which express condemnation of the juxtaposition of the religious, holy office of the high priesthood with the mundane

 D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 169, 182.  A few anachronistic statements in the text bespeak that conclusion. Chief among them is the notion that the Sitz im Leben of our author is in a world in which Judaea was an independent state. See e. g. C. Ap. 1.193 and B. Bar-Kochva’s comments in Pseudo-Hecataeus, 97, 101.  See above, n. 41.  Ant. 13.372– 383.

7 The Date and Purpose of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ ‘On the Jews’

289

and profane, royal one.¹⁰³ Notably, all our sources pertaining to that issue are of Judaean origin, which perhaps should not surprise us, for it is there where such a change had the most immediate and most relevant impact. In view of this, of course, one might be interested in how such a change was perceived by the Jews of the Diaspora. I have assumed that the provocative statement in Diodorus 40.3.5 that the Jews never had a king is contemporary to the events in Judaea and was not authored a few centuries earlier as is usually assumed. Consequently, this text should be considered a valuable source exhibiting a reaction towards the assumption of the royal title by the Hasmoneans stemming from one particular stratum of the Egyptian Diaspora. I have identified that particular stratum with the milieu of the Oniad Temple. Given that we may assume that high priests, who belong to the ruling class in power, would categorically reject any loss of, or deposition from their ruling power, the suggestion of an Oniad background of the text becomes all the more reasonable. Thus, we experience here an adherence to the idea that only high priests (or priests in general) are ordained by God to rule over the people, the cult, and political affairs in general, because only they are God’s true representatives. That view is notably consistent with the one which Josephus (who was a proud priest himself) seeks to promote with his concept of theocracy. We may further argue that this concept was widely accepted and embraced by the members of the Jewish priesthood, regardless of location.¹⁰⁴ What does all of this mean for this treatise and our author? Having established that our author, a priest from the Oniad Temple, was scorned by Hasmonean rulers who assumed a secular royal office next to the holy one of the high priest, the composition of this work should be seen as a reaction to the events in Judaea. We may even go as far as to propose that the treatise was destined to be sent to Jerusalem and constitutes some sort of reminder to the Hasmoneans of how the Jews should traditionally be governed. In fact, we know of a comparable  See for example: The Psalms of Solomon; the baraita in B Kiddushin 66a; Pesher Nahum (4Q169 [4QpNah]), 3 – 4 1, 6 – 11. Regarding the latter source, see H. Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids / Jerusalem: Eerdmans and Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2008) 117– 131.  C. Ap. 2.164– 167. On Josephus’ conception of the Jewish “politeia,” see D. R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community,” 30 – 52; Y. Amir, “‘θεοκρατία as a Concept of Political Philosophy,” 83 – 105; H. Cancik, “Theokratie und Priesterherrschaft,” 65 – 77; T. Rajak, “The “Against Apion” and the Continuities in Josephus’s Political Thought,” 222– 246; S. Mason, “Introduction to the Judean Antiquities,” in L.H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1 – 4, Translation and Commentary, Vol. III, ed. by S. Mason. (BJP 3; Leiden: Brill, 2000) xxiv-xxxii.

290

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

example from Qumran. The so-called 4QMMT (Miqṣat Ma’ase ha-Torah [“Some Precepts of the Law”], also known as the Halakhic Letter) is a letter believed to have been written by the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ to his rival, the ‘Wicked Priest’ and his supporters.¹⁰⁵ The letter was written at a time of friction between the Qumran community and the Judaean political and religious establishment in Jerusalem. Its purpose was to call to its addressees to recognize and correct their shortcomings, which concerned different legal aspects of purity and the cult.¹⁰⁶ As I assume in the case of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ treatise too, 4QMMT’s recipient was an influential member of the Judaean ruling class and almost certainly a Hasmonean ruler. Which ruler was the intended recipient of the letter is still disputed, but there are strong arguments speaking in favor of Jonathan the Hasmonean (153/2– 143/2 BCE).¹⁰⁷ That official letters were often exchanged between Judaea and the Egyptian Diaspora becomes evident from several instances; ¹⁰⁸ one being our previous example (Chapter 9) from 2 Maccabees (1:1– 9; 1:10 – 2:19). It thus seems reasonable to assume that Pseudo-Hecataeus’ treatise could also have been designated for dispatch to Judaea. Be that as it may, the terminus post quem for the treatise is to be fixed in the wake of the assumption of kingship by Alexander Yannai sometime after the years 95/94 – 3 BCE, and should be seen as a critical Oniad reaction to those events.

 The literature on this text is quite extensive. See e. g. E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqṣat Ma’as’e Ha-Torah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994); L. H. Shiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 83 – 95; H. Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 41– 48 [Hebrew]; S. D. Fraade, “To Whom It May Concern: 4QMMT and Its Addressee(s),” RQ 19 (2000): 507– 526. Fraade has proposed that 4QMMT constitutes a pseudo-letter and is only external in style, while it was really intended to serve the purpose of enforcing and promoting the described halakhic regulations within the Qumran sect itself, most probably predominantly directed at newcomers of the sect (S. D. Fraade, “To Whom It May Concern,” 524– 525). This assumption, though, is not convincing.  See L. H. Shiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 83 – 87.  H. Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State, 29 – 61.  See e. g. Ben Sira 1:1; Greek (LXX) Esther 10:3; and M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus 3, 241– 243.

8 Conclusion

291

8 Conclusion Let us summarize our findings: (1) The extant fragments of Pseudo-Hecataeus preserved by Diodorus (40.3) and Josephus (C. Ap. 1. 183 – 204) belong to the same literary unit and derive from a larger ethnographic treatise titled ‘On the Jews.’ (2) The treatise’s aims were two-fold: first, to legitimize and defend Jewish residence in the Egyptian Diaspora against attitudes to the contrary prevalent in Hasmonean-ruled Judaea; and second, to defend Jewish presence in Egypt vis-à-vis the Greek and native Egyptian population which scorned the Jewish presence in Egypt and their success. (3) Another purpose of the treatise was to reinforce a constitutional notion concerned with stressing the predominance of the high priest as the designated ruler of the state (and the Temple), as opposed to a king. The treatise, which was composed during the years in which Alexander Yannai assumed kingship (95/94– 3 BCE), constitutes a reaction toward that constitutional change and may even have been written and dispatched to Jerusalem for that specific purpose. (4) In terms of authorship, Pseudo-Hecataeus’ profile strongly points to an Oniad milieu. He was an Egyptian Jew of priestly pedigree with an apparently first-hand knowledge of (and interest in) the temple and its cult. Moreover, he exhibits a profound admiration and interest in military workings and Jewish soldiers, which may be best explained by assuming that the author came from a Jewish military settlement. Perhaps my strongest argument in favor of an Oniad origin of our author is that Pseudo-Hecataeus’ main protagonist, Ḥezekiah, is modeled on Onias (III), his arrival in Egypt and the establishment of the Jewish Oniad communities. (5) Why would a Pseudo-Hecateaus disguise Onias III as Ḥezekiah? As we have seen, Ḥezekiah, like Onias, was an antagonist to the Assyrians (= Seleucids), who had threatened Jerusalem (in the eight century BCE and in the days of Antiochus IV). In addition, I have pointed out the fact that the Bible praises Ḥezekiah for purging the Temple from all pagan influences and I have argued that the same holds true for Onias – if Josephus’ report in Ant. 13.67 is reliable, which I am convinced it is – who purged the temple of Bubastis and rededicated it to YHWH. Thus, the disguise of Onias III as Ḥezekiah creates a positive resonance with respect to the figure of Ḥezekiah/Onias III who (both) were famous for their similar actions. (6) Why would an Oniad author disguise himself as Hecataeus? Well, Hecataeus appears to have been quite a popular figure in Hellenistic Egypt and the reason why a Jewish Pseudo-Hecataeus emerged must have indeed been trig-

292

Chapter 10 Pseudo-Hecataeus: An Oniad Reaction to Hasmonean Kingship?

gered by the short reference to the Jews preserved by Diodorus in 1.28.¹⁰⁹ Obviously, at some later time, a larger treatise of ‘On the Jews’ appeared, with which the author of the Letter of Aristeas must have also become acquainted, as emerges from the remark in paragraph 31: “For this reason literary men and poets and the mass of historical writers have held aloof from referring to these books and the men who have lived and are living in accordance with them, because their conception of life is so sacred and religious, as Hecataeus of Abdera says.” To round off our inquiry into Pseudo-Hecataeus and the question of his background, I wish to refer to a note in Murray and Stern’s 1973 article on Hecataeus of Abdera and Theophrastus.¹¹⁰ There, the authors refer to the discovery of a terracotta relief of Hecataeus found at Tell el-Yahoudieh and posit (rightly so) that this discovery reflects as much upon an eager interest of the Jews in Hecataeus as it does on his popularity. Although I was unable to trace the evidence to which Murray and Stern refer,¹¹¹ the note is of particular interest. That is, if we assume that a depiction of Hecataeus was really found at Tell el-Yahoudieh – which, as we recall, belonged to the Oniad settlements – and that Hecataeus was revered there, this would go hand in hand with the choice of the author’s pseudonym, and would lend plausibility to my argument that these texts possess an Oniad authorship.

 Hecataeus’ popularity, obviously, also fooled Josephus, who, as we have noted above, seemingly untroubled, attributed ‘On the Jews’ to him. The popularity of Pseudo-Hecataeus’ book is indicated, too, by Josephus’ statement in C. Ap. 1.205 that “any one who wishes to enquire further can easily pick up the book”. See also B.-Z. Wacholder, Eupolemus, 273.  O. Murray and M. Stern, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 165.  In O. Murray and M. Stern, “Hecataeus of Abdera,” 165, n. 2, the authors refer to Petrie’s pl. 19 D in his Hyksos and Israelite Cities. Although I own a copy of that publication, its plate 19 D – strangely enough – does not yield that kind of evidence, as is the case with all other copies of the work I viewed. Therefore, it is difficult to build an argument based on Murray and Stern’s note. We may, nonetheless, consider it a possibility.

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction? 1 Introduction In the words of E. Humphrey, the “tiny apocryphon” Joseph & Aseneth (henceforth: J & A) is “heretofore obscure.”¹ Its obscurity concerns mainly its contents, but issues such as its genre,² purpose,³ original language,⁴ provenance,⁵ date,⁶

 E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) 7. In the same vein, N. Nickelsburg notes on the jacket of R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) that Joseph & Aseneth may well be “the most obscure and elusive text of the Old Testament Pseudepigrapha.”  M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (Studia PostBiblica 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 43 – 48 refers to plentiful points of contact of J & A with ancient Greek and Latin romances. He too, seeks to demonstrate an allegorical affiliation of the literary figures of Aseneth with the Egyptian goddess Neith and Joseph with the Greek solar deity Helios, respectively. See also M. Philonenko, “Joseph and Aseneth,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, X (26 vols.; Jerusalem and New York: Keter Publishing House and Macmillan Company, 1971– 1972): 223 – 224. Similarly, Chr. Burchard, “Joseph et Aséneth: Questions actuelles,” in La littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna: Quelques problèmes, ed. by W. C. van Unnik (Recherches biblique 9; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 84– 96 (reprinted in Chr. Burchard, Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph & Aseneth [Leiden: Brill, 1996] 230 – 242). See also S. West, “Joseph and Aseneth: A neglected Romance,” CQR 24 (1974): 70 – 81, who regards J & A a Greek romance with Jewish subject matter and similarly, H. C. Kee, “The Socio-Cultural Setting of Joseph and Aseneth,” NTS 29 (1983): 394– 413, who considers the composition a versatile Hellenistic romance that originated in mystically inclined Jewish circles. On the relationship between J & A and the classical novel, see R. I. Pervo, “Joseph and Aseneth and the Greek Novel,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Paper Series 1976, ed. by G. MacRae (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 171– 181; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 204– 207; C. Hezser, “Joseph and Aseneth in the Context of Ancient Greek Erotic Novels,” FJB 24 (1997): 1– 40. See also L. M. Wills, The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995) 157– 184, who discusses J & A within the context of the ancient Jewish novel and similarly, S. R. Johnson, Historical Fiction, 109 – 120, who highlights J & A’s many similarities with the ancient sentimental novel, while at the same time emphasizing its distinct Jewish character. Recent scholarship shifts toward a discussion of J & A in the context of apocalyptic literature. So e. g. G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 17– 18, and more explicit, E. M. Humphrey, The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4 Ezra, The Apocalypse and the Shepherd of Hermes (JSPsup 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995) 35 – 40. For an overview of the scholarly debate over the genre of J & A see: Chr. Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 2:186 – 187 (henceforth: OTP); R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth (JSPsup 16; Sheffield: Sheffield Unihttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-017

294

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

versity Press, 1995) 85 – 92; R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 9 – 11; E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 44– 48.  J & A’s purpose remains debated. An array of scholars declared J & A a missionary work written for the purpose of converting Gentiles to Judaism. Cf. K. Kohler, “Asenath, Life and Confession, Prayer of,” Jewish Encyclopaedia II, (1902): 172– 176; V. Aptowitzer, “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph: A Haggadic Literary-Historical Study,” HUCA 1 (1924): 305 – 306; G. D. Kilpatrick, “Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship: The Last Supper,” ET 64 (1952– 53): 4– 8; M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth, 106 – 107; M. Philonenko, “Joseph and Asenath,” 234; H. C. Kee, “The Socio-Cultural Setting of Joseph and Aseneth,” 394– 413; and even more recently, G. W. E. Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005) 262. This view however, is gradually rejected (see e. g. Chesnutt, who states that J & A “certainly reflects no missionary impulse” [R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 261]), while it is emphasized instead that J & A has not a single, one-sided purpose, but is a product of its immediate (social) surroundings, that addresses several issues at the same time and on many levels. A central issue is that of exogamy that includes the notion of conversion and the acceptance of proselytes, while the work is also concerned with Jewish-Gentile relations and even with inner-Jewish relations. See in particular R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 254– 265, but also Chr. Burchard, OTP, 188 – 190; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 214– 216; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 94– 96; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 231, 238; M. Vogel, “Einführung,” in Joseph und Aseneth, ed. by E. Reinmuth (SAPERE 15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 26 – 28. Bohak stands out in his suggestion that the composition seeks to promote the legitimacy of Onias’ Temple. See G. Bohak, “Asenath’s Honeycomb and Onias’ Temple: The Key to “Joseph and Asenath”,” in World Congress of Jewish Studies 11,A (1994): 163 – 170; and G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 101– 102.  It is generally accepted that J &A’s original language was Greek. Nonetheless, it has been argued at some length that J & A was written in Hebrew. Cf. P. Riessler, “Joseph und Asenath: Eine altjüdische Erzählung,” TQ 103 (1922): 1– 22, 145 – 183 (esp. 1– 3) and V. Aptowitzer, “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph,” 281. On the question of J & A’s original language see Chr. Burchard, OTP, 181; R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 69 – 71; E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 29.  J & A was initially believed to be a Christian work. Batiffol, a Byzantinist (!), thus dated the composition to the 4th – 5th century CE and suggested an Asian Minor provenance, P. Batiffol, “Le livre de la prière d’Asénath,” in Studia Patristica: Études d’ancienne littérature chrétienne 1– 2 (2 vols.; Paris: Leroux, 1889 – 1890) 1 :7– 18, 30 – 37. Even though Batiffol was followed in his assumption by other scholars (so e. g. by Brooks, J & A’s first English translator [E. W. Brooks, Joseph and Asenath: The Confession and Prayer of Asenath Daughter of Pentephres the Priest {London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918] xi-xvii), his view was quickly challenged (see e. g. L. Duchesne in his review of Batiffol’s publication “Rezension von Batiffol: Priere d’Aseneth,” BC 10 [1889]: 461– 466 and L. Massebieau, “Reseña de la edición de Batiffol,” ABT 11 [1889]: 161– 172), not least also by Aptowitzer, who strongly argued in favor of the Jewish origin of the work. See V. Aptowitzer, “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph,” 286 – 291 and also the discussions of Chr. Burchard, Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth: Überlieferung – Ortsbestimmung (WUNT 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965) 99 – 107; R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 30 – 32; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 104– 105; J. J. Collins, “Joseph and Aseneth: Jewish or Christian?” JSP 14 (2005): 97– 112. Even though that J & A’s Jewishness is nowadays unanimously accepted, one still occasionally stumbles upon the view that the work features Christian interpolations. See for instance K. Kohler, “Asenath, Life and Confession,” 172– 176;

1 Introduction

295

M. Penn, “Identity Transformation and Authorial Identification in Joseph and Aseneth,” JSP 13 (2002): 171– 183 and in particular T. Holtz, “Christliche Interpolationen in ‘Joseph und Aseneth’,” NTS 14 (1968): 482– 497. The Egyptian setting of the work and its decidedly Jewish-Hellenistic nature led to a scholarly consensus that J & A was written in Egypt. So e. g. M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth, 99 – 109, who even deliberated whether J & A’s author came from the Egyptian chora (pp. 106 – 107 and M. Philonenko, “Joseph and Aseneth,” 234); Chr. Burchard, OTP, 187– 188; Bohak’s controversial claim that J & A was composed at Onias’ Temple, G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, passim; R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 76 – 80; E. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 30 – 31; J. Bolyki, “Egypt as the Setting for ‘Joseph and Aseneth’: Accidental or Deliberate?” in The Wisdom of Egypt; Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. by A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 81– 96; J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten. Oder: Von der Domestikation einer gefährlichen Kultur,” in Joseph und Aseneth, ed. by E. Reinmuth (SAPERE 15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 179 – 181. Some have speculated a Therapeutic origin of the work, such as M. Delcor, “Un roman d’amour d’origine thérapeute: Le Livre de Joseph et Asénath,” BLE 63 (1962): 3 – 27, while others an Essene origin, which presupposes a Palestinian provenance of the work. Compare P. Riessler, “Joseph und Asenath,” 1– 22 and see Burchard’s reservations in Untersuchungen, 107– 112 and also R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 77– 80. Other suggestions include the notion that J & A was authored by followers of a Jewish mystery cult, cf. D. Sänger, Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth (WUNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980) and/or by authors from the world of Merkavah Mysticism as claimed by H. C. Kee, “The Socio-Cultural Setting,” 394– 413. Then there are Kraemer’s irresolute attempts to identify an authorship and a provenance for J & A, which she places in Syria or alternatively Asia Minor, depending on the circumstance whether the author was Christian or not. Compare R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 245 – 306.  Most scholars carefully date J &A to the 1st century BCE – 1st century CE. See the bibliography of scholars cited by R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 43 – 45, and inter alia, D. Sänger, “Erwägungen zur historischen Einordnung und zur Datierung von ‘Joseph und Aseneth’,” ZNTW 76 (1985): 86 – 106; J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 204; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 105; E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 28 – 31. Attempts have been made however, to make the case for a later date. So for instance P. Batiffol (“Le livre de la prière d’Asénath,” 37) who, as noted, argued for a 4th – 5th century CE date; and more recently R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 225 – 244, who considers a 3rd century CE (or even later) dating. G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 85 argued for a mid-2nd century (160 – 145 BCE to be precise) Ptolemaic dating which is accepted by J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten,” 159 – 186, even though the latter argues against Bohak’s assumption of Oniad authorship. The 1st century BCE – 1st century CE is calculated on the basis that J & A employs a language influenced by the LXX which provides a 3rd century BCE terminus post quem. A terminus ante quem is more difficult to obtain, but it is usually maintained that the philo-Jewish conversion scene precludes a date later than the 1st century CE, when anti-Jewish sentiments reigned in Roman Egypt (38/41 CE, or even prior to the Diaspora Revolt under Trajan [115 – 117 CE] or the Hadrianic persecutions 132– 135 CE). See also Gruen’s reserved reflections, E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 93.

296

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

and perhaps most poignantly, its Textgeschichte,⁷ remain no less beclouded. While this is neither the proper place, nor the proper occasion to address all of the above-noted issues, this chapter does focus on questions regarding the composition’s provenance, date, Sitz im Leben and most importantly, its authorship. I am of the opinion, together with G. Bohak and others,⁸ that it originated in the milieu of Onias’ Temple. J & A is a very rich composition in the sense that it contains many details worth discussing exhaustively. This has been done previously by G. Bohak,⁹ and it is not my intention here to “reinvent the wheel.” I shall thus only refer to his main arguments for an Oniad authorship. I will then draw attention to several additional elements in the composition that strengthen Bohak’s hypothesis, but were not noted by him. Within the framework of my previous examination of selected works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature for whose Oniad authorship I have

 J & A came down to us in 16 Greek manuscripts (next to early extant versions in Syriac, Slavonic, Armenian and Latin) which were divided into four distinctive groups; a, b, c, and d. Families a and b constitute longer versions of the text, while the other two (c and d) – as logic commands – are shorter versions. The first scholarly attempt to reconstruct J &A’s Urtext was P. Batiffol, “Le livre de la prière d’Asénath,” 1– 115, who based his text on MS family a. Batiffol’s suggestion however, was later rejected on the grounds that this text is “too polished” to represent an original text form (which usually follows the principle of lectio difficilior potior) both by M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aseneth, 14, 16 – 26 and by Chr. Burchard, Untersuchungen, 23 – 24; Chr. Burchard, “Zum Text von ‘Joseph and Aseneth,’” JSJ 1 (1970): 8 – 10. Ever since Batiffol’s reconstruction from the late 19th century, two further (influential) text-editions were published by the afore-mentioned scholars. In 1968, M. Philonenko published his version of J & A based on the shortest text-family d. Philonenko’s edition, however, was fiercely rejected by Burchard, who in the meantime, argued for the superiority of the family b MSS and ultimately published his very own edition of J &A. See Chr. Burchard, Untersuchungen, 4– 90; Chr. Burchard, “Zum Text von ‘Joseph and Aseneth,’” 3 – 34; and his collected works on the text of J & A in Chr. Burchard, Gesammelte Studien (passim), including his own text-edition, “Ein vorläufiger griechischer Text von Joseph und Aseneth,” there (pp. 161– 209). Burchard’s text is generally followed by most scholars (see e. g. R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 43, 65 – 69; E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 18 – 19), but recently two scholars attempted to defend the superiority of Philonenko’s shorter text. Cf. A. Standhartinger, Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von Joseph und Aseneth (AGJU 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 27– 47 (esp. 40 – 41); R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 6 – 9, 305. Me, who is less concerned with the detailed debate on the complicated textual history of J & A, is not convinced by Philonenko’s, Kraemer’s, and Standhartinger’s arguments against Burchard’s text and therefore concur with the communis opinio and will follow Burchard’s longer version of J & A’s text.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, passim; and more recently also M. Chyutin, Tendentious Hagiographies: Jewish Propagandist Fiction BCE (London: T & T Clark, 2011) 208 – 262.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, passim.

2 The Place of the Action

297

made a case, I will point out several similarities and points of contact between those works and J & A (especially so for 3 Maccabees and Third Sibylline Oracle).

2 The Place of the Action Next to the “Honeycomb Scene” (J & A 14– 17; on which see below), it is the very setting of J & A, namely Heliopolis, that seems to betray an Oniad background of its author. The narrative of J & A orientates itself essentially towards a few odd verses in the biblical Joseph-tale (Gen 37– 50). Joseph’s arrival at Heliopolis for the purpose of collecting grain for the upcoming seven-year drought period as described in J & A’s first chapter in fact echoes Gen 41:46, but that verse never mentions Joseph’s stopover at Heliopolis. All that is stated there is that as soon as Joseph entered into Pharaoh’s service, he travelled around all of Egypt, without providing any more details concerning Joseph’s itinerary. Joseph’s stay at Heliopolis, thus, is an invention of (or rather an expansion by) the author of J & A. That of all places precisely Heliopolis was in Joseph’s itinerary is certainly inspired by Gen 41:45 and Aseneth’s capacity as the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On – the biblical name of Heliopolis.¹⁰ But regardless of the equivalence of the location, I wish to underscore that the choice of setting for the story had more profound reasons; namely the link of the place with Onias’ Temple.¹¹ Biblical On (‫און‬, ‫אן‬, modern day el-Matariye / Ain Shams / Tell Ḥisn) was the cult center of the sun god Atum-Re ever since pharaonic times.¹² It remained an important Egyptian cult center until after Cambyses’ invasion; thereafter its temples, and its importance along with them, declined. In spite of its decline, Heliopolis was visited by Herodotus, who chronicled that its inhabitants count among the wisest in the whole of Egypt.¹³ The city aroused the curiosity of

 On is also mentioned in Gen 41:50; 46:20 and condemned as (‫“ )אוון‬folly, iniquity” in Ezek 30:17 and Jer 43:13, who refers to the place as ‫בית שמש‬, because of the place’s association with the Egyptian solar-worship linked to Atum-Re. Accordingly, the LXX renders the toponym “Heliopolis;” LXX Exod 1:11. Perhaps the most known occurrence and pun of the toponym is Isa 19:18, especially in context of the history of Onias’ Temple.  So also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 90 – 94.  D. B. Redford, “Heliopolis,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D. N. Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 3:122 – 123; J. P. Allen, “Heliopolis,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. by D. B. Redford (3 vols.; Oxford, New York, and Cairo: Oxford University Press and The American University in Cairo Press, 2001) 2:88 – 89.  Herodotus Historiae 2.3.1– 9.2.

298

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

Greeks and Romans in the late Ptolemaic period, due to its reputation as a center of knowledge and ancient science.¹⁴ The location, however, was not only an important one for the Egyptian and Graeco-Roman orbit, but also for the Jewish one. In addition to the biblical connotations of the location in connection with the Joseph-tale,¹⁵ Heliopolis is featured in several other works by Jewish-Hellenistic authors from the Diaspora. So we read in Pseudo-Eupolemos, for example, that Abraham taught astrology to the Egyptian priesthood at Heliopolis and according to Artapanus, Joseph’s entire family had settled there and at Sais.¹⁶ The anti-Jewish Egyptian authors Manetho and Apion report that Moses’ original name was Osarsiph and that he had been the priest of Osiris at Heliopolis before “defecting” to the Jewish people.¹⁷ Apion even went a step further and connected Moses to the local solar-worship of Heliopolis.¹⁸ Josephus reports that the same Apion ridiculed Onias’ name (C. Ap. 2.49) – probably a pun on the Greek word for ass (ὄνος) – and elsewhere we hear that Heliopolis became known as On/Onias in the Hellenestic and Roman period.¹⁹ The link to Onias, his community, and his temple, is thus quite obvious, and as I have noted above, it is no accident that the author of J & A chose this setting for the place of action of his story. Thus, while Heliopolis was the place of priests, sun-worship, intellectuals, philosophers and the legendary bird phoenix for Greeks and Egyptians, it was, at the same time, the city of the Jewish patriarchs in Egypt (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and in particular Joseph) and the city of Onias and his Temple.²⁰

 Strabo Geographia 17.1.29. Heliopolis is moreover considered the place of origin of the legendary fire-bird, phoenix, by several Greek and Roman authors: Herodotus Historiae 2.73; Ovid Metamorphoses 15.382– 407; Plinius Naturalis Historia 10.3 – 5. See also J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten,” 167.  See e. g. Jubilees 40:10 and 44:24; Testament of Joseph 18:3; Ant. 2.91, 184, 188 (which states that Jacob and his clan settled at Heliopolis!). Similarly so Artapanus (preserved in Eusebius Praep. Ev. 9.18.3), who briefly notes that Joseph married Aseneth, the daughter of the priest of Heliopolis with whom he had two children. The entire family (including Joseph’s father and brothers) settled in Heliopolis and Sais. See also Artapanus’ disputed remark that the Jews built the temple of Heliopolis (Praep. Ev. 9.27.2).  Pseudo-Eupolemos (preserved in Eusebius Praep. Ev. 9.17.8). See also Holladay’s useful remarks in C. R. Holladay, Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. I: Historians, (Scholars Press: Chico 1983) 184 (n. 25). Regarding Artapanus’ remarks, see our previous note.  C. Ap. 1.238, 250, 261, 265, 279.  C. Ap. 2.10.  This is stated by the 2nd century CE geographer Claudius Ptolemy (Geographia IV.5.53). See also Jerome’s note that Onias had founded a city called by the same name (In Danielem III.XI.14).  So J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten,” 169.

3 The “Honeycomb Scene” (Joseph & Aseneth 14 – 17)

299

3 The “Honeycomb Scene” (Joseph & Aseneth 14 – 17) The linchpin of Bohak’s suggestion to place J & A into an Oniad milieu and to date the work to the mid-2nd century BCE, is his interpretation of the puzzling so-called “Honeycomb Scene” (chaps. 14– 17).²¹ This episode in the narrative actually enables Joseph to wed Aseneth, because the scene epitomizes Aseneth’s conversion and thus provides the literary turning point in the first part of the composition.²² The scene describes a visitation of an angelic figure during Aseneth’s fast in her room. He urges her to change her clothes from her mourning dress to a bridal gown so that she will be prepared to marry Joseph and shall thus be transformed into the “City of Refuge.” Aseneth then, gratefully and well-mannered, invites the angel for dinner. He advises her to open up her storeroom, and when she does she finds there a mysterious honeycomb (instead of the dismal bread and wine meal initially offered by Aseneth), white as snow and filled with honey.²³ The angel urges Aseneth to eat from the honeycomb, for this angelic food will provide her with eternal life. After Aseneth tasted a piece from the honeycomb it miraculously restored itself. The angelic figure, however, touched the honeycomb once more with his fingers and suddenly funny-looking bees appear which are white, have purplish/scarlet/ violet-like, gold-interwoven wings and wear golden diadems. The bees encircle Aseneth from head to toe and some of them build a second honeycomb (that is similar to the first honeycomb) on Aseneth’s mouth and lips. After having completed their work, the bees begin to eat the honeycomb they built on Aseneth’s mouth. Although the angel chases them away (back to heaven), we hear that there are also bees that seek to harm Aseneth; they fall dead on the floor. They are revived by the angel’s staff and return to heaven as well. Aseneth’s conversion is now completed and the whole episode concludes with the heavenly man stretching out his hand for a third time and producing a fire that consumes

 G. Bohak, “Asenath’s Honeycomb and Onias’ Temple,” 163 – 170; and G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 1– 18.  So also E. M. Humphreys, Joseph and Aseneth, 93.  For the significance of the honey in context of Aseneth’s conversion, see M. Hubbard, “Honey for Aseneth: Interpreting a Religious Symbol,” JSP 16 (1997): 97– 110 and R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 131– 137. For the identification of the honey with the heavenly manna from the wilderness of Exod 16:1– 36 (esp. verse 31; and see Num 11:1– 9), see V. Aptowitzer, “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph,” 282– 283; M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth, 95 – 96 (= M. Philonenko, “Initiation et mystère dans Joseph et Aséneth,” in Initiation: Contributions to the Theme of the StudyConference of the International Association for the History of Religions held at Strasburg, September 17th to 22nd 1964, ed. by C. J. Bleeker [SHR 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965] 152– 153); Chr. Burchard, Untersuchungen, 129 – 133.

300

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

the (first) honeycomb. He subsequently blesses Aseneth and her virgin maidswomen and, like Elijah, departs on a fiery chariot.²⁴ As Burchard notes, “the episode [of the bees, M. P.] has not yet been interpreted satisfactorily.”²⁵ Nonetheless, Bohak suggested interpreting the story in light of the history of the establishment of Onias’ Temple in the mid-2nd century BCE. As such, Bohak surmises that the second honeycomb built by the bees on Aseneth’s mouth is an allusion to the building of Onias’ Temple in Egypt, whilst the harmful bees, who sought to injure Aseneth, should best be identified with Onias’ opponents (perhaps the Jerusalemite priesthood).²⁶ Similarly, Aseneth’s new status as “City of Refuge,” a recurring epithet in the narrative,²⁷ illustrates the plight of the Oniads who fled to Heliopolis, which became their “City of Refuge,” a “New Jerusalem” bearing eschatological connotations.²⁸ Aseneth’s association with Heliopolis, for that matter, did not ebb away for centuries – most probably because of the reception of J & A in later Christian society. So, still towards the end of the 4th century CE (in 382 CE to be precise), there existed the tradition that Aseneth’s house was standing in Heliopolis.²⁹ That note aside, in my view, Bohak’s interpretation has much to recommend it and I therefore concur with his view that the “Honeycomb Scene” indeed al Cf. 2Kings 2:11. On the similarity to Hekhalot texts, see R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 68 – 69, 123 – 127.  Chr. Burchard, OTP, 250 (n. g 2). In the same spirit also R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 131: “The scene in which Aseneth eats from the honeycomb is notoriously difficult…”  See G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 1– 18. For different interpretations of the “Honeycomb Scene,” see for instance A. E. Portier-Young, “Sweet Mercy Metropolis: Interpreting Aseneth’s Honeycomb,” JSP 14 (2005): 133 – 157, for whom Aseneth equates the sweetness of God with God’s capacity for mercy and she is thus transformed into an agent of divine mercy for others. For parallels of the “Honeycomb Scene” to late Antique (Syriac) Christian texts, see R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 64– 66.  J & A 15:7; 16:15; 17:6; 19:5.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 76 – 80 and before him, U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung, 115 – 122. Cf. Chr. Burchard, Untersuchungen, 119, who labelled Aseneth, “das Zion der Proselyten.”  This is noted by the Christian pilgrim/traveller Egeria (or Aetheria), whose diary has survived in fragments in the writings of Peter the Deacon of Monte Cassino: “Heliopolis lies twelve miles from Babylon [modern-day Cairo, M. P.]. In the city’s center there is a large field with the temple of the Sun, and Petefres’ [sic] house is there. Between Petefres’ and the temple is Asennec’s [sic] house…” (“Eliopolis [sic] distat a Babilonia milia duodecim. In medio autem huius ciuitatis est campus ingens, in quo est templum Solis, et ibi est domus Petefre. Inter domum autem Petefre et templum est domus Asennec…”, P. Geyer, Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi IIII-VIII [CSEL 39; Wien, Prag, and Leipzig: F. Tempsky and G. Freytag, 1898] 115). I followed G. Bohak’s translation in G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 98. On Egeria see G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 98 – 100 and Chr. Burchard, Untersuchungen, 137– 138.

4 The Figure of Levi: Priesthood and Joseph & Aseneth

301

ludes to Onias’ Temple. Whether we should date the whole composition to the mid-2nd century BCE, as Bohak suggests, is another issue.³⁰ A later date, as has been suggested by Hacham and others,³¹ in fact, does not militate against Bohak’s interpretation of the “Honeycomb Scene” since, in Hacham’s words: “it might be reasonably assumed that even half a century later, the question of the legitimacy of the temple in Heliopolis might have continued to preoccupy Jews, bestirring them to justify and define the temple’s status as well as their own status in Egypt.”³²

4 The Figure of Levi: Priesthood and Joseph & Aseneth For a work titled “Joseph & Aseneth” it is quite perplexing to find that the real hero of the second part of the tale (ch. 22– 29) is neither Joseph, nor Aseneth, but Joseph’s brother Levi.³³ Not only does Levi “steal the show” in that part of the narrative, he is also praised exceedingly – far beyond what is required by the biblical narrative, which, in contrast, depicts Levi in quite a negative light.³⁴ In J & A, Levi is portrayed as an extremely moral and pious man with prophetic abilities, who is Aseneth’s best friend and possesses the power to reveal mysteries to her: And Levi was on Aseneth’s right (side) and Joseph on (her) left. And Aseneth grasped Levi’s hand. And Aseneth loved Levi exceedingly beyond all of Joseph’s brethren, because he was one who attached himself to the Lord, and he was a prudent man and a prophet of the Most High and sharp-sighted with his eyes, and he used to see letters written in heaven by the finger of God and he knew the unspeakable (mysteries) of the Most High God and revealed them to Aseneth in secret, because he himself, Levi, would love Aseneth very much, and see her place of rest in the highest, and her walls like adamantine eternal walls, and her foundations founded upon a rock of the seventh heaven (J & A 22:12– 13).

 G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 101. Bohak, by the way, does not rule out a later date as well.  See e. g. G. D. Kilpatrick, “Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship,” 5; R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 82– 85; J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten,” 159 (n. 1); and N. Hacham, “Joseph and Aseneth: Loyalty, Traitors,” 64– 65. See also above, n. 6.  N. Hacham, “Joseph and Aseneth: Loyalty, Traitors,” 65 (n. 37).  The original title of J & A remains unknown, but it became accustomed in modern scholarship to refer to the composition as Joseph & Aseneth. Chr. Burchard, OTP, 181– 182. Some modern scholars, however, distance themselves from this naming and prefer to refer to the composition simply as “Aseneth,” since she remains the sole heroine in both parts of the story. Cf. e. g. E. M. Humphreys, Joseph and Aseneth, 13. On the prominence of Levi in the second part of J & A, see for example J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 108 – 109.  Compare Gen 49:5 – 7 for instance. See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 48 – 52.

302

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

This description of Levi is quite remarkable and what stands out here are his “attachment to the Lord,” his prophetic abilities, and his competence to reveal the mysteries of God to other people.³⁵ Apart from the fact that Levi is the progenitor of the entire Jewish priesthood, it is also the case that the three skills listed in our text are associated with the priesthood and priestly skills in Second Temple literature. The most significant prerogative of priests is their ability to mediate between the divine and the mundane spheres, as it is commonly known,³⁶ but other Second Temple texts do underscore the priests’ prophetic and revelatory abilities. So for instance, Josephus, who frequently emphasizes his prophetic abilities on account of his priestly pedigree,³⁷ and certain Qumranic texts, which bespeak the revelation of God’s mysteries by certain priestly figures.³⁸ We are left with the notion that J & A’s author greatly embellished the role and figure of Levi in the narrative, and this seems not to have been done by chance.³⁹ Namely, and so I argue along with Bohak, it is reasonable to assume that the reason for Levi’s aggrandizement in J & A is that its author was a priest himself.⁴⁰ Bohak rightfully argues, though with some care, that this priestly author in all likelihood came from the milieu of Onias’ Temple, and I subscribe to this view. ⁴¹ Thus, I wish to add J & A to the already existing dossier of JewishHellenistic compositions from Egypt (Pseudo-Hecataeus, the Third Book of the

 Levi’s prophetic abilities are mentioned in the text not but once. See, J & A 22:13; 23:8 – 9; 26:6; 29:4.  See e. g. Joel 2:17; Malachi 2:1– 9.  J. Blenkinsopp, “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” 239 – 262 and L. H. Feldman, “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” JTS 41 (1990): 386 – 422.  E. g. The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice (4Q401) 14 II, 6 – 8 and the references to God’s mysteries in 4Q403 1 II, 27; 1QM col. 14:14; 1QH ii.13, and 4Q417 1 i-ii. In addition, note that the Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab 7:5 – 6) contains the reference to Qumran’s enigmatic ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ to “whom God has made known all the mysteries of the words of His servants, the prophets.” See F. García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without Temple,” 303 – 322 and J. H. Newman, “Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. by G. J. Brooke, H. Najman, and L. T. Stuckenbruck (Leiden: Brill, 2008) 29 – 72.  As Bohak notes, it is quite revealing that J & A has next to nothing to say about Joseph’s other two brothers Reuben (Jacob’s first-born!) and Judah, the Jewish nation’s eponymous father and that in opposition to the place they occupy in the biblical Joseph-tale in Gen 37– 50. See G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 51. They only get to appear once within the narrative of J & A, namely at 27:6.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 52.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 52.

J & A 12:9 – 11 and the Sitz im Leben of Ant. 13.66 – 67

303

Sibylline Oracles, and 3 Maccabees) which seem to have their origin in an Oniad milieu.

5 ‘For behold, the wild old lion persecutes me, because he is the father of the gods of the Egyptians’: J & A 12:9 – 11 and the Sitz im Leben of Ant. 13.66 – 67 We next turn our attention to a remarkable passage that comes in context of Aseneth’s confession of sin and prayer for acceptance. The passage reads as follows: For behold, the wild old lion persecutes me, because he is the father of the gods of the Egyptians, and his children are the gods of the idol maniacs. And I have come to hate them, because they are the lion’s children, and have thrown all of them from me and destroyed them. And the lion their father furiously persecutes me, but you Lord, rescue me from his hands, and from his mouth deliver me, lest he carry me off like a lion, and tear me up…(J & A 12:9 – 11).

At first sight the passage is reminiscent of the Qumranic Pesher Nahum (4Q169 = 4QpNah). There, in fragments 3 – 4 (col. 1), expounding the last few verses of the second chapter of Nahum (vv. 11– 13), the Qumranic interpreter focuses on the ‫כפיר החרון‬, the “Young Lion of Wrath,” who persecuted and slew a large number of his opponents in an atrocious way. This “Lion of Wrath” is commonly identified with the Hasmonean king, Alexander Yannai.⁴² But in spite of a certain resemblance of both texts, we may doubt – for good reason – that Aseneth had Alexander Yannai in mind when making her plea to God to rescue her from the lion’s claws. Despite the fact that already in the Bible the lion is occasionally used as metaphor for a persecutor,⁴³ in other texts the lion is (on a far more positive note) a

 View J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 99 – 101; H. Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2004) 107– 121 [Hebrew]; and more specifically Sh. L. Berrin, The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (Leiden: Brill, 2004) 104– 109. The epithet ‫ כפיר החרון‬is also mentioned in 4QpHosb (4Q167) frag. 2:2 in an interpretation of Hos 5:13.  So e. g. Psalms 7:2; 22:13, 21 after which Aseneth’s prayer seems to be modelled, but see also Proverbs 20:2; 22:13, and Esther 4:17, Greek Esther (LXX) 14:3. Recension A of the Testament of Solomon 11:1 mentions a demon who is growling like a lion, a tradition that is believed to have had some influence on the Christian tradition that associates the lion with the devil. See for instance 1Peter 5:8 and Hippolytus, who denotes both Christ and the Antichrist as lions, On the Antichrist 6. See also U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung, 114 and P.

304

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

symbol for the Messiah.⁴⁴ Nevertheless, the Messiah fits as little into the context of Aseneth’s prayer as does Alexander Yannai. Therefore, we should seek an alternative explanation for this enigmatic image. Based on an earlier observation by Philonenko,⁴⁵ Bohak has pointed out that the odd reference to the lion in Aseneth’s prayer, in fact, denotes the leonine manifestation of the Egyptian solar deity Atum-Re, who is referred to in some Egyptian texts as “the father of (all) the gods.” Moreover, Atum-Re is said to have begotten other gods of the Great Ennead of Heliopolis.⁴⁶ Thus, the reference to the lion also connects Aseneth’s prayer to Heliopolis. Bohak notes, in addition, that Re is renowned in Egyptian literature for ferociously punishing those who turn their backs on him, a reputation that matches Aseneth’s anxiety expressed in her prayer perfectly well.⁴⁷ Bohak rightfully notes that “the accurate reference to Re’s leonine manifestation, and the general tone of the passage as a whole, vividly demonstrate our author’s familiarity with at least some aspects of Egyptian (Heliopolitan) theology.”⁴⁸ Bohak introduces this discussion into the framework of a chapter entitled “Beyond the Honeycomb Scene (Chapter 3),” which is designed to bolster his earlier hypothesis (from his Chapter 2) that J & A is an Oniad composition.⁴⁹ Nevertheless, he (surprisingly) refrains from explicitly connecting this episode with Onias’ Temple, despite his implicit reference to the knowledge of local, Heliopolitan traditions of J & A’s author (whom I presume to have belonged to the Oniad community). Once more, I have every reason to concur with Bohak’s interpretation of J & A 12:9 – 11, but I am of the conviction that one or two observations may be added to this discussion.

Busch, Das Testament Salomos: Die älteste christliche Dämonologie, kommentiert und in deutscher Erstüberarbeitung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006) 168 – 169. But, in contrast to that, see Revelations 5:5, where the lion symbolizes the Messiah (from the House of David). See in this context the following note.  Gen 49: 8 – 12, where Jacob blesses his sons and predicts that the king of Judah will one day rule all tribes, a passage which bears messianic connotations. See also 4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 11:37; 12:1, 31; 16:6, where the “lion” denotes a “warrior Messiah,” see M. E. Stone, “The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. by J. Neusner (Studies in the History of Religions 14; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 295 – 312 (esp. 302) and L. T. Stuckenbruck, “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and related Literature of Early Judaism,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. by S. E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 104– 105.  M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth, 171.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 59 and the literature cited ad loc.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 60.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 60.  See G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 41– 42.

J & A 12:9 – 11 and the Sitz im Leben of Ant. 13.66 – 67

305

Thus, Bohak’s interpretation of the lion, the father of the Egyptian gods, which he links to Heliopolis, dovetails with another pun on the toponym as well, namely that of Leontopolis. Based on his Oniad source, Josephus reports in Ant. 13.66 – 67 that Onias erected his temple on the site of a former Egyptian shrine, which he purged of all zoomorphic images and idols. In addition, Josephus (or rather his source) records that the Egyptian temple purged by Onias was the cultic site of “Bubastis-in-the-field,” an Egyptian feline deity (Bastet, Bast, Pasht) who is usually depicted as a lion-headed woman.⁵⁰ But not only that. For the sake of this discussion, it is intriguing to discern that according to ancient Egyptian mythology, Bastet was considered both the daughter and the consort of Atum-Re and was thus, as “the Eye of Ra who protects her father Ra,” a manifestation of the solar eye.⁵¹ In that way, also she can be linked to Heliopolis, the center of solar-worship. Moreover, while Bohak, in my opinion, is certainly correct in identifying “the lion, the father of the Egyptian gods” with Atum-Re, the fact that Bastet is his daughter, would thus account for the yet unexplained reference to the “lion’s children.” Furthermore, G. Pinch has discovered that from Pyramid texts onwards, Bastet is associated with the double attribute of nurturing mother and terrifying avenger;⁵² the latter aspect corresponds with Bohak’s findings in case of Re. It is also worthwhile noting that myths of Bastet feature a distinct erotic aspect which bears similarity to the “love-story” in the first part of J & A. In an Egyptian composition of the late first Millennium BCE about a Prince called Setna, the prince encounters a beautiful girl named Taboubu, who happens to be the daughter of the priest of Bastet. Taboubu, then, agrees to meet Setna in the House of Bastet in Memphis, where the dramatic love-story further develops. Thus, in the spirit of Bohak’s remark about knowledge of local Heliopolitan mythology on the part of J & A’s author, we can reinforce Bohak’s view by adding that Aseneth’s reference to the lion not only bears upon Heliopolis and Atum-Re in general, but also upon Bastet (and the mythology associated with her) and the site of Onias’ Temple (Onias’ foundation “Leontopolis”), in particular. As Bohak has noted, Aseneth’s conversion required the denunciation of idol-worship, in particular that of those gods, who had a local affiliation with Heliopolis (viz. Atum-Re and Bastet). Therefore, Aseneth’s denunciation of her idol-gods, in

 G. Pinch, Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 115. On Bast/Bastet, see also J. Málek, The Cat in Ancient Egypt (London: The British Museum Press, 1993) 94– 111, 126 – 127.  G. Pinch, Egyptian Mythology, 115.  G. Pinch, Egyptian Mythology, 115. Pinch notes that Bastet was traditional perceived as punisher of humans who have offended the gods (G. Pinch, Egyptian Mythology, 117).

306

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

my view, echoes Onias’ purging of the temple-site as reported by Josephus in Ant. 13.66 – 67 and may thus be read as a historical allusion in the text referring to this event.

6 The World of Joseph & Aseneth and the World of 3 Maccabees As I have mentioned in the introduction to this inquiry, J & A exhibits several points of contact with other works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature of Egyptian provenance, most tellingly with those for which I have assumed an Oniad authorship. These points of contact I shall argue here, in fact strengthen the assumption of a common background of their author(s). In this section of our discussion of J & A, we turn our focus on the similarities between J & A and 3 Maccabees.

I Jews and Gentiles Some scholars opine that J & A expresses a significant degree of hostility towards Gentiles,⁵³ while others, in contrast, stress J & A’s outspoken openness towards them.⁵⁴ In fact, the picture is not black-and-white and we just need to live with the fact that J & A’s attitude towards Gentiles is as ambiguous as it is subtle. So, for instance, J & A’s readers will hardly fail to notice the author’s disdain for Egyptians and for their idolatrous religion and customs. On the other hand, the reader is stunned by the fact that Pentephres – notably the high priest of one of those “despicable” pagan cults – is depicted as one of Joseph’s closest associates.⁵⁵ In a similar vein, we note that Joseph, like Daniel,⁵⁶ avoids sharing the table with Gentiles and shies away from having much social contact with them.⁵⁷  So for instance J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 214– 217.  S. West, “Joseph and Aseneth: A neglected Romance,” 77– 78; R. C. Douglas, “Liminality and Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth,” JSP 3 (1988): 39; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 95 – 96; J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 234.  J & A chapters 5 and 7.  Dan 1:5 – 8, for example.  E. g. J & A 7:1: “…because Joseph never ate with Egyptians, for this was an abomination to him.” And on the issues of food, R. D. Chesnutt, “‘Joseph and Aseneth’: Food as an Identity Marker,” in The Historical Jesus in Context, ed. by A.-J. Levine, D. C. Allison Jr., and J. D. Crossan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006) 357– 365. After Joseph and Aseneth’s wedding, however, we hear that none other than Pharaoh himself organized a banquet in honor of the

6 The World of Joseph & Aseneth and the World of 3 Maccabees

307

However, J & A is bent on emphasizing Joseph’s excellent and highly respectful relations with Pharaoh and his staff, which includes Pentephres himself and other Egyptian notables too.⁵⁸ That perfect picture, however, is distorted by Gentiles, who seek to harm Jews and these are represented by Pharaoh’s (nameless) son and notably by other Jews, who ally themselves with him.⁵⁹ Here, we can single out a common pattern in Diasporan Jewish-Hellenistic literature, namely the notion that Jews and Gentiles would get along just fine, and normally do, apart from when a few (single!) hostile individuals spoil the harmonious Jewish-Gentile relationship on occasion.⁶⁰ Although, as noted, this pattern is commonly met in Jewish Diasporan literature, it is particularly present in 3 Maccabees. The affinity of J & A and 3 Maccabees with respect to the notion of JewishGentile relations has been pointed out by several scholars and it suffices to state here that, in my opinion, the affinity of both works hints at a common milieu of its authors. In Chapter 9 I have shown why 3 Maccabees seem to derive from an Oniad context.

newly weds for seven days (J & A 21:8) and we may surmise that not only Jews were invited for that dinner. We take note though, that the author skillfully avoids elaborating on the guest list. Similarly, J & A states that Joseph avoided kissing Aseneth at the outset of the story (8:1– 7 and compare 19:10, 20:5, 21:7), which some scholars have interpreted as another boundary marker in Gentile-Jewish relations. See M. Hubbard, “Honey for Aseneth,” 99, 106 – 107; M. Penn, “Identity Transformation and Authorial Identification,” 171– 183; Chr. Burchard, “Küssen in ‘Joseph und Aseneth,’” JSJ 36 (2005): 316 – 323.  See for instance J & A 4:7, where Joseph is called “chief of the whole land of Egypt, and the king Pharaoh appointed him king of the whole land…” and the repeated note that Pharaoh was like a father to Joseph at 20:9 and 24:14. 21:8 mentions that all “the chiefs of the Land of Egypt” should respect the celebrations in honor of Joseph and Aseneth’s wedding. Similarly, we note that in 3:1– 4, Joseph demands hospitality of Pentephres, who is introduced in chapter 1 as “a satrap of Pharaoh, and chief of all the satraps and noblemen of Pharaoh (1:3) and later, at 5:7, Pentephres and his family even prostate themselves face down to the ground before Joseph.  On the issue of the “rogue Jews,” see below, point (2) J & A and Apostasy. On Pharaoh’s son’s hostility towards Joseph, see 24:14.  See in particular D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 29 – 40. Those individuals are mostly influential courtiers, as Haman in Esther, or “Simon, the captain of the Temple,” and Heliodorus, in 2 Maccabees. See also Collins, who comments that “the benevolence of the sovereign is assumed. The enemy of the Jews is the enemy of pharaoh too. This pattern is reminiscent of Esther, and we will find it again in 3 Maccabees.” J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 109.

308

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

II Joseph & Aseneth and Apostasy (3 Macc. 7:10 – 15) Although apostasy (i. e. Jews abandoning their faith) is not mentioned explicitly in J & A, it is alluded to in the action-part (chps. 22– 29) of the composition.⁶¹ The story reveals certain inner-Jewish tensions and refers to Jews who ally themselves with Gentiles against other Jews, represented by Joseph’s brothers (Zilpah’s and Bilhah’s sons), Dan and Gad (and presumably also Naphtali and Asher, who are not mentioned by name in the story).⁶² J & A clearly condemns such behavior,⁶³ which corresponds to 3 Maccabees’ disdain of apostate Jews. In my view, this too reveals that the authors of J & A and 3 Maccabees share the same Ideenwelt. Much as the issue of proselytism, the issue of apostasy, the reverse action of proselytism, too, seems to have been endemic to the world of both authors.⁶⁴

 A parallel case is the episode of the harmful bees attacking Aseneth in the “Honeycomb Scene” (J & A 16:17– 23), which Bohak interprets as an allusion to the hostile priests seeking to sabotage Onias and his temple-building project. G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 12– 14 (esp. p. 14). According to Chesnutt, the attack on Aseneth is an allusion to those Jews, who would go against other Jews who accept converts and intermarriage. See R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 114– 115.  See in particular R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 108 – 115. See also N. Hacham, “Joseph and Aseneth: Loyalty, Traitors, Antiquity and Diasporan Identity,” JSP 22 (2012): 53 – 67.  See e. g. 28:12– 14. Compare 3 Macc. 7:10 – 15 and L. Capponi, “Martyrs and Apostates,” 288 – 306. See also Sänger’s remarks that “Juden stehen also im Verein mit Nichtjuden gegen ihre eigenen Glaubensgenossen,” and that “Zum einen” there are “nicht-jüdische Kräfte, die ihre [i. e. the Jews’] Existenz gefährden. Auf der anderen Seite wird diese Gefahr von innen heraus verstärkt, indem geborene Juden aus Oppertunitätsgründen oder auch aus anderen Motiven heraus mit den antijüdischen Kräften paktieren.” (D. Sänger, “Erwägungen zur historischen Einordnung,” 99 – 100), but he attenuates his view elsewhere (D. Sänger, “Erwägungen zur historischen Einordnung,” 103, n. 86) citing personal correspondance with the late M. Hengel from the 24th of September 1979, which reads that: “Vom späten alexandrinischen Antisemitismus ist in JosAs dagegen kaum etwas zu spüren. Umgekehrt begegnet uns auch noch nicht jener Haß gegen Nichtjuden und die eigentlichen Apostaten, der uns dann im 3. Makkabäerbuch oder gar in der 5. Sibylle entgegentritt.” I disagree with Hengel. The very fact, that those tensions are thematized by J & A’s author reveals a certain annoyance with the issue. The circumstance that he does not express the hope of drinking the the apostates’ blood, and calling for their murder, as does the author of 3 Maccabees (7:11– 12), need mean only that he was more diplomatic or more gentle-spirited.  See similarly, R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 112.

6 The World of Joseph & Aseneth and the World of 3 Maccabees

309

III Joseph & Aseneth 25:1 – 4 and 3 Maccabees 1:2 – 4: Similar Story, Same Author? 3 Maccabees opens with a story about how a certain Theodotus plots to murder the Ptolemaic king, Philopator, in his tent while sleeping (3 Macc. 1:2– 4). The plot was foiled by a loyal Jew named Dositheus, who, as we later learn in an aside, turned his back on his Jewish faith and became an apostate.⁶⁵ This episode seems to have been inserted into an earlier (Oniad) draft of the composition.⁶⁶ That having been said, we return to J & A. In the second part of J & A, the “action-part,” we encounter the following story: And Pharaoh’s son rose and in that night and went to the chamber of his father in order to kill his father with a sword. And his father’s guards prevented him from going in to his father and said to him, ‘What are your orders, lord?’ And Pharaoh’s son said to them, ‘I want to see my father, because I am going out to harvest (the vintage of) my planted vineyard.’ And the guards said to him, ‘Your father suffers from a headache and lay awake all night, and now he is resting a little. And he said to us ‘Let no one come close to me, not even my firstborn son.’ And when he heard this, Pharaoh’s son went away hurriedly…(J & A 25:1– 4)⁶⁷

Although the real hero in this episode is a headache and not a loyal Jew, the resemblance of this story to Dositheus’ exploits in 3 Maccabees is quite striking. The common denominator of both stories is the basic underlying plot-line that a courtier, be it a certain (unknown) individual like in 3 Maccabees, or Pharaoh’s son as in J & A, plots to murder an Egyptian (i. e. Ptolemaic) king in his sleep. True, that it is impossible to ascertain a literary dependence of 3 Maccabees and J & A, yet the similarity of both stories and the observation that the unit in 3 Macc. 1:2– 4, which lacks a proper beginning, was inserted and drawn out of another literary context strongly suggests affiliation. So, was 3 Maccabees’ author the same as J & A’s? We do not know that, but what I suggest here is that the author of 3 Maccabees knew the particular passage in J & A (or vice versa, depending on which work was written first), which ultimately served as the source of inspiration for the author of either work. Thus, having claimed Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees, it is therefore attractive to propose that also the author of J & A came from the same milieu which provided him the accessibility to that story.

 The reference is to Dositheus, son of Drimylus, see above, Chapter 9 (p. 251, n. 60).  So already Büchler has noted, A. Büchler, Die Tobiaden und Oniaden, 203.  Burchard’s Translation, OTP, 243.

310

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

IV Loyalties: J & A and 3 Maccabees 6:25 – 67; 7:7 Another common theme of 3 Maccabees and J & A is the theme of unqualified Jewish loyalty towards their sovereigns. As 3 Maccabees, J & A too, recounts several events in which Jewish loyalty stands at the forefront of the narrative – obviously for the purpose of countering respective slander.⁶⁸ Since the topic has been thoroughly examined by N. Hacham already,⁶⁹ it suffices here to refer to two examples. The first example is Levi’s refusal to hurt Pharaoh’s son (23:7– 9 and later in 29:1– 6), even though the potential for harming him is explicitly worded. In both cases (i. e. at 23:7– 9 and 29:1– 6) it is Levi who calms his brothers’ spirits (Simon’s and Benjamin’s) and prevents them from killing Pharaoh’s son in spite of his evil deeds and disposition towards Joseph, Aseneth, and even his own father. By preventing harm to Pharaoh’s son, Levi ensures the Jews’ unqualified loyalty to their sovereigns, even though the Gentiles may be hostile towards their Jewish subjects. The second example illustrates a similar notion. J & A concludes its narrative with the episode of the moribund Pharaoh, who invested his power over all Egypt to Joseph. But when it is Joseph’s turn to step down, instead of passing the power down to his sons Ephraim and Manassas for instance, he duly returns it to the next (proper) pharaonic heir (29:8 – 9). Therefore, in this case too, Jews remain loyal to the regime and even withstand the temptation of usurping power over all Egypt. Obviously, especially for Jews who manned important functions in the Ptolemaic state, such as the Oniads, loyalty was of crucial importance. Here we may recall that Jewish loyalty to their Ptolemaic sovereigns is what Josephus’ story in C. Ap. 2.49 – 55, concerning Onias and his involvement in the Ptolemaic civil war of 145 BCE, is all about. Although the theme of Jewish loyalty is not unique to 3 Maccabees and J & A and appears in other Jewish compositions as well,⁷⁰ the absence thereof in 3 Maccabees and J & A might have undermined the possibility of Oniad authorship of both pieces. However, since the theme of loyalty is well rep-

 The most exhaustive study on the issue is Hacham’s. N. Hacham, “Joseph and Aseneth: Loyalty, Traitors,” 53 – 67, but see also E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 95 and J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 109. Note also E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 107, who summarizes the roles of Joseph’s brothers in the following words: “The allies of Joseph act in various ways: Levi in concert with Aseneth as merciful prophet, Benjamin as brave warrior, Simon and the others as loyal and unmatched combatants” (emphasis is mine, M.P.).  See the previous note.  See for instance the Book of Esther (and esp. LXX Esther) and the Letter of Aristeas. See also N. Hacham, “Bigthan and Teresh and the Reason Gentiles Hate Jews,” 318 – 356.

6 The World of Joseph & Aseneth and the World of 3 Maccabees

311

resented here, as it is in 3 Maccabees too, an Oniad authorship can readily be assumed.

V Other Features: a) Seven Days In two instances, 3 Maccabees (6:30; 7:17– 18) refers to festivities held by the liberated Jews for the duration of seven days that were sponsored by the king. This is echoed in J & A in the remark about Joseph and Aseneth’s seven-day wedding celebration sponsored by Pharaoh (21:8).⁷¹ While it is somewhat superfluous to underscore the significance of the number seven in Judaism in general, and the popularity of seven-day celebrations in particular, it is interesting to point out that the respective festivals sponsored by the king/Pharaoh in both compositions last seven days. The Jewish festivals mentioned in the Bible⁷² (notably Passover and the Feast of Tabernacles) are prescribed to last for that long, but the feasts mentioned in 3 Maccabees and J & A aren’t – save in their author’s imagination. In other words, there existed a reason why the authors of both of these works assigned a seven-day duration for these festivities and I would like to suggest that this reason was a common calendrical system. Other Jewish writings, such as 1 Enoch and in particular the Book of Jubilees, promote a calendar based on sevens, and on the sun.⁷³ The multiple references to sevens in J & A,⁷⁴ the importance of the east,⁷⁵ and solar-imagery, in my opin This is not the sole incident in J & A that the author refers to sevens: In preparation for her conversion, Aseneth is said to have fasted for seven days (“the seven days of her humiliation,” see 10:17; 11:1– 3; 13:9; 15:3); she is surrounded by seven virgins (17:6; 19:2); there are seven pillars in the “City of Refuge” (18:6); the reference to the “seven years of plenty” (1:1, echoing Gen 41); the foundations of Aseneth’s “place of rest” are said to be grounded in the seventh heaven (22:13 and compare 2 Enoch 20:1; 21:3; 40:9; 48:1; the Ascension of Isaiah 4, 7:1).  See Lev 23.  So also the calendar at Qumran. See A. Jaubert, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumrân: Ses origines bibliques,” VT 3 (1953): 250 – 264, and A. Jaubert, “Le calendrier des Jubilés et les jours liturgiques de la semaine,” VT 7 (1957): 35 – 61; more recently M. Albani, “Zur Rekonstruktion eines verdrängten Konzepts: Der 364-Tage-Kalender in der gegenwärtigen Forschung,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 79 – 125.  See above, n. 71. Also in the case of the importance of the number seven, a parallel to the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles may be drawn. So, Sib. Or. 3.280 refers to “seven decades” (see Jer 25:11 and compare Dan 9:27) and at 3.728 where “seven lengths of annually revolving times” (Ezek 39:9) are mentioned. On this issue, see E. S. Gruen, “Jews, Greeks, and Romans,” 23; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 277.

312

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

ion, point not only to the solar-calendar that was conventional in Egypt and the solar connotation of Heliopolis, but also to the internal Jewish usage of the suncalendar in the milieu of J & A’s author.⁷⁶ Elsewhere, I shall argue that the suncalendar was adhered to at Onias’ Temple and therefore, J & A’s author’s familiarity with the sun-calendar is another indicator of the text’s priestly Oniad background.⁷⁷

b) The Jews and the Court Another feature that J & A shares with several other Jewish-Hellenistic compositions is that of the Jews’ success at a foreign court.⁷⁸ As such, Joseph is depicted as mingling with Pentephres, a nobleman the priest of Heliopolis, a chief satrap and counselor of Pharoah (chapt. 1), while Joseph, expensively dressed, himself arrives at Heliopolis riding Pharaoh’s second chariot and holding a royal staff (ch. 5). In chapter 20, in the middle of the preparations for Joseph and Aseneth’s wedding, we read the following: And Pentephres said to Joseph, ‘Tomorrow I will call all the noblemen and the satraps of the whole land of Egypt and give a marriage feast for you…’ And Joseph said, ‘I will go to-

 “Der Osten hat ohnehin eine besondere Bedeutung für JosAs: Joseph kommt von Osten (5,2. 4; vgl. dazu 6, 2. 4. 69); von Osten her erschient auch der Engel (14,1 f.). Da Osten bekanntlich die Richtung des Sonnenaufgangs ist, wäre durchaus denkbar, dass auch hier ein Bezug auf die Sonnen- und Lichtsymbolik gegeben ist, die – neben den oben genannten Motiven – etwa auch in 8,9; 12,1 mit der Konnotation Gott – Licht und der Charakterisierung Aseneths als Lichtgestalt (20,6) begegnet. Auch sonst spielen Osten und Sonnenaufgang eine religiöse Rolle. So erwähnt Dan 6,11 den Brauch, nach Osten in Richtung Jerusalem zu beten.” J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten,” 177. The highlighted sentence in the quote is my emphasis, M.P.  That has also been suggested by R. T. Beckwith, “The Solar Calendar of Joseph and Asenath: A Suggestion,” JSJ 15 (1984): 90 – 111. Moreover, we wonder, together with Humphrey, if it is of significance (or a coincidence) for the author to orchestrate Joseph’s appearance in the region of Heliopolis (the “City of the Sun”) precisely on the date of the summer solstice? See E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 82. This would and could only make sense if the author himself adheres to a calendar based on the sun.  See below, Chapter 13.  The origin of this notion is surely to be sought in the biblical books Daniel (1– 6) and Esther. Other compositions, however, contain elements of the theme, describing the dealings of mostly one prominent Jew and a foreign king. See e. g. Greek Esther, Judith, Tobit, 2 and 3 Maccabees, Letter of Aristeas, Artapanus (Moses’ Life), and “The Tale of the Tobiads” (narrated by Josephus in Ant. 12.154– 234). See on this subject L. M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends (Harvard Theological Studies 26; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990) and S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 9 – 55.

6 The World of Joseph & Aseneth and the World of 3 Maccabees

313

morrow to Pharaoh the king, because he is like a father to me and appointed me chief of the whole land of Egypt…(J & A 20:8 – 9).

Not only is Joseph appointed chief of all of Egypt – a datum slightly reminiscent of Josephus’ statement at C. Ap. 2.49 that Philometor and Cleopatra committed their whole kingdom to the Jews – it is also stated here that Pharaoh was like a father to Joseph.⁷⁹ Later on, in chapter 21, Pharaoh himself presides over Joseph and Aseneth’s wedding ceremony. All this points to a world in which Jews were successful and highly influential at the Ptolemaic court and parallels may certainly be drawn to Onias and his men.⁸⁰ Moreover, and as I have noted at the outset of this discussion, there are remarkable parallels to 3 Maccabees and its intimate knowledge of the Ptolemaic court, its intrigues, dealings, and protocol.⁸¹ I have argued in the latter case, much as I do in the present one, that the intimate knowledge of the Ptolemaic/pharaonic court and the Jews’ influential stand there as illustrated in J & A seems to derive from the Oniads’ own prominence at the Ptolemaic court, and thus indicates Oniad authorship.

VI “I am the chief of the House of the Lord and commander of the host of the Most High…(J & A 14:8).” Militarism in Joseph & Aseneth J & A is probably best known for its dramatic love-story of the Jewish patriarch Joseph and Aseneth, daughter of the pagan Egyptian priest Pentephres. Less heeded is the last part of the bipartite tale (chpts. 23 – 29), which contains a good deal of action. Here, we are told that Pharaoh’s son, just having heard about Aseneth’s marriage with Joseph, decides to steal away the bride because of his envy of Joseph. Since he is unable to pursue this goal alone, he enlists Joseph’s hostile brothers, Dan and Gad (as well as Naphtali and Asher). As we may imagine, no one would give up his bride that easily, and so Pharaoh’s son is obliged to fight for Aseneth. He quickly plans to ambush Aseneth on her way with the aid of Joseph’s hostile brothers. A battle ensues in which Pharaoh’s son and

 This datum seems to allude to Gen 45:9 (“Hurry and go up to my father and say to him, ‘Thus says your son Joseph, God has made me lord of all Egypt; come down to me, do not delay.”). Note how J & A’s author, who was unquestionably aware of the biblical verse in Genesis, twists the original meaning of the verse into an apologetic statement about how well Jews can do and how successful they can be in the Egyptian Diaspora.  See also N. Hacham, “Joseph and Aseneth: Loyalty, Traitors,” 64– 65.  See e. g. 3 Macc. 1:2– 3; 5:1– 5; 5:14– 44.

314

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

Joseph’s hostile brothers are defeated. In the words of Bohak: “This entire section of Joseph and Aseneth [chapters 24– 28, M.P.], with its elaborate maneuvers and detailed battle scenes, could have been summarized in five short sentences. The fact that it does get so much space in the narrative might tell us something about the author’s own interests.”⁸² Indeed, J & A’s author seems to have had a military background, and while Onias’ men were hardly the only Jewish soldiers in all of Egypt, the correlation of the military and priestly background of the author, together with his in-depth familiarity of and association with the Ptolemaic court strongly, advances the assumption of Oniad authorship.

a) Foreigners and Fugitives ‘Why does my lord and my father…hand me over, like a captive, to a man (who is) an alien and a fugitive…? (J & A 4:9)’ is Aseneth’s question in reply to her father’s demand to marry her off to Joseph. Notably these are the author’s own words. What is of interest here is the notion that in spite of Joseph’s success with Pharaoh, he is still considered a foreigner and fugitive; not only by Aseneth, but apparently also by the author himself. I shall address the issue of fugitives presently, but first we note that the notion of being a foreigner is something we also encounter in 3 Maccabees. The latter work, in Eleazar’s intercession prayer (3 Macc. 6:3), contains the statement that God should: “look upon the descendants of Abraham, O Father, upon the children of the sainted Jacob, a people of your consecrated portion who are perishing as foreigners in a foreign land.”⁸³ Both authors, that of J & A and that of 3 Maccabees, thus perceived themselves as foreigners in Egypt. Certainly, we have good reason to assume that not all Jews in Egypt felt that way, for some felt more “at home” there than others.⁸⁴ That both authors share the notion of being a foreigner is hence quite revealing and points to a common social background of both authors.

 G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 48. See also the author’s offbeat remark that Aseneth’s teeth were “like fighting men lined up for a fight… (18:9),” which apparently articulates an interest in military affairs. To that I may add the philological note that J & A employs old Macedonian military slang by calling those Jews willing to join his alliance against Joseph “companions” (ἐταίροι). J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jersualem, 109. See also Humphrey’s assessment that the author of J & A depicts Benjamin as a brave warrior and the rest of Joseph’s brothers (first and foremost Simon) as “loyal and unmatched combatants.” E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 107.  Translation, NRSV; Emphases in italics are mine, M. P.  J. J. Price, “The Jewish Diaspora of the Graeco-Roman Period,” SCI 13 (1994): 169 – 186 (esp. p. 172) and Gruen’s comments (in spite of his rejection of this notion) in E. S. Gruen, Diaspora, 5.

6 The World of Joseph & Aseneth and the World of 3 Maccabees

315

In that context it is interesting to add here Aseneth’s second comment that Joseph was a fugitive. The biblical Vorlage nowhere mentions that Joseph fled from the Land of Israel and his brothers. Rather it only states that he was brought to Egypt by Ishmaelite slave dealers.⁸⁵ The issue of Joseph’s status of a fugitive is therefore an interesting and revealing aside – especially in context of an assumed Oniad authorship of J & A. Thus, just like the Joseph in J & A, Onias too, we recall, fled from Judaea to Egypt and became a respectable and high official of the Ptolemaic court. The tiny detail that Joseph (the patriarch who settled in Heliopolis) was allegedly a fugitive seems to betray the background of J & A’s author, who knew of Onias’ flight to Heliopolis where he established a community. The latter event is alluded to, as well, in the story of Ḥezekiah the high priest narrated in Pseudo-Hecataeus. Although, in that story, Ḥezekiah (i. e. Onias) came to Egypt of his free will. Therefore, also this detail in the text points to an Oniad authorship of J & A.

b) Priests, Priesthood, and Things Cultic Recall that the main argument for the assumption of an Oniad authorship of 3 Maccabees was the provenance of Eleazar, the high priest from the chora (3 Macc. 6:1). Next to that, I underscored the general importance of priests in the composition and argued that the emphasis on the priesthood makes little sense in a temple-less environment. It is natural to assume that an emphasis on pedigree and holy places usually points to a priestly background which is centered on such values. The only suitable candidate for such an environment in the Egyptian Diaspora was Onias’ Temple. Returning to J & A and the possibility of an Oniad origin of this work, we discern that here too, priests and things cultic are as prominent as they are in 3 Maccabees. Thus, as a prime example, I have already underlined the salient role of Levi in J & A and have referred to Bohak’s identification of the bees in the “Honeycomb Scene” that seem to represent priests, while the honeycomb itself and Aseneth’s house symbolize the Temple. I will refer next to some more examples, but first I will add another reference to things priestly in the composition, namely the recurrent reference to “fooddrink-ointment.”⁸⁶ The combination of these three elements, as Bohak observes,  Gen 37:27– 28, and later Gen 40:15 (“For in fact I was stolen out of the land of the Hebrews…”).  E. g. at 8:5,9; 15:5; 16:16; 19:5; 21:21. See also the discussions of Chr. Burchard, “The Importance of Joseph and Aseneth for the Study of the New Testament: A General Survey and Fresh Look at the Lord’s Supper,” NTS 33 (1987): 102– 134 (reprinted in Chr. Burchard, Gesammelte

316

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

in fact alludes to the ritual purity observed by Jewish priests, and in the context of J & A, to those of Onias’ Temple in particular.⁸⁷ The priestly elements in 3 Maccabees and J & A, thus, betray a priestly background of both authors, who, I suggest, came from the milieu of Onias’ Temple.

7 Joseph & Aseneth and the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles There are two major points of contact between J & A and the Third Book of the Sibyllene Oracles, namely a certain openness to converts and the importance of cultic issues and I shall address these points seriatim.

I Conversion and Proselytizing I have already stated that J & A seems primarily preoccupied with the issue of proselytizing and conversion to Judaism.⁸⁸ Here, I wish to draw attention to the fact that the conversion of Gentiles constitutes a theme of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles too.⁸⁹ Thus, it appears that also with regard to this aspect, the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles shares some of its Ideenwelt with J & A, a fact that enforces the view of a common Oniad background of both works.

II Do We Need Sacrifices? We recall that one of the main arguments in favor of an Oniad authorship of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles was the ubiquitous reference to the Temple and its cult in the oldest sections of the composition, indicating a priestly background of its author. Since the work was written in Egypt and is concerned with

Studien, 263 – 296); R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 128 – 136 and G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 55 – 58.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 57.  See above n. 3.  Sib. Or. 3.624– 634/ 3.624– 627, cf. 5.494– 497. See also E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 287, and L. H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993) 294.

7 Joseph & Aseneth and the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles

317

holy places and things cultic, the only possible candidate for such convention of conditions, so I have argued, is Onias’ Temple. Now, it is usually maintained that J & A is devoid of references to sacrifices and things such as holy places, but that assumption is only half true. True, there is no explicit mention of a (Jewish) temple in J & A, much as there is no reference to the sacrificial cult. But what most commentators seem to miss is that J & A, in fact, is replete with references to cultic appurtenances and employs corresponding cultic language. To exemplify I will refer to four points related to cultic appurtenances or priestly activities which in my view betray a priestly authorship of J & A, in spite of the absence of references to sacrifices in the work.

a) Joseph’s Attire (5:5): Joseph is described as wearing a white under-gown (κιτών) and an expensive purple cloak (στολῆ τῆς περιβολῆς) made of byssus that was embroidered with golden threads (πορφυρᾶ ἐκ βύσσον χρυσουφής). It is of note that Joseph’s attire is essentially that of a priest. The under-gown, the κιτών, was usually made out of white linen and that corresponding with the biblical prescription for a priest’s undergarment.⁹⁰ That is the case, too, with Joseph’s cloak, the στολῆ, an uncommon word which is actually used to describe a long garment worn by married Roman women, accentuating their chastity.⁹¹ Most tellingly, this word (στολῆ) is employed by Josephus when he comes to speak about the sumptuous garments of the high priest in Ant. 3.180 (and Ant. 18.90). Here we recall too, that the bees’ appearance in the “Honeycomb Scene” ape Joseph’s attire. The bees’ appearance is Bohak’s chief argument in suggesting that they represent priests and there is no reason not to concur with this assumption.⁹²

b) Aseneth’s Chambers (10:2): Correspondingly, Bohak argues that Aseneth’s abode (i. e. her tripartite chambers) is modeled on the sacred architecture of the Jerusalem Temple, an observation accepted by almost all commentators, including those who otherwise re-

 Exod 28:42: “You shall make for them linen undergarments to cover their naked flesh (NRSV).”  J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten,” 171.  See J & A 16:18: “And the bees were white as snow, and their wings were like purple and violet and like scarlet (stuff) and like gold-woven linen cloaks…;” G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 11.

318

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

ject Bohak’s reading of J & A. ⁹³ It is in this description of Aseneth’s housing that we encounter another rare and somewhat unusual expression, namely the term καταπέτασμα. That term, as noted, is extremely rare and mostly found in Christian literature,⁹⁴ where it denotes the ‫פרוכת‬, the veil in the Jerusalem Temple that separated the main hall (‫ )היכל‬from the Holy of Holies (‫)קודש הקודשים‬.⁹⁵

c) Joseph’s Crown (5:5): Following the portrayal of Joseph’s dress in 5:5 is the description of his headdress: a golden crown encircled with twelve “chosen stones,” each affixed with golden rays. Burchard paid attention to Joseph’s crown and suggested that J & A’s author may have had a statue of the sun god Helios in mind while composing the passage, although he notes too, that the figure may allude to the zodiac or to the twelve tribes.⁹⁶ Another, in my opinion more fitting, suggestion is to read the reference to the twelve “chosen stones” as a reference to the twelve “chosen stones” of the ephod (‫)אפוד‬, the high priest’s breastplate described in Exod 28:6 – 14. The literary license of the author seems to have transformed the breastplate into a crown, yet the reference still betrays the priestly background of the author.

d) Invoking God’s Name (11:15 – 18): Chapter 11 of J & A constitutes a monologue of Aseneth centered on her preparation to approach God prior to her conversion. In this psychologically insightful episode, Aseneth refers on three occasions to her intention to call upon God and “to name his terrible holy name.” The Bible restricts the utterance of the divine name and implying that it be used with care (for blessings, curses, and even

 So e. g. R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 119 – 120, 144– 145 (in particular p. 144, n. 78). For the allusion of Aseneth’s housing to the Temple of Jerusalem, see G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 67– 74; E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 87, but also J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten,” 178.  See Chr. Burchard, OTP, 215 (n. h); G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 70 – 71; R. S. Kraemer, When Aseneth Met Joseph, 119, 145 (n. 85).  Exod 26:31; 2Chron 3:14; Mat 27:51; Mk 15:38; Lk 22:45 and BJ 5.212– 214. For these and additional occurrences of this term in ancient Jewish and Christian literature, see W. Bauer, A GreekEnglish Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (transl. by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich; 2nd ed.; Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979) 416.  Chr. Burchard, “Joseph and Aseneth,” OTP, 208 (n. k).

8 The Judaisms of Joseph & Aseneth and Onias’ Community

319

magical purposes⁹⁷). In the Second Temple period the utterance of the divine name was restricted even more. It was the annual prerogative of the high priest alone, on the Day of Atonement.⁹⁸ Thus, this part of Aseneth’s conversion ritual too (next to the “Honeycomb Scene”) reflects priestly practice. To sum up, all four points discussed here allude to priests and priestly practices. In my opinion, these references reflect upon the social background of J & A’s author and his immediate environment (which includes his anticipated audience). J & A’s author thus seems to have been a priest who wrote for an audience that could have, and would have, related to and appreciated the issues and subtleties buried in the text.⁹⁹

8 The Judaisms of Joseph & Aseneth and Onias’ Community: On Priesthood, Conversion, Circumcision and the Openness toward ‘the Other’ Since it is a work that is generally held to focus on the conversion of Gentiles to Judaism, the absence of any reference to circumcision in J & A has often been emphasized.¹⁰⁰ However, the absence of references to circumcision is not confined to J & A alone,¹⁰¹ but is conspicuous in other works too, in particular those, that are considered to be primarily addressing Gentiles, especially the Third and Fifth Books of the Sibylline Oracles, the Letter of Aristeas, and the Sen-

 J. Trachtenberg, Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (1939; repr., University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004) 90 – 97; G. Bohak, Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008) 265; and B Nedarim 8b; B Sanhedrin 56a.  For the biblical restriction, see Lev 24:16 and also Ben Sira 23:9. For the practice of the high priest see M Yoma 6:2 and B Kiddushin 71a.  In the context of this debate we take note of another detail indicating priestly authorship, namely Aseneth’s purity, which is – in Humphrey’s words – “exaggerated to the point of absurdity.” E. M. Humphrey, Joseph and Aseneth, 75. The author’s emphasis on (ritual) purity would be best explained by his priestly background.  So for instance, M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth, 51– 52; Chr. Burchard, OTP, 193; and the broader treatment in R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 162– 165.  Here we note together with Chesnutt (From Death to Life, 164) that Aseneth’s womanhood renders circumcision unnecessary. At the same time, however, I think that the lack of mention of circumcision has other reasons. See also D. R. Schwartz, “Doing like Jews or Becoming a Jew? Josephus on Women Converts to Judaism,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World: Jüdische Identität in der griechisch-römischen Welt, ed. J. Frey, S. Gripentrog and D. R. Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 93 – 109.

320

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

tences of Pseudo-Phocylides. ¹⁰² Others found that the demand of circumcision as the conditio sine qua non for conversion to Judaism is a phenomenon of the (late) 1st century BCE onwards.¹⁰³ And although it will be difficult to verify this view,¹⁰⁴ it bears interesting implications for the dating of the compositions referred to above, including that of J & A. I, on the other hand, think that the reason for J & A’s muteness about circumcision has something to do with the priestly background of its author, rather than with any specific point in time of its composition; and that, in spite of our consent to date J & A prior to the end of the 1st century BCE. Once more, at the background of the discussion of an Oniad authorship for selected works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature, it is interesting to note that the absence of circumcision in J & A is also conspicuous in the Third and Fifth Books of the Sibylline Oracles. But let us return to the question of circumcision. Although J & A encourages proselytism and promotes the view that only he/she who turns his/her back on paganism and “dumb idols” is worthy of marrying a Jew and accepting the Jewish God, we note that nowhere in J & A is Aseneth (or anybody else for that matter) designated a Jew[ess] (’Ιουδαίος). Rather, people who believe in God are referred to as θεοσέβεοι, φοβούμενοι τὸν θεόν, or as σεβόμενοι τὸν θεόν.¹⁰⁵ This implies that while one may accept the Jewish God and His laws (which will turn one into a loyal worshipper) one does not, however, become a full-fledged Jew worthy of the ethnic designation ’Ιουδαίος. How, then, are we to explain this finding, especially as J & A’s author seems to be so adamant to have Aseneth accept the Jewish faith before marrying Joseph? Well, marrying a convert is one issue, circumcision is another. While even a pious Jew/Jewess may be tolerant enough to share his/her life with someone who generally embraces God (and particularly His laws), becoming a full-fledged Jew de jure (or better de halakhe) may be a whole different issue altogether. This is to say that the (quite pious) author of J & A did oblige proselytes to embrace the

 R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, 162.  N. J. McEleney, “Conversion, Circumcision and the Law,” NTS (1974): 319 – 341 (esp. p. 332– 333).  For a systematic refutation of McEleney’s arguments, see J. Nolland, “Uncircumcised Proselytes?” JSJ 12 (1981): 173 – 194.  On these, see F. Siegert, “Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten,” JSJ 4 (1973): 109 – 164 and J. Reynolds and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary (Cambridge Philological Society Supp. Vol. 12; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987) 48 – 66.

8 The Judaisms of Joseph & Aseneth and Onias’ Community

321

Jewish God and His laws, but at the same time, seems to have been of the conviction that no Gentile could ever become a full-fledged Jew. Such a view, essentially, makes rituals such as circumcision superfluous, and, in any case, ineffective. To this observation we should add that the notion that no convert could ever become a full-fledged Jew is essentially a priestly one, for priests are priests by birth and not by decision.¹⁰⁶ It derives from the fact that no convert could ever become a priest. In that context, it is most revealing that circumcision is conspicuously irrelevant in Qumranic texts/law, a community centered on priests and priesthood that adhered to priestly/Sadducean law.¹⁰⁷ The (priestly) conviction that no Gentile could really convert to Judaism thus is indicative of the social background of J & A’s author, who seems to have been a priest as I have attempted to disclose by means of other examples above.¹⁰⁸ At the same time, on the other hand, and as some scholars have noted before, the reader of J & A is somewhat struck by the general openness towards Gentiles who are invited and welcome to embrace God and His laws. We recall that such openness (or universalism) toward its Gentile environment was a characteristic feature of the funerary epitaphs of the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh as well. In arguing for an Oniad authorship of J & A this point is of particular significance. In my discussion of those epitaphs (Chapter 6) I sought to explain this particular form of universalism by referring to the mercenary character of Onias’ community, which most probably included Gentile soldiers too. This assumption, then, could be put to work to explain the possibility of the mixed nature of the Tell el-Yahoudieh cemetery as suggested by T. Ilan, in lieu of the commonly held view of the purely Jewish nature of that cemetery.¹⁰⁹ It would also explain why the author of J & A addressed the problem of intermarriage and proselytism in the first place. It seems that the continuous exposure of the Jewish members of Onias’ community (no matter how pious they were) to their pagan, Egyptian, Gentile, Hellenistic environment ultimately left its mark and advanced the assimilation of Onias’ community. This, in turn, influenced its cultural activity and found its expression in Oniad literature as well as in its material culture – i. e. in the funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh.

 In Schwartz’s aptly words: “A Gentile could not become a Jew any more than an Israelite could become a priest.” D. R. Schwartz, “Yannai and Pella, Josephus and Circumcision,” DSD 18 (2011): 354. See also D. R. Schwartz, “Doing like Jews or Becoming a Jew?” 93 – 109.  See D. R. Schwartz, “Yannai and Pella, Josephus and Circumcision,” 339 – 359.  See also M. Thiessen, Contesting Conversion, 87– 110.  See T. Ilan, “The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis,” 71– 86.

322

Chapter 11 Joseph & Aseneth: Oniad Fiction?

9 Conclusion: The Date and Provenance of Joseph & Aseneth J & A is not a work on conversion/proselytism per se. Rather it treats the problems and challenges of Jewish life of the Oniad community in the Egyptian Diaspora, which include the problem of extra-communal (specifically romantic) relations with foreigners in general and with Egyptians (locals) in particular. This conflict is embodied in the precedent of the biblical tale of Joseph the patriarch, who married an Egyptian woman. ¹¹⁰ J & A’s author, in all probability, was a priest affiliated with Onias’ community and his Temple.¹¹¹ Onias’ community, as I have underlined many times before, was essentially a community of loyal Jewish mercenaries and this, as I have attempted to show, finds an expression in J & A. Thus, next to the ample references to priests and priestly practice in the work, we also encounter themes which correspond to a milieu of soldiers/mercenaries, such as loyalty towards one’s sovereign and elaborate battle accounts. That J & A’s author seems to have hailed from Onias’ community is further strengthened by his world-view, in particular concerning issues such as idolatry, identity, conversion, loyalty, the Jew’s standing within Ptolemaic society, etc. Intriguingly, we re-encounter these views in other contemporary Jewish-Hellenistic works of Egyptian provenance, namely 3 Maccabees, the Third and Fifth Books of the Sibylline Oracles, and Pseudo-Hecataeus. The congruence of the worldviews expressed in these particular works, is not accidental – so I have argued. Rather, it is rooted in the fact that all of these compositions stem from the quill of Oniad authors. In terms of dating, I refer in particular to the second part of J & A which displays a world (and political constellation) that befits the late Ptolemaic period. Therefore, I conclude with Hacham that this is in all likelihood the period in which J & A was written.¹¹²

 Notably, other Jewish commentators, in contrast, solved the problem of Joseph’s marriage to an Egyptian girl by making Aseneth “kosher,” claiming that she was Dinah’s daughter and conceived by Shem as a result of his rape of Dinah (Gen 34). Pirḳe de Rabbi Eleazar 38; Midr. Abkir, quoted in Yalḳuṭ Shimoni, Gen 146; Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Gen 45:20. See K. Kohler, “Asenath, Life and Confession,” 172– 176; and in particular V. Aptowitzer, “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph,” 239 – 256; Chr. Burchard, Untersuchungen, 95 – 99 and A. Standhartinger, Das Frauenbild, 151– 169.  And I am thus in complete agreement with Bohak here. G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 101– 104.  See N. Hacham, “Joseph and Aseneth: Loyalty, Traitors,” 64– 65 and similarly, J. K. Zangenberg, “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten,” 159 – 186.

Part III The History of the Temple of Onias in the Hellenistic Period

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History: From the Establishment of the Oniad Community in Egypt until the Roman Conquest (168/167 – 31/30 BCE) 1 Introduction In our quest to reconstruct the history of the Onias’ Temple and its community, let us begin our historical reconstruction with the events of the eve of the Maccabean revolt. Our main sources with respect to this event and to Onias III, whom I previously have identified as the builder of Onias’ Temple, are 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus. We recall that 1 Maccabees does not mention Onias at all and 2 Maccabees – for this or that reason (which I have discussed in earlier chapters) – distorts Oniad history. Josephus, who to a large degree relied on the former work and did not know the latter, had recourse to sources that may compensate for the shortcomings of both 1 and 2 Maccabees. In that context, I have noted that Josephus had on his table a Jewish source on the foundation of Onias’ Temple, in all likelihood one that was authored there, and also a source akin to 2 Maccabees, which I have labelled as such (the “Menelaus Source”). In the following reconstruction of Oniad history I shall resort to this dossier of sources and to others such as papyri and inscriptions, when relevant.

2 Onias’ Flight and Jerusalem on the Eve of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ Accession With the exception of Josephus, to whom I will turn presently, Onias is introduced to us in 2 Maccabees 3 and 4, where he adopts a central role in the narrative. Here, we are told about his confrontation with the “captain of the Temple,” Simon, and his exploits during the “Heliodorus affair” that ensued in consequence of this dispute. 2 Maccabees’ next memorable note on Onias is the episode of his deposition (2 Macc. 4:7) which is (roughly) dated to the point of Antiochus’ IV Epiphanes accession to the throne in the wake of Seleucus’ IV death. As Mørkholm has shown, the transition of power did not transpire immediately, but only some months after Seleucus’ IV death towards the end of

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-018

326

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

the year 175 BCE.¹ Perhaps this narrow time window of an unsure political situation in the Seleucid Empire, Judaea’s sovereigns, was exploited by Jason in order to depose Onias without much hindrance and pressure from the Seleucid king. In order to make his plan official, Jason travelled to Antioch where he could “convince” the new king, aided by an incentive of 380 talents of silver, that he would be a better high priest than his brother Onias.² Once more, this event, according to 2 Maccabees’ chronology, took place in 175 BCE. Three years later (i. e. around 173/172 BCE), as we learn from 2 Macc. 4:23, Jason’s endeavor to illegitimately usurp the high priesthood ultimately backfired and Menelaus, Simon’s brother (according to 2 Macc. 4:23) became the new high priest by the same means as Jason before him. Jason reacted by fleeing to Trans-Jordan (4:26) and later, in the wake of an unsuccessful attempt to regain control of Jerusalem and the high priesthood, he is said to have fled from city to city, and to have died on his way from Egypt to Sparta (2 Macc. 5:7– 9). We are not told what befell Onias after his deposition in 175 BCE, and we only hear of him again, briefly, in 2 Macc. 4:33. There he is reintroduced into the narrative as residing in exile in Daphne (Syria), this time in confrontation with Menelaus who incites his assassination (4:34– 36). I have shown that the two latter statements, namely Onias’ presence in Syria and his murder, make little sense and are fictitious. Yet, this does not help us much in elucidating Onias’ fate from 175 BCE onwards, since the next reliable piece of information about Onias’ whereabouts is CPJ 132 that attests to his being alive and well, and well-established in Egypt in 164 BCE. Therefore, we are faced with a chronological gap of about ten years and a historical “black hole” left to fill in. The only other detail we confidently know is that Onias fled from Judaea to Egypt sometime between Antiochus’ IV accession to the throne (in 175 BCE) and during or after the Sixth Syrian War (170 – 168 BCE), but we cannot be sure when exactly that occurred and are consequently compelled to resort to speculation as to what had happened in the approximately ten years between 175 – 164 BCE.³ The only evidence we have are Josephus’ reports in BJ 1.31– 33; 7.423 – 427 and Ant. 12.237– 240 that chronicle the state of civil war in Jerusalem on the eve of the Maccabean revolt that involved two fractions; those in favor of Onias/Jason, the other in favor of Menelaus, whom Josephus calls the “Sons of Tobias.”⁴ In spite of the similarity of Josephus’ accounts, they are contradictory: According to War (BJ 1.31– 32), Onias clashed with the “Sons of Tobias” and pre   

O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 38 – 50 (esp. p. 49). 2 Macc. 4:8. BJ 1.31; BJ 7.423. BJ 1.31– 32; Ant. 12.239 – 240 and compare 2 Maccabees 5:5 – 10.

2 Onias’ Flight and Jerusalem on the Eve of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ Accession

327

vailed. The latter escaped to Antiochus IV and pressed him to invade Judaea and to retake Jerusalem, causing Onias to flee to Egypt. Note however, that neither Menelaus, nor any religious reforms are mentioned in that passage, and that Onias is described there as “one of the high priests” (εἷς τῶν ἀρχιερέων). In addition, according to Josephus’ internal chronology, these events took place around the outbreak of the Sixth Syrian War, i. e. around the years 170/169 BCE and Antiochus’ IV first invasion of Judaea in 168/167 BCE.⁵ In the Antiquities (12.237– 241) the events are described a bit differently. Here, Jason contends against Menelaus and the “Sons of Tobias,” prevails over them and causes them to escape to Antioch. There they press for the implementation of Hellenistic (religious) reforms (§§ 240 – 241). This time, no mention is made of Onias and since § 244 refers to the so-called “Day of Eleusis,” we should date the passage accordingly to 168/167 BCE.⁶ Finally, there is the 2 Maccabees version of the events (2 Macc. 5:5 – 10) which records that Jason, upon the rumor of Antiochus’ IV death (sometime in the late summer or early autumn of 168 BCE)⁷, attempted to retake Jerusalem with a substantial force. Although Jason succeeded in pushing back Menelaus and his force into the citadel of Jerusalem near the Temple, his invasion is a failure. He is obliged to flee, first to Trans-Jordan and then to Egypt. Note that in contrast to Josephus, 2 Maccabees never mentions any “Sons of Tobias.” Again, this Josephan plus seems to derive from another source. What are we to make of this confused state of our sources? To begin with, as I have pointed out earlier with Tcherikover,⁸ Josephus wrongly ascribes historical events to Onias III in BJ 1.31– 32 that, in fact, pertain to Jason. I have accounted for Josephus’ mistake with his effort to provide a brief historical prelude for his longer narrative on the foundation of Onias’ Temple in BJ 7. Josephus’ (yet unidentified) source for the civil strife in Jerusalem on the eve of the Maccabean revolt perhaps even mentioned Jason, or, what is more reasonable, simply referred to “the high priest of Jerusalem,” thereby causing Josephus to introduce Onias instead. That this was the case is supported by Josephus’ employment

 Tcherikover’s assumption that Jason was compelled to twice defend his position vis-à-vis Menelaus by use of force (once in 171 BCE and once in 168 BCE) is untenable. Cf. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 171, 393.  As a matter of fact, in light of Josephus’ (erroneous) identification of Onias with Menelaus in Ant. 12.237– 238, he seems convinced here that the events he ascribes to Menelaus, in fact, pertain to Onias. But this is certainly problematic, judged from a historical perspective. On the socalled “Day of Eleusis,” see below.  For the dating see O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 143.  V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 392– 395.

328

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

of the cautious phrasing “one of the high priests.”⁹ We would thus be inclined to “erase completely the passage…from the list of historical sources of the Hellenistic period,” in Tcherikover’s words.¹⁰ Yet although the story of the civil strife and Onias’ involvement in it may be historically volatile, we note too that Josephus attempted to harmonize it with the “Leontopolis Source” he used for BJ 7.423 – 436. This explicitly stated that Onias fled to Egypt in the wake of Antiochus’ IV invasion of Judaea. As for Antiquities 12, we recall that Josephus used here a source akin to 2 Maccabees. This explains the resemblance of its contents with 2 Maccabees 5, but does not explain its differences. The latter, so it seems, arise from Josephus’ confusion and hapless splicing of sources as I have elucidated earlier.¹¹ Vis-à-vis 2 Maccabees 5, Josephus’ account in Antiquities 12 indeed appears to be the more problematic from a historical point of view. To sum up this debate, even though we are left in the shadows about the precise turn of events surrounding Onias’ III flight to Egypt, we can safely assume that the Sixth Syrian War led to a fractionising of Jewish society in two camps: those in favor of the Ptolemies and those in favor of the Seleucids.¹² Against this backdrop, factions were formed in support of this high priest, or the other – Onias, Jason, or Menelaus. This picture emerges both from 2 Maccabees and from Josephus, regardless of the fact that in his War, Josephus is at pains to blacken Onias as a fomenter of stasis (civil strife). Thus, Jerusalem in the years between 175 and 168/167 BCE certainly was a tense place to live in. What Onias did after his deposition in 175 BCE remains unclear, but we may surmise that he did not give up his position without a fight and therefore allied himself with Ptolemy VI Philometor, Antiochus’ rival – true to the motto: “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” With no standing army behind him, we may imagine that Onias worked in the political shadows against his brother and the Seleucid regime until in 168/167 BCE, Antiochus IV himself invaded Judaea and threatened not only Onias and his followers, but also its inhabitants and the Temple,

 Stern argued that the phrasing suggests a Roman dating of the passage M. Stern, The Great Families of the Second Jewish Commonwealth, 127– 132 [Hebrew]. Tcherikover, contended that Josephus seems to have forgotten who was high priest at the time of the reforms and therefore ascribed the Hellenistic reforms to Menelaus and/or the “Sons of Tobias” instead of Jason as affirmed by 2 Maccabees (4:9 – 17). See V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 397.  V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 393.  Chapter 1 and cf. V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 395 – 397, who defends at all costs the superiority of 2 Maccabees as the more historical source. See also E. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabäer, 163 – 165 and M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 509 and there (n. 133).  See on this also D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 158 – 161.

2 Onias’ Flight and Jerusalem on the Eve of Antiochus IV Epiphanes’ Accession

329

which was ultimately defiled.¹³ This must have been the moment that Onias realized that he could do more in exile than at home in Jerusalem. He packed his bags and left for Egypt with a number of his followers.¹⁴ In 164 BCE, we find Onias in a respectable and high-ranked position as στρατηγός (strategos) in the nome of Heliopolis.¹⁵ Once more, we are left in the dark what had occurred in the few years beforehand, but we should assume with Josephus that Onias and his entourage first came to Alexandria and, for the time being, enjoyed the hospitality of the Ptolemaic king.¹⁶ The Oniads certainly required some time to regroup, mourn, and to establish themselves in their new environment. In Chapter 8 I suggested that this precisely, was the period in which the oldest text stratum of the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracle was composed which is characterized by grieving about the defilement of the Temple. Josephus tells us that Onias filed a petition to the king for receiving a certain territory in the nome of Heliopolis in which Onias would eventually build a temple, a city, and a fortress.¹⁷ While I shall turn our attention to these details presently, it suffices to state that Onias’ wish was granted by Philometor and he agreed to make Onias master of the Heliopolitan district and settled him and his men there as military klerurchs on katoicic land (κλῆροι/κάτοικοι).¹⁸ Because  1 Macc. 1:20 – 24; 2 Macc. 5:15 – 16; Dan 11:28, 30. Antiochus IV came twice to Judaea, once in the autumn of 169 BCE on his way back from Egypt, and a second time in the late summer or early autumn of 168 BCE during his second Egyptian incursion in response to Jewish unrest following rumors of his death. See E. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabäer, 160 – 168; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 186 – 189; O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 142– 143; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus 3, 510 – 511; K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 29; D. R. Schwartz, “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” 45 – 56; P. F. Mittag, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 225 – 281. On the defilement of the Temple see Dan 11:31; 1 Macc. 1:21– 37; 2 Macc. 5:15 – 16; BJ 1.34; Ant. 12.248 – 253.  BJ 1.31– 33; 7.423.  CPJ 132 and Chapter 7.  BJ 7.423; Ant. 13.62.  BJ 1.33 mentions the building of a city and a temple and BJ 7.427 mentions a fortress and a temple.  On Ptolemaic military settlers and settlements (κληρουχίαι), see: J. Lesquier, Les Institutions militaries de l’Égypte sous les Lagides (Paris: Leroux, 1911) and esp. 30 – 66; A. Bouché-Leclerque, Histoire des Lagides (4 vols.; Paris: Leroux, 1907) 4:13 – 46; E. R. Bevan, The House of Ptolemy: A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty (London: Methuen Publishing, 1927) 168 – 174; M. Launey, Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (BEFAR 169; 2 vols.; Paris: E. de Boccard, 1949 – 50) 1: 42– 60; F. Uebel, Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968). Military (mercenary) service of Jews in Egypt has a long-standing tradition. Already Herodotus (Histories 2.30, 112, 154) speaks about foreign warriors in the service of the late Pharaohs and it might be that the various Jewish settlements mentioned by Jeremiah, were in fact military settlements. The latter lists Jewish settlements at Migdol, Tahpanhes

330

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

(Daphne), Memphis, and in the land of Pathros, (Jer 2:16; 43:7; 44:1; 46:14). D. J. Thompson, Memphis under the Ptolemies (Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1989) 85; V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 1:12. Note that Jer 43:13 mentions a Jewish presence at the site of ON (‫)און‬, established by Joseph, which Josephus later identified with ancient Heliopolis (Ant. 2.185, 188). We may speculate whether ON was a Jewish military settlement already in biblical times. See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 26. The very first well-attested Jewish military settlement was the Jewish garrison at Elephantine, whose foundation should be dated a short time after the destruction of the first Temple (587/6 BCE). On the discussion of the date of the establishment of the Elephantine temple and community, see A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, xx-xxi; B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 119; see also J. J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 22– 26; V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 12. E. Mayer contended that the community was estbalished already in the 7th century BCE, but a date after the destruction of the first Temple is more reasonable. E. Mayer, Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine: Dokumente einer jüdischen Gemeinde aus der Perserzeit und das älteste erhaltene Buch der Weisheitsliteratur (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912) 32– 38. The argument that the community was established by the Persians can likewise be rejected on the grounds that when the Persians conquered Egypt under Cambyses in 525 BCE, they found the community already established there for some time. See V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 1:12. However, the introduction of military settlers into Egypt is usually ascribed to Ptolemy I Soter (323 – 282 BCE). See e. g. L. Fuchs, Die Juden Ägyptens, 48 – 52; V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 1:12; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 27– 28; A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 61. That those military settlers included Jews is suggested by relevant passages in the Letter of Aristeas (13 and 36), where it is recorded that Ptolemy I Lagos captured a large number of Jewish prisoners of war from Judaea and brought them to Egypt. There, he selected a number of them, armed them and established them as garrison-troops serving as guards in the many fortresses maintained by the Ptolemies throughout the country. In a note based on Strabo, in Ant. 14.114– 116, Josephus refers to large Jewish settlements in Egypt and in Cyrene (see also the inscriptions SEG 16, 931 and 17, 823). Willrich has doubted that Jewish mercenaries fought in the Ptolemaic army, because that obliged them to do service also on the Sabbath. Compare H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 28. It suffices to refer to the substantial papyrological evidence (CPJ 18 – 32). But Jews were not only serving as soldiers for the Ptolemaic Empire. In fact, Josephus, too, mentions Jewish soldiers in service of the Seleucids. See e. g. Ant. 12.125; 12.147– 153, where the establishment of Jewish contingents in Lydia and Phrygia under Antiochus III is chronicled. Similarly, in C. Ap. 2.39 and 2 Macc. 8:20. See A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 60 – 62. For Jewish military settlers in Cyrene and other Libyan cities, see C. Ap. 2.44; S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, 130 – 200. As it appears, the Ptolemaic sovereigns allowed their Jewish fighters to keep their traditions and it seems too, that there existed, next to mixed units, also entirely Jewish military units and settlements. See A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 63 (and there, n. 25). Kasher gives the examples of “The Jewish Village,” (Castra Judaeorum), “Babylon (Ant. 11.339),” and a place called “Sadeh” in the neighborhood of the village Bacchias in the north of the Fayûm (see P. Ryl. 154, dated 66 CE). A village called after a certain Dositheos (P. Oxy. 1424– 5; 1448; 2124, dated to 318 CE), who seems to have been its founder, may also have been entirely Jewish. Last but not least, of course, there are Onias’ settlements in the “Land of Onias”; V. Tcherikover, The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic- Roman Age in the Light of the Papyri (Jerusalem, 1963) 38, 96 – 7 [Hebrew]. See V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 14– 15; A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 62; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 30. Based on CPJ 24, 30, and 33, Kasher argues for an existence of purely Jewish military units prior to the establish-

3 Why Build a Jewish Temple in Egypt?

331

of its strategic location, the establishment of a garrison in the Heliopolitan area certainly had the benefit of a tactical advantage, enabling a military force to thwart invasions from the north, especially from the direction of Pelusium, the gateway into Egypt from the north.¹⁹

3 Why Build a Jewish Temple in Egypt? The only information about Onias’ motives for the building of his temple is provided by Josephus, who strikes us as somewhat overeager in this respect, for he provides us with three motives: (1) Onias built his temple because of rivalry with Jerusalem (BJ 7.431– 432); (2) he built his temple in order to attain eternal fame and to unite Egyptian Jewry (Ant. 13.63 – 64); (3) he builds his temple on account of an ancient prophecy of Isaiah, predicting the existence of an altar in Egypt (BJ 7.432; Ant. 13.64, 68, 71). Tellingly, War and Antiquities each ascribe to Onias very different motives for the building of his temple, namely one political (BJ) and one social/religious (Antiquities). But they both agree that what stands in the background is Isaiah’s prophecy, which leaves us confused.²⁰ I have explained elsewhere (in Chapter 1) that Onias’ motives essentially mirror Josephus’ own perception of Onias in accordance with the Tendenz of each of his major historical compositions (BJ and Antiquities). Therefore, Onias’ motives are not only different in both works, but they also fulfill a narratological purpose within the framework of the whole composition. Hence, it would seem that the only valid motive provided by Josephus for the building of Onias’ Temple is Isaiah’s prophecy, which I will discuss subsequently. But we should keep in mind, however, that Onias himself was driven by other factors. The most important factor, and in my view the pivotal one, was the cessation of the daily sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem and hence the lack of a functioning Jewish shrine anywhere. This provoked Onias to petition for the erection of a temple devoted to God, for how in the absence of a temple can a (former) high priest perform his religious duties, which are based on sacrifices? The fact that he was in a foreign country devoid of a temple was a secondary issue that would be fixed. True, Onias could have done what most Diaspora Jews did under these circumstances, namely, substitute sacrifices with prayers ment of the Oniad community in the mid-2nd century BCE. A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 65.  See also G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 520,” 36 and esp. there, n. 21.  Gruen rules that Josephus’ “… reasons are not really valid.” See E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 58.

332

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

and the Temple with synagogues (or proseuchai in the case of Egypt). But Onias was not a Diaspora Jew (just yet); he was a high priest. Thus, he chose to petition to build a temple which was ultimately directly attached to his name and was to become known as the “Temple of Onias.” However, we have good reason to assume that despite Onias’ piety and pedigree it was not alone that that prompted him to build a temple on foreign soil, but that other conditions played key roles in his decision as I will elucidate below.²¹ We should assume that not much time passed after Onias’ arrival in Egypt in 168/167 BCE, until he began his project of building his temple and was granted the territory in the nome of Heliopolis that came to be known as the “Land of Onias”.²² But as long as the archaeological vestiges of Onias’ Temple remain unexposed,²³ we are in no position to provide a precise date for its construction. Nonetheless, an educated guess would be the period between 167– 164 BCE and we should be mindful of the fact that precisely in those years no active and appropriate sacrificial cult was performed in Jerusalem.²⁴ We may suspect that Onias would not have erected his temple were the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem still under way as this would have meant dividing the nation, a difficult step to take despite Onias’ feeling that he remained the legitimate high priest, exiled by evil forces. Thus, I contend that Onias’ Temple was initially conceptualized as a substitute for the Temple of Jerusalem and not a rival. This step was required to save the form of (Jewish) religion he was accustomed to from Jerusalem.²⁵

 Many scholars, first and foremost Tcherikover, emphasize the military factor in the establishment of Onias’ Temple and connect this with the notion that Onias’ Temple only serviced the Jewish mercenaries of Onias’ community locally. Cf. V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 45; V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 278 – 280. The importance of the military factor as a motive for Onias is contended too by G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 520,” 36 – 38 and J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 128  BJ 1.33; BJ 7.423; Ant. 13.63 – 73; Ant. 14.131; Ant. 20.236; JIGRE 38.  On this issue, Chapter 5.  Of course, we should include in this calculation a certain time for the construction of Onias’ Temple. Parallel evidence from Josephus suggests that the temple proper took approximately one year and a half to build. See Ant. 15.421 and D. W. Roller, The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998) 176 – 178; E. Netzer, The Architecture of Herod the Great, The Great Builder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006) 12, 153. We do not know how Onias’ Temple looked like – save for the few, insufficient details provided by Josephus in BJ 7.427– 430 – but we conjecture that it was less lavish than Herod’s grandiose building project, meaning that it might have required less time to build.  See on this issue the conclusion of this study (“Concluding Oniad History”) and the literature cited there.

4 Isaiah and Onias: Legitimizing the Temple of Onias

333

4 Isaiah and Onias: Legitimizing the Temple of Onias By Deuteronomistic standards, building a Jewish temple on foreign soil and outside of the premises of Jerusalem was problematic – to say the least.²⁶ Therefore, Onias needed to find a way of legitimizing his project.²⁷ It seems that the best strategy to circumvent a scriptural prohibition is by referring to scripture itself, if this offers the possibility of eluding the problem in any way at all. In the case of Onias, this meant the ancient prophecy of Isaiah that predicts the erection of an altar devoted to God and the building of five Jewish cities in Egypt (19:18 – 19).²⁸ The relevant verses in the Masoretic version read as follows: On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD of hosts. One of these will be called the City of the Sun [‫ִעיר ַהֶה ֶרס‬, actually: City of Destruction]. On that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the center of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the LORD at its border (Isaiah 19:18 – 19, NRSV).²⁹

Notably, the NRSV translators rendered the words ‫ִעיר ַהֶה ֶרס‬, which actually means “City of Destruction,” and quite obviously bears a negative connotation, as “City of the Sun,” which is essentially a reading one attains when performing a minor change – at the level of exchanging only one letter (‫ ה‬and ‫ – )ח‬which makes all the difference in the semantics of the verse. Namely, by substituting ‫ ֶה ֶרס‬with ‫ֶח ֶרס‬, the relevant words denote ‫“( ִעיר ַהֶח ֶרס‬the City of the Sun”) as indeed rendered by NRSV’s translators.³⁰ But what moved the translators to introduce this change? The answer lies in textual criticism and archaeology: The discovery of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) at Qumran, which is a much older text witness than MT (the Masoretic text), has confirmed that the original version of these verses,³¹ seems to be “City of the Sun” and not “City of Destruction,” as in the  Deut 12:4– 6, 13 – 18.  So for instance, O. Murray, “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship,” JTS 18 (1967): 365 (n. 1), 369 and especially R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 438 – 441.  This is emphasized by Josephus. See BJ 7.432; Ant. 13.64, 71. Most scholars assume that Isa 19:16 – 25 is a later addition, but not as late as the finalization of LXX Isaiah (140 – 125 BCE). J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1 – 39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 317– 320.  ‫ ס‬:‫ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא יְִהיוּ ָחֵמשׁ ָע ִרים ְבֶּא ֶרץ ִמְצ ַריִם ְמ ַד ְבּרוֹת ְשַׂפת ְכּ ַנַען ְו ִנ ְשׁ ָבּעוֹת ַלה’ ְצָבאוֹת ִעיר ַהֶה ֶרס ֵיָאֵמר ְלֶאָחת‬ :’‫ ַבּיּוֹם ַההוּא יְִה ֶיה ִמ ְז ֵבּ ַח ַלה’ ְבּתוְֹך ֶא ֶרץ ִמְצ ָריִם וַּמ ֵצָּבה ֵאֶצל ְגּבוָּלּה ַלה‬. The italics in the text are mine, M.P.  The word ‫ֶח ֶרס‬, in its meaning of “sun,” is extremely rare in the Bible and appears only once more in this meaning in Job 9:7: “who commands the sun, and it does not rise; who seals up the stars; (’‫תּם‬ ֹ ‫אֵמר ַלֶח ֶרס ְול ֹא יִ ְז ָרח וְּבַעד כּוָֹכִבים ַיְח‬ ֹ ‫)’ָה‬.  The question which reading is the original one troubled many commentators, but it has become somewhat of a scholarly consens to give precedence to the ‫ ִעיר ַהֶח ֶרס‬reading. See the lit-

334

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

MT.³² Indeed, the “City of the Sun” reading is supported by other text-witnesses, such as Jerome’s Vulgata that renders civitas soli, and Symmachus’ Greek translation that has ηλιόυ πόλις.³³ Finally, the Targum too, preserves the connection of the toponym with the sun, denoting it as ‫“( בית שמש‬House of the Sun”), but it also refers to the destruction of the city and thus, the two traditions seem to be conflated.³⁴ The text-witness used by the Masorets, is clearly pejorative and perhaps of Jerusalemite origin.³⁵ The MT reading, thus, seems to be a polemical version of the text, directed at Onias’ Temple that is usually associated with this prophecy.³⁶ The Septuagint version of these verses preserves an interesting reading, one that refers neither to a “City of Destruction,” nor to a “City of the Sun,” but to a “City of Righteousness” (πόλις ἀσεδέκ). The first of the two words is obviously a translation (city – πόλις – ‫)ִעיר‬, the second word, however, is a transliteration of

erature listed by K. Kim, Theology and Identity, 81 (n. 215). Others considered the LXX reading the original, so e. g. I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 68, while others have suggested a different interpretation altogether. See for instance R. L. Troxel, LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (SupJSJ 124; Leiden: Brill) 169 – 171.  The reading is also extant in 4QIsab. On 1QIsaa see P. Pulikottil, Transmission of Biblical Texts at Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa (JSP Sup. 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) and E. Tov, Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 42– 56.  Aquilla and Theodotion render αρες, which is certainly a transliteration of ‫ֶח ֶרס‬. Note that Symmachus’ ηλιόυ πόλις is also the name of the nome in which Onias’ Temple was located. Kim takes Symmachus’ reading as corroborating evidence for the original reading of the verse, since Josephus claims that the Heliopolitan nome is where Onias built his temple. K. Kim, Theology and Identity, 79.  Or alternatively, the Targumic translator updated the original prophecy according to his reality, in which the Oniad Temple has long been destroyed. See the discussion below. We recall too, that the Targumic notion is reflected in B Men. 110a. The Codex Sinaiticus too, preserves a reading (ασεδ ηελιου) that seems to conflate the two traditions.  E. Tov, The Textual Criticism of the Bible: An Introduction (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1989) 21– 22 [Hebrew]. But we should note here that Isaiah 19 comes in context of a series of prophecies against Judaea’s enemies, predicting their destruction (!). Thus, for instance, Isaiah 15, is a prophecy against Moab and Isaiah 17, a prophecy against Damascus. It thus seems natural that the Masorets would change the reading from ‫ ֶח ֶרס‬to ‫ –ֶה ֶרס‬once more, the difference is only one (very similar) letter!  To cite but a few: M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 200; S. Lassalle, “L’histoire des temps Maccabéens reconstituée à l’aide de citations d’Isaie,” AmiF (1971): 1565 – 1585, 104– 125, 240 – 263; F. Parente, “Onias III’s Death,” 97; J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 126; E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 61; G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 90; J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 193.

4 Isaiah and Onias: Legitimizing the Temple of Onias

335

the Hebrew word for righteousness (‫ )צדק‬that seems to refer to Isa 1:26 where Jerusalem is alluded to as the “City of Righteousness.”³⁷ This is a striking alteration demanding clarification. First of all, given the singularity of this reading as opposed to the two other readings, it seems logical to assume that LXX is an embellished version of the original one preserved in biblical manuscripts such as 1QIsaa. Since the prophecy is usually brought in connection with Onias and Onias’ Temple, it has been suggested to interpret the reference to righteousness (‫ )צדק‬against the backdrop of Onias’ pedigree; he was of Zadokite stock.³⁸ However, the reference to ‫ צדק‬may also be interpreted as hinting to the well-known biblical connection between conceptions of righteousness and solar-imagery.³⁹ We may surmise too, with Josephus, that the verses of Isaiah’s prophecy and their symbolism are what prompted Onias to settle precisely in Heliopolis in the first place. The different versions and traditions of Isaiah 19 bear testimony to the controversy surrounding its interpretation with respect to Onias’ Temple. Thus, with the “City of the Sun” as LXX’s Vorlage, the latter reading, as we have seen, constitutes a very deliberate interpretation by its translator, one which delineates a very different attitude than that found in MT. In this context it is noteworthy too, that it is the Palestinian text-traditions that employ a sharper contrast in their readings (“the City of the Sun” vs. “the City of Destruction”), while the Egyptian text-traditions constitute a more toned-down, if not outright positive readings (the “City of the Sun” and the “City of Righteousness”). This may reflect the mutual tensions between the Oniads and Hasmoneans who ruled Judaea. It is clear that Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:18 – 19) was put to use by Onias and his followers in order to legitimize the founding of their temple and thus served as what we may call a founding legend. This observation also leaves room for the often discussed possibility of the origin of the Greek translation of the biblical Book of

 The expression “City of Righteousness” occurs only once in the entire Bible, namely in Isa 1:26. Note that the LXX renders πόλις δικαιοσύνης and not, as in LXX Isa 19:18, πόλις ἀσεδέκ. This indicates that several translations of Isaiah circulated. See for instance, I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, 86, 91– 94; M. N. van der Meer, “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis,” 284– 285. Hayward has pointed out that Onias’ might have deliberately drawn a connection between Isa 19:18 and 1:26 in order to present his settlement and temple as a New Jerusalem. See R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 439 – 440 and below, n. 90.  See e. g. G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls, 227– 228; D. J. Kaufmann, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oniad High Priesthood,” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 54– 55; K. Kim, Theology and Identity, 80.  See for instance Malachi 3:20; Zeph 3:5; Isa 41:2. View also J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personification of Sedeq in Jewish Apocalyptic,” ANRW II.19.1 (1979): 225 – 230 and D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 15 – 16 [Hebrew].

336

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

Isaiah in circles affiliated with Onias’ Temple. Moreover, the connection between Onias’ temple-project and Isaiah’s prophecy must have become a known tradition and was for that reason later incorporated by Josephus and the Rabbis, too.⁴⁰ As this brief survey of the interpretation and instrumentalization of Isaiah’s prophecy demonstrates, Onias’ temple-project was controversial and was not recognized by all Jews of the (Egyptian) Diaspora and by those in Judaea. This notwithstanding, Onias created an important and thriving Jewish religious center and community, unique in the Jewish Egyptian Diaspora.

5 Ptolemy VI Philometor, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Onias the High Priest Antiochus IV Epiphanes invaded Egypt for the first time in the year 170/169 BCE.⁴¹ His invasion of Egypt preceded a march through Judaea (where he stopped in Jerusalem and plundered the Temple in order to finance his Egyptian expedition).⁴² Having succeeded in capturing Philometor in Memphis, Antiochus IV proclaimed the former’s brother, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II (Physcon), as Egypt’s new ruler in Alexandria. Convinced that he had put order in the affairs in Egypt he left the country. But once Antiochus IV had left, Philometor and his brother understood that the only way to preserve Ptolemaic sovereignty over Egypt was to come to an agreement between them and thus, both of them agreed to a shared rule.⁴³ That new political situation however, brought about another invasion of the country on the part of Antiochus IV in 169/168 BCE.⁴⁴ Angered at his loss of control over Egypt, Antiochus IV seized Cyprus and Memphis, and subsequently marched on Alexandria. But he was stopped at Eleusis, a suburb of Alexandria, for in the meantime Philometor had petitioned for help in Rome, with which eager diplomatic relations were maintained already

 View also A. Wasserstein,” The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 124, who has noted “with interest” that the Rabbis quote Isaiah in reference to the ‘House of Onias’ (B Men. 109b; Y Yoma 6,3 [43 c-d]). E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 61, objects that the passage from Isaiah refers to an “altar,” not to a “temple.”  1 Macc. 1:16 – 20. E. R. Bevan, The House of Ptolemy, 284; W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers, 40 – 81; O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 64– 87; D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranen Politics, 129 – 153; G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 128 – 134.  1 Macc. 1:20 – 24; 2 Macc. 5:15 – 17 and Ant. 12.246 – 247.  D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 161– 164.  On Antiochus’ second invasion, see O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 88 – 101.

5 Ptolemy VI Philometor, Ptolemaic Egypt, and Onias the High Priest

337

for some time.⁴⁵ Rome, now no longer distracted by the war in Macedonia and being the oppressor of the Seleucid Empire, intervened on Philometor’s behalf and thus the Senate dispatched a certain Gaius Popilius Laenas to Alexandria. On the outskirts of the capital, Antiochus IV met Popilius Laenas, but their encounter turned out to be not that welcoming. Popilius gave the king an ultimatum from the Senate that demanded instant evacuation of Egypt and Cyprus. Antiochus IV requested more time to consider Popilius’ offer, but the latter, drawing a circle around him in the sand with his cane, told him to decide quickly before stepping outside of it. Not being left much choice, Antiochus IV deferred to the Roman ultimatum and left Egypt.⁴⁶ This humiliating event became known as the “Day of Eleusis.” Eventually, Antiochus IV was to turn his frustration on Judaea and on Jerusalem, in particular, when in 168/167 BCE he set out towards Jerusalem once more in order to subdue Jason’s rebellion.⁴⁷ The year 168/167 BCE, shortly after Antiochus’ second invasion of Egypt, in which the political situation there became more stable and Philometor was restored to the Ptolemaic throne, and after Antiochus’ second invasion of Judaea that brought about the defilement of the Temple and the Antiochic persecutions,⁴⁸ seems to be the most likely date for Onias’ arrival in Egypt. We can hardly believe that Onias would take refuge with a man himself under siege and whose country was under invasion. It seems that Onias was still present in Judaea dur-

 D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 164– 166; G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 130 – 134.  Polybius Histories 29.27; Livy History of Rome 45.12; Diodorus Bibliotheca Historica 31.2; see also O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 93 – 96 and more recently, P. F. Mittag, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 214– 224; G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 133 – 134; P. F. Mittag, Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 214– 224.  2 Macc. 5:1– 20; Ant. 12.248. Contra D. Gera, Judaea and Mediterranean Politics, 153 – 157, who dates the event a year earlier than us (169/168 BCE). Jason, so 2 Macc. (5:5), instigated a rebellion to regain power and to oust Menelaus who took it from him on account of a rumor about Antiochus’ IV demise in Egypt.  Who exactly was responsible for the introduction of the religious persecutions against the Jewish faith remains debated: Bickerman and Hengel contend that the Jewish Hellenists were responsible for the introduction of the religious reforms and the religious persecutions. See E. J. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabäer, 117– 136 and M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 515 – 564 (especially pp. 525, 527). Heinemann and Tcherikover both blamed Antiochus IV for the reforms (I. Heinemann, “Wer veranlaßte den Glaubenszwang der Makkabäerzeit?” MGWJ 82 [1938]: 145 – 172 and V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 183 – 203), while more recently, K. Bringmann argued that the religious persecutions had neither to do with the promotion of Hellenism, nor with anti-Judaism, but financial and power-political emergency measures introduced by Menelaus in order to maintain his position of power in Jerusalem under Antiochus’ sponsorship. Cf. K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 98 – 111.

338

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

ing Antiochus’ IV second invasion of Egypt, but must have left when disaster approached his very own doorstep, i. e. when Antiochus IV came to Jerusalem. Having averted the threat of a Seleucid takeover of Egypt, Philometor now was faced with inner-political problems. First, there was the not unproblematic shared rule with his brother, Physcon, which soon developed into a fierce and ongoing conflict. The second problem that demanded Philometor’s attention was a number of local revolts provoked by Egyptian natives against the Greeks in the countryside, which were triggered by the frustrations of the native population about their “second-class-citizens-status” and their exploitation.⁴⁹ Since Onias is attested as a high ranking Ptolemaic (military) official in 164 BCE (CPJ 132), we are entitled to wonder whether he and his troops took part in the suppression of the local revolts. After all, as already convincingly argued by Bohak, certainly one of the tasks of the Oniad mercenary settlements was to keep a careful eye on the local population and to provide the possibility of an immediate response when needed.⁵⁰ Once more, Onias’ presence must have been much appreciated during those difficult years of Philometor’s reign. Physcon played no part in the instigation of the revolt against Philometor. In 164 BCE, however, he stirred up the Alexandrian population against him, causing his brother to flee the city and thus ending a five-year period of shared rule.⁵¹ Philometor fled to his allies in Rome, where he urged the Senate to act and to reinstitute his rule. The Senate came up with a plan which foresaw dividing the rule over the Ptolemaic empire between Philometor and Physcon. Accordingly, the former was to rule over Egypt and Cyprus, while the latter attained control  Most notable are the revolts of a certain Dionysus Petoserapis and a related revolt in the Thebaid in 165 BCE. Dionysus, a former general in the Ptolemaic army in the Sixth Syrian War against Epiphanes, who had distinguished himself in that conflict, managed to stir up a rebellion amongst the soldiers (some four thousand) stationed at Eleusis (a suburb of Alexandria), which was rather quickly subdued by the king’s loyal forces. The rebels withdrew to the countryside of the Thebaid (chora), where they managed to attract some more followers from the local population. The revolt was subdued rather quickly, with the exception of a long siege at Panopolis, which eventually fell into the hands of the royalists. See E. R. Bevan, House of Ptolemy, 289 – 290; G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 135 – 140 and in particular, 157– 159. On the domestic revolts in Ptolemaic Egypt in the time of Philometor, see A.-E. Veïsse, Les “révoltes égyptiennes”: Recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolémée III à la conquête romaine (Stud. Hell. 41; Leuven: Peeters, 2004) and also – in a Jewish context – J. W. v. Henten and R. Abusch, “The Depiction of the Jews as Typhonians and Josephus’ Strategy of Refutation in Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character & Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 272– 273.  G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 520,” 32– 41.  E. R. Bevan, House of Ptolemy, 290 – 291.

6 Ptolemaic Defense Policy and the Foundation of the Temple of Onias

339

over the Cyrenaica, where he began to rule in July/August of 163 BCE. In the same year Philometor returned to Alexandria from Cyprus, where he had resided until the crisis with his brother was resolved.⁵² This solution however, proved to be just temporary as the inner-strife for supremacy between the two brothers was to continue in the subsequent years.⁵³ Philometor’s reign was thus plagued by internal and external unrest that demanded attention and as I have underlined previously, Onias’ arrival in Egypt was a welcome opportunity which contributed greatly to the overall Ptolemaic defense strategy to which I will now turn.

6 Ptolemaic Defense Policy and the Foundation of the Temple of Onias: Onias’ Temple from a Ptolemaic Perspective In modern scholarship Ptolemy Philometor is often described as particularly friendly to the Jews.⁵⁴ It is not my intention here to claim the contrary, but to underscore that pure philanthropy or “philo-Judaism” hardly obtained Onias and

 E. R. Bevan, House of Ptolemy, 291. G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 159 – 166.  New trouble between the two brothers arose as Physcon began to lay claim to the island Cyprus, which was under Philometor’s control. After an initial attempt by Physcon to take the island failed (ca. 161 BCE), he approached the Roman Senate for aid. Although the Senate endorsed Physcon’s complaint, it refrained from supporting him militarily. Philometor, on the other hand, ignored his brother’s claim to the island, and when his diplomatic efforts to secure Roman support for his cause failed, he resorted to the strategy of having his brother killed around the year 156/155 BCE. The attempts on Physcon’s life, however, were unsuccessful. But even under these circumstances, Physcon still succeeded in capitalizing on the situation by appealing to the Roman Senate once more and publically displaying his wounds for the purpose of finally attaining Roman backing against Philometor. Nevertheless, Physcon’s appeal was to no avail and he failed to motivate the Romans to intervene militarily. In consequence, Physcon launched a renewed attempt to invade Cyprus but bitterly failed a second time. He even fell captive, but Philometor set him free and offered him his daughter’s (Cleopatra Thea) hand in marriage for the sake of appeasement. Physcon agreed, was sent back to Cyrenaica by Philometor, and thus the Cypriote crisis was resolved, for the meantime. See E. R. Bevan, House of Ptolemy, 300 – 301.  So for instance, H. Willrich, Juden und Griechen, 142, who comments that Philometor “notorisch begünstigte” the Jews; L. Fuchs, Die Juden Ägyptens, 11; V. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” 1:19 – 21, and 245: “the well-known ‘philo-Semite’ Ptolemy VI Philometor”; B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 120; J. J. Collins, The Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism, 28 – 33, and J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 88 – 95; A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 60, who underscores Philometor’s “fondness of the Jews.”

340

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

his men their privileges. Philometor’s dire domestic and foreign political problems, as we have seen, motivated him to rely on a strong and loyal military force. In that context, Onias and his men fulfilled an important civil-administrative and military role within the Ptolemaic state and recent discussions of the Ptolemaic religious and defense policies provide new evidence which questions the genuineness of Philometor’s enthusiasm for his Jewish subjects. Therefore, a more nuanced picture of the episode of the foundation of Onias’ Temple seems to be in order. Recent scholarship on Ptolemaic religious and defense policies has primarily examined, on the one hand, the role of the military, i. e. foreign soldiers, in the building and maintenance of Egyptian temples in later Ptolemaic Egypt, and on the other the increasing role of Egyptian natives in the Ptolemaic administration and military.⁵⁵ In view of these findings, we may assess the place of Onias’ community of mercenaries and their temple in that context. To begin with, let me stress that the recent evidence indicates that Philometor’s permitting the settlement of (Jewish) mercenaries (including their role in the military and administration) and the erection of a (Jewish) temple, is not a singular case; it was by no means exceptional.⁵⁶ In fact, we encounter several other ethnic minorities in Ptolemaic Egypt around that time, which, like the

 See M. P. Perdrizet, “Un fondation du temps de Ptolémée Épiphane, le temple du dieu lion à Léontopolis,” CRAI 66 (1922): 320 – 323; G. Dietze, “Temples and Soldiers in Southern Ptolemaic Egypt: Some Epigraphic Evidence,” in Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19 – 24 July 1997, ed. by L. Mooren (Studia Hellenistica 36; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 77– 89; G. Gorre, Les relations du clergé égyptien et des Lagides d’après les sources privées (Studia Hellenistica 45; Leuven Peeters, 2008); Ch. Fischer-Bovet, “Army and Egyptian Temple Building under the Ptolemies,” (2007): 1– 20 in: http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/fischer-bovet/100702.pdf; Chr. Thiers, “Civils et militaires dans le temple: Occupation illicite et expulsion,” BIFAO 95 (1995): 493 – 516; I. S. Moyer, “Court, Chora, and Culture in Late Ptolemaic Egypt,” AJP 132 (2011): 15 – 44.  This negates the notion that the king’s permission for the building of the Oniad Temple granted to Onias was not part and parcel of the klerourchia. It is assumed that temple-land was not katoicic land and was therefore conceived of as a separate entity. Compare F. Uebel, Klerurchen, 26. According to that logic, Onias would have been compelled to file a separate request which is indeed what is recorded by Josephus in Ant. 13.62– 73. Recently, R. Last has argued that Onias illegally acquired the ownerless, unoccupied land for his temple at an auction of confiscated land. Last has argued that Josephus’ account of the illegal acquisition of the γῆ ἀδέσποτα was immediately associated with something negative in the eyes of his readers (there, 516). This dovetails with the general notion that Josephus concedes with his source in blackening Onias’ actions. R. Last, “Onias IV and the ἀδέσποτος ἱερός,” 494– 516. As I shall illustrate below, it seems, however, that Onias’ petition to the king and the acquisition of his territory occurred in a different fashion.

6 Ptolemaic Defense Policy and the Foundation of the Temple of Onias

341

Jews, were actively involved in the defense and administrative apparatus of the Ptolemies. So, for instance, we hear of Samaritans and Idumeans serving the Ptolemies.⁵⁷ More strikingly, however, and in addition to these affairs, our evidence also shows that the leaders of those minorities were referred to as high priests – much as Onias had been.⁵⁸ Therefore, Onias’ settlement, his temple project, and his high status within the Ptolemaic state, are not exceptional although many of our sources (in particular Josephus) emphasize Onias’ chief role in the Ptolemaic defense apparatus.⁵⁹ For these reasons, I will re-examine the case of the establishment of Onias’ Temple within the greater context of Ptolemaic policies and its role within that framework. The recent studies referred to above are concerned with the involvement and relationship between the Ptolemaic military, Greek soldiers and Egyptian temples.⁶⁰ These studies have treated the phenomenon of an increased involvement of Ptolemaic military personnel – mostly of Greek and not native Egyptian origin – in the building or reconstruction of Egyptian temples. Oftentimes, we find that the Egyptian temples were overseen by Greek officers, who also served as high priests of those places of worship. In juxtaposition with their religious title/office, they also held important military positions such as strategos or commanders of a fortress (phrouarch).⁶¹ Dietze and Gorre’s studies reveal that Egyptian temples, usually the local center of a certain region, often served as fortresses too, and were deliberately erected for strategic domestic and foreign pur-

 We are aware that other ethnic minorities similarly established garrisons, temples and fortifications, yet we should doubt that they were executed on the same scale as Onias’ temple project and settlements. We may however, simply be lucky to have Josephus’ report on Onias’ project, while lacking a comparable account on the exploits of some other important foreign figure in Egypt. See for example Dorion, the Idumean discussed by Rappaport, who served as high priest of the cult of Apollo-Qos for his soldiers, and was simultaneously the strategos of a nome in Egypt. See U. Rappaport, “Les Iduméens en Egypte,” RP 43 (1969): 73 – 82. For the evidence pointing to the Samaritans in Egypt, see A. Kasher, “Samaritans in Hellenistic Egypt,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press / The Israeli Antiquities Authority, 2002) 153 – 165 [Hebrew]. On the Samaritan Diaspora in general, see A. D. Crown, “The Samaritan Diaspora,” in The Samaritans, 166 – 183 [Hebrew].  Dietze notes that a Greek officer could at the same time be also a priest of an Egyptian deity in an Egyptian temple. G. Dietze, “Temples and Soldiers,” 84; G. Gorre, Les relations du clergé égyptien, 502– 504 and see the subsequent note.  E. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” 60. On Onias’ high position within the Ptolemaic state and his designation as high priest see CPJ 132; BJ 7.424, 430; C. Ap. 2.49.  For the relevant literature, see n. 55, above.  See e. g. I. Phil. I ii; Pros. Ptol. II 2059, 2083, V 13081, VIII 2593, 2059 and G. Dietze, “Temples and Soldiers,” 82– 83; G. Gorre, Les relations du clergé égyptien, 455 – 456.

342

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

poses, especially in the later Ptolemaic period, and specifically under Ptolemy VI Philometor.⁶² Dietze, in particular, has suggested that an Egyptian temple commonly housed a garrison and that the temple structures reflected their defensive purposes also in their architecture.⁶³ In addition, she has provided many examples of Egyptian temples which were built (or refurbished) during Philometor’s reign or shortly thereafter, and which were primarily located and erected in the southern part of Egypt.⁶⁴ The reason for this was Philometor’s (successful) attempts at calming the region following the persistent and irking civil uprisings which plagued the south of Egypt during his early reign. Calming the region was achieved by enforcing Ptolemaic military presence which also meant that more conscripts were needed to man those newly established garrisons. It seems that the Ptolemaic authorities championed the solution of placing military units in temples, by means of which they could bind the local inhabitants to the Ptolemaic state and its rulers through their religious practice. Pairing the security issues with religious matters greatly contributed to forestalling potential future outbursts of violence against the Greek ruling-class of Egypt. Along with those domestic concerns, this strategy also proved itself effective against possible external threats (as illustrated in the example of the south against spontaneous attacks of local Nubian warlords and tribes).⁶⁵

7 Putting Ant. 13.62 – 73 into Perspective These observations on the combination of military and religious activities by Philometor reveal great similarities with the profile of Onias, his community and his temple building project, as recorded by Josephus in the ‘Epistolary Piece’ (Ant. 13.62– 73). If Egyptian temples were deliberately built (or rebuilt) for security purposes in the time of Philometor, was Onias’ temple project embedded in the larger Ptolemaic defense policy of the time? In other words, was the Oniad Temple-project motivated by Jewish religious needs or by Ptolemaic security demands?

 G. Dietze, “Temples and Soldiers,” 84– 85.  G. Dietze, “Temples and Soldiers,” 82 and see for instance the cases of Qasr Ibrim, and Buhen, R. H. Wilkinson, The Complete Egyptian Temples (Cairo: The American University Press, 2000) 223, 229.  G. Dietze, “Temples and Soldiers,” 84.  G. Dietze, “Temples and Soldiers,” 84– 85.

7 Putting Ant. 13.62 – 73 into Perspective

343

Viewed from a Ptolemaic perspective, we may once more turn to the Josephan reports on the building of the Oniad Temple and interpret them from a different angle. We recall that Philometor’s reign was plagued by two major security threats already mentioned, namely civil uprisings of the native Egyptian population in the south, and the second, perhaps more serious external threat of a Seleucid invasion from the north (which in fact materialized twice in 169/168 and 168/167 BCE). As I and others have often pointed out, Onias’ flight to Egypt around the time of Antiochus’ IV invasion of Egypt (i. e. in ca. 168/167 BCE) came exactly at the right moment for Philometor. Thus, Onias’ request to build his temple can perhaps be better understood in a Ptolemaic, rather than in a purely Jewish context. That is, the Ptolemaic perspective may explain some minor, yet important, details in the story Josephus relates on the erection of Onias’ Temple (and royal permission to erect it), which perhaps have hitherto been misunderstood. As such, Josephus tells us in his longer account of Onias’ Temple in his Antiquities – in a much debated and controversial passage – that Onias asked for a specific territory for his temple project. Here we also learn that he erected his temple on the site of an abandoned and apparently damaged Egyptian one.⁶⁶ Seen from a Jewish halakhic perspective, such conduct would render Onias’ Temple impure, which is exactly the point bemoaned by Josephus. We may add that Onias’ actions must have been scorned not only by Josephus, but by other (Jews) too. However, if we set this narrative against the recent evidence from the Ptolemaic papyri and inscriptions, it seems that the refurbishing of pagan native Egyptian shrines and their re-settlement with foreign soldiers had been standard Ptolemaic practice. It follows that Josephus’ ‘Epistolary Piece’ in fact attests to this specific Ptolemaic policy, but interprets it against the backdrop of Jewish halakhah. The aim was to portray Onias as an impious character, as I have illustrated in Chapter 1. Thus, Onias was given a specific territory by the Ptolemaic king – although he indeed seems to have had a word, as claimed by Josephus, on where exactly to establish his community – which contained a deserted or destroyed Egyptian temple, namely that of Bubastis. ⁶⁷ Of course, he must have rejected the idea of

 Ant. 13.66 – 67.  Ant. 13.66, 70. We may add here that Josephus notes in BJ 7.430 that Philometor “assigned him an extensive territory as a source of revenue” which resonates with comparable privileges granted by the Ptolemaic rulers. Perhaps Josephus refers here to the syntaxis, a small revenue for temples granted by the Ptolemies, see Ch. Fischer-Bovet, “Army and Egyptian Temple,” 8 – 9 and there (p. 8) n. 13. For comparable (non-Jewish) data, see P. Tebt. 1108 – 1112, 1113 – 1115, the “List of Holders of Temple and Cleruchic Land” dated to 124/121 BCE-113/112 BCE.

344

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

actually re-establishing a foreign cult place. This fact emerges from his request to (re‐)build the former temple of Bubastis to make it fit for the worship of Onias’ domestic deity, the Jewish God.⁶⁸ This specific Ptolemaic defense policy may be considered as well to explain Josephus’ datum that Onias, next to his temple, had built “a fortress.”⁶⁹ Our evidence from comparable cases studied by Dietze suggests that temples simultaneously functioned as fortresses, and vice versa.⁷⁰ In that context, it should be noted that Josephus elsewhere writes (BJ 1.31) that Onias also founded (ἔκτισεν) a city which resembled Jerusalem. It is notable that Josephus only once mentions that fact, whereas the resemblance of Oniad edifices to Jerusalem (or the lack thereof – see BJ 7.427) is noted by him once more in the context of the altar or the Oniad Temple. ⁷¹ Josephus’ claim that Onias founded a city is a remarkable detail worth discussing, since, in a Ptolemaic context, the foundation of a city was a restricted act, usually reserved for the king only.⁷² However, recent papyrological and epigraphical evidence reveals that this rule did not necessarily apply generally. A striking example relates to the foundation of three cities (πόλεις), one named after Ptolemy VI Philometor (Philometoris) and a second after his spouse Cleopatra II (Cleopatra),⁷³ and another named after Ptolemy VIII Phsycon (Euergetis).⁷⁴ All three cities appear to have been founded by the same individual, a person called Boethus, son of Nikostratos, who bears two ti-

 Ant. 13.64. That the Oniad Temple was indisputably dedicated to the Jewish God is manytimes stressed by Josephus, for example at BJ 7.424, and likewise emerges from the rabbinic discussions on Onias’ Temple (so e. g. T Men. 13:12– 15; B Men. 109a-b), which are mostly concerned with the question whether Onias’ Temple was a proper altar devoted to God, or a bamah (‫)במה‬. See on this issue: S. A. Hirsch, “Temple of Onias,” 60, 64, 77– 78; H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” 134– 135 [Hebrew]; R. Yankelevitch, “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” 107– 115 [Hebrew].  BJ 7.427.  We may likewise refer to another detail mentioned by Josephus in the ‘Epistolary Piece’ which refers to the site predetermined by Onias for his temple-project as a “citadel” (Ant. 13.67). The more so when we consider Josephus’ wording which specifically refers to a temple-structure within a fortification: “…and I have found a most suitable place in the fortress called after Bubastis-of-the-fields,…wherefore I beg you to permit me to cleanse this temple, which belongs to no one and is in ruins, and to build a temple to the Most High God…” AntiOniad or not, we may treat this detail as trustworthy. This then, only enforces our presumption that Onias, in fact, established and fashioned his temple as a fortress in accordance with the standard Ptolemaic (frontier) defense doctrine of the time.  See Ant. 13.72, 285; 20.236.  G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 28 – 29.  I. Th. Sy. 302 = SB V 8878 = OGIS I iii.  P. UB Trier S 135 – 1.

7 Putting Ant. 13.62 – 73 into Perspective

345

tles, that of ‘founder of cities’ (κτίστου τῶν…πόλεων) and strategos (στρατηγός).⁷⁵ Apart from the fact that this evidence suggests that a strategos could found cities, Heinen, who published and discussed the relevant papyri and inscription, noted two things of importance for our case of Onias. Firstly, even though Boethus, the strategos, evidently founded those cities, it seems that he did so by explicit royal order.⁷⁶ Secondly, these πόλεις were of distinct military character and not strictly civilian foundations, as the term πόλις may initially suggest.⁷⁷ In our case, this means that Onias also, as Josephus’ remark at BJ 1.31 implies, founded a city, or better, a military settlement by the name of Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis, or perhaps better, in the chora of Heliopolis (the city).⁷⁸ I shall return to this issue, below. What further sustains this hypothesis is Onias’ position of strategos (C. Ap. 2.49) and his excellent relations and important position at the Ptolemaic court (CPJ 132).

 OGIS I iii, lines 7– 10. See H. Heinen, “Bóethus, fondateur de poleis,” 123 – 154, who also cites the papyri referred to in nn. 21 and 22. Although the individual mentioned in the papyri bore the name “Boethus,” there exists no reason to assume that he was Jewish. He was thus, certainly not related to the eponymous prominent family of Jewish high priests (‘House of Boethus’) referred to by Josephus: Ant. 15.320 – 322; 17.78 names a Simon son of Boethus; 17.164, 339 refer to Joazar son of Boethus, and Ant. 18.2– 3 (where we find him re-appointed); Joazar’s brother, Eleazar, son of Boethus, is mentioned in Ant. 17.341; BJ 5.527 mentions a Matthias son of Boethus, who was “one of the high priests” (i.e. a member of the former high priestly dynasty of Boethus) according to Josephus. So-called “Boethusians” are mentioned in rabbinic lore (e. g. Avot de-Rabbi Natan [version B, chapter 10, ed. Schechter, 26], where the Boethusians are named after ‫ביתוס‬, one of the two students of Antigonos of Sokho; and T Men. 13:23; B Gittin 56a and its parallels). See A. Schremer, “The Name of the Boethusians: A Reconsideration of Suggested Explanations and Another One,” JJS 48 (1997): 290 – 299 and N. Goldstein-Cohen, “The Theological Stratum of the Martha b. Boethus Tradition: An Explication of the Text in Gittin 56a,” HTR 69 (1976): 187– 195.  H. Heinen, “Bóethus, fondateur de poleis,” 148 – 149.  H. Heinen, “Bóethus, fondateur de poleis,” 127– 129, 142. Note also Bringmann, who observes that: “Im Sprachgebrauch des ersten Makkabäerbuches bedeutet πόλις aber nur soviel wie Ort oder befestigter Platz.” In this instance he refers to 1 Macc. 1:15, 23. K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 87  See Ant. 13.66, 70. Here we may recall JIGRE 30, which in line 5 contains the statement that the deceased’s city (πόλιν) should weep for him. Read in the context of our new understanding of the term, namely as a military settlement, does this statement then call for the teariness of the deceased’s unit/garrison?

346

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

8 The Site of the Temple of Onias: Where was Onias’ Temple Located? I shall presently return to an issue that I have already touched upon in my discussion of the archaeology of the Oniad Temple above (Chapter 5), namely the question where Onias’ Temple’s was located. Since we lack archaeological evidence that could specify the location of the temple, any discussion of the issue remains shrouded in speculation. Our only references to the temple site derive from literary sources, whose credibility and historicity have been commonly questioned. Scholars (among them several archaeologists) have attempted to discover the remains of Onias’ Temple based on information provided by Josephus, who was himself necessarily vague about the temple’s location due to his limited sources. What we know, however, is that when Josephus refers to Onias’ Temple, he notes that it was built on a site Onias had obtained somewhere in the nome of Heliopolis.⁷⁹ The sole exception is in his ‘Epistolary Piece’ (Ant. 13), wherein he pinpointed the location of the Onias Temple in Leontopolis, which he situated in the nome Heliopolis.⁸⁰ A Leontopolis in the nome of Heliopolis is, save for Josephus’ notices in Ant. 13.65 and § 70, not attested to anywhere else.⁸¹ But a candidate site – Leontopolis – did exist as the capital city of an eponymous nome, identified today as Tell Muqdam. ⁸² Thus, the connection made by Josephus (or his source) between Leontopolis and Heliopolis is quite jarring and the datum at Ant. 13.65 hence demands clarification. In the quest to identify the site of Onias’ Temple, scholars have relied on yet another Josephan reference, which appears in the very same place (Ant. 13.66, 70) as our note on the location of Leontopolis, namely that Onias’ chose to erect his temple on the site of a former pagan Egyptian shrine dedicated to the lion-goddess, Bast/Bubastis.⁸³ This datum was taken as an indication of the location of the Oniad Temple in later archaeological expeditions. Indeed, whenever finds of

 BJ 1.33; 7.426; Ant. 12.388; 13.285; 20.236.  Ant. 13.65, 70.  See also e. g. W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 117. Jewish presence at Heliopolis is attested by Josephus in the days of Joseph in Ant. 2.188.  C. A. Redmount and R. F. Friedman, “Tales of a Delta Site: The 1995 Field Session at Tell ElMuqdam,” 57– 83.  On the deity “Bastet/Bubastis,” see J. Quaegebeur, “Le culte de Boubastis – Bastet en Egypte gréco-romaine,” in Les divins chats d’Égypte: Un air subtil, un dangereux parfum, ed. by L. Delvaux and E. Warmenbol (Lettres Orientales Series 3; Leuven: Peeters, 1991) 117– 127; J. Málek, The Cat in Ancient Egypt, 94– 111, 126 – 127, and G. Pinch, Egyptian Mythology, 115 – 117.

8 The Site of the Temple of Onias: Where was Onias’ Temple Located?

347

statues of the lion-deity Bubastis, or places affiliated with the worship of the latter, were discovered, it was immediately conjectured that the site discovered was Onias’ Temple.⁸⁴ However, if Josephus’ account that Onias built his temple on the ruins of a former shrine of Bubastis is accurate, we are faced with the problem that worship of Bubastis was seemingly common throughout the Delta region.⁸⁵ Consequently, we are faced with the problem that, while attempting to identify the location of Onias’ Temple, we must consider that there probably existed multiple sites of Bubastis worship. Moreover, since, as I pointed out, a Leontopolis (Tell Muqdam) already existed elsewhere – outside of the Heliopolitan nome – this precludes the possibility that Tell Muqdam was indeed the site of Onias’ Temple. It follows that Onias, as Josephus notes, founded a city by the name of Leontopolis that hitherto did not exist.⁸⁶ However, in light of the recent papyrological evidence referred to above, I have proposed that Leontopolis (λεοντών πόλις) was not a city in the common sense,⁸⁷ but a large military settlement newly founded by Onias that, in the jargon the papyri, simply was denoted as a city.⁸⁸ Why Onias chose to name his military colony Leontopolis, a name already used for a city not so far away, might have various explanations. Two can be put forward immediately. The first relates to Onias’ Judaean background. Specifically, we recall that Judaea’s symbol was, just as it is still today in case of Jeru-

 Cf. H. T. Lewis, “Tel-el-Yahoudeh,” 190 – 191; E. Brugsch-Bey, “On et Onion,” 7; E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 20; W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and the Israelite Cities, 18, 20; Comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Le temple d’Onias el le camp d’Hyksôs à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” 69; Sh. Adam, “Recent Discoveries in the Eastern Delta,” 305. A case has been made by G. Hata to identify Tell Basta (ancient Bubastis) with the site of Onias’ Temple on the grounds of the Bast/Bubastis cult at the site. See G. Hata, “Where is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” 177– 191.  H. E. Naville, Bubastis (1887 – 1889) (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1891) 51– 58 (and plates IX, XXIII) and G. Hata, “Where is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” 183 – 185.  BJ 1.33 and Eusebius’ Chronicle: Ονειας…ἐλθὼν εἰς Αἴγυπτον κτίζει πόλιν τὴν ἐπικληθεῖσαν Όνείου (ed. A. Schoene, 2:216). Jerome’s translation in his Latin version of the Chronicle: Onias… in Heliopolitano pago civitatem nominis sui condit (ed. R. Helm, 2:141); and In Danielem on verse 11:14: urbs, quae vocabatur Oniae (…a city that is called, city of Onias…) (ed. F. Glorie, 908 – 909).  According to the so-called functional definition of urbanism (in contrast to the demographic definition), a city is a cultural landscape of industrial, economic, political and religious activities. See R. G. Fox, Urban Anthropology: Cities in their Cultural Settings (Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1977) and M. E. Smith, “The Earliest Cities,” in Urban Life: Readings in the Anthropology of the City, ed. by G. Gmelch, R. V. Kemper, and W. P. Zenner (4th ed.; Prospecer Heights: Waveland Press, 2010) 3 – 19.  H. Heinen, “Bóethus, fondateur de poleis,” 127– 129, 142 and above, n. 77.

348

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

salem, a lion.⁸⁹ Just as Josephus discredits Onias for attempting to draw Jews away from their homeland (and Temple) in favor of his establishment, and for modelling his site on Jerusalem itself, we may imagine that Onias indeed attempted to create a new Jerusalem which was like his home-town.⁹⁰ This, perhaps, included naming his newly founded settlement “the city of the lion (λεοντών πόλις),” or better: “the garrison of the lion/Judah.” The name implies Onias’ attempt to convey his continued affiliation with Judaea, which was certainly designed to reflect Onias’ former position and perhaps also indicate his and his community’s hopes for return. In addition, we take note of the fact that the temple building itself (be that the Jerusalem Temple or Onias’) resembled a procumbent lion.⁹¹ A second scenario that may account for the choice of the toponym Leontopolis somewhat complements our previous deliberation. In light of the assumption that a city called Leontopolis had previously not existed in the nome of Heliopolis, would it be possible that a Leontopolis existed within the boundaries of the city Heliopolis? It may sound odd to assume that Leontopolis, which is designated a city, would be located in another city, and for this reason we infer that Leontopolis should have been located in a nome. In support of this hypothesis of a “city-within-a-city,” I point to the parallel literary evidence from 2 Maccabees. We remember that in the wake of the Hellenistic reforms in Jerusalem, 2 Macca-

 Gen 49:9; Rev 5:5 and 4 Ezra 12:31– 32, where the Messiah is depicted as a lion, obviously representing Judaea.  That notion also emerges from Joseph & Aseneth, concerning which I have argued for Oniad authorship. See U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung, 115 – 122. Similarly, Hayward, in his analysis of the Isaiah proof-texts in connection with Onias’ Temple, that the “City of Righteousness” (πόλις ἀσεδέκ) rendered in LXX Isa 19:18, in fact, alludes to Jerusalem’s status as the “City of Righteousness” mentioned in Isaiah 1:26 – 27 (“And I will restore your judges as at the first, and your counselors as at the beginning: afterward you shall be called the ‘City of Righteousness’ [‫ ]עיר הצדק‬, the ‘Faithful City’, Zion shall be redeemed with judgment and her converts with righteousness”). He contends, in my view correctly, that Onias was conscious of the implications of juxtapositing of these two verses (Isa 19:18 and 1:26) alluding to a restored Jerusalem in Egypt. R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 439 – 440 and Gray before him, G. B. Gray, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I-XXXIX (2 vols.; The International Critical Commentary; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912) 1:325. With Hayward, we note too the similar attitude present in the Qumran community that yearned for a future, eschatological and utopian New Jerusalem as well. See 1QNJ (1Q32); 2QNJ (2Q24); 4QNJa (4Q554); 4QNJb (4Q554a); 4QNJc (4Q555); 4QNJ? (4Q232); 5QNJ (5Q15); and M. Baillet, J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Discoveries in the Judean Desert: Les ’petites grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD III; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962) 1:184– 193, and more recently, L. Ditommaso, The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text: Contents and Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005).  M Middot 4:7 and see also E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief, 55.

8 The Site of the Temple of Onias: Where was Onias’ Temple Located?

349

bees reports that there were some Jews, or more precisely, some Jerusalemites, who wished to be registered as “Antiochians in Jerusalem (τοὺς ἐν ῾Ιεροσολύμοις ᾿Aντιοχεῖς).”⁹² The enigmatic phrase, “Antiochians in Jerusalem” has been the subject of much discussion. The most plausible of explanations posits that the Hellenizing Jews of Jerusalem founded a polis “Antioch” in Jerusalem.⁹³ I now argue that Onias, too, founded a Leontopolis (a new “Judaea” or “New Jerusalem”) in the city of Heliopolis (or specifically in its chora). This assumption complements Onias’ overall choice of Heliopolis as the location for his temple. As for the problem of the identification of Tell el-Yahoudieh with the location of Onias’ Temple, I wish to refer to Isaiah’s prophecy, which predicts the foundation of five cities speaking the Canaanite language in Egypt (Isa 19:18 – 19). Indeed, as I argue with Bohak, the Jewish settlement at Tell el-Yahoudieh was part of the so-called “Land of Onias,” as indicated by the corresponding epigraphical evidence,⁹⁴ and was also an Oniad (military) settlement/outpost.⁹⁵ The absence of any archaeological remains belonging to the Oniad Temple at Tell el-Yahoudieh (despite the clear indications that connect the site to Onias) show that, as some scholars have already noted, Onias’ Temple stood elsewhere.⁹⁶ Bohak, for instance, posits that the location of the Temple of Onias was either “inside, or very close to ancient Heliopolis.”⁹⁷ In light of the above, I concur with Bohak’s proposal, but think – and wish to stress – that Onias’ Temple should be sought in close proximity to Heliopolis, namely in its chora, instead of in Heliopolis proper. We should consider that Onias sought to establish a place of worship that was not completely detached and isolated, but at the

 2 Macc. 4:9.  For more on this issue, see E. Bickerman, Der Gott der Makkabäer, 59 – 65, who argued that Jason founded a politeuma. Tcherikover, conversely, opined that Jason founded a city (Antioch) in Jerusalem (see V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 131, 319 – 322; see also O. Mørkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 138; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 507– 509, 514; K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform, 67, 73, 84– 86). These sources may be compared to G. M. Cohen, “The ‘Antiochenes in Jerusalem’ – Again,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder, ed. by J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 243 – 259. Schwartz, following Tcherikover’s hypothesis, has recently posited the view that Jason intended to found a city. See D. R. Schwartz, “Appendix 2: ‘to register the people of Jerusalem as Antiochenes’ (4:9),” in 2 Maccabees, 330 – 332. That Onias founded a city is also echoed in BJ 1.33.  JIGRE 38, 44 and see my discussion in Chapter 6.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 27.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 29.  G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 29.

350

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

same time not too centrally located. ⁹⁸ That Onias’ Leontopolis should be sought in a location close to Heliopolis can be illustrated by a single detail that Josephus provides in BJ 7.426, namely the rendered distance of 180 stadia (ca. 22.5 Roman miles) between the site and Memphis. Comparable sources provide a distance of 24 Roman miles between Memphis and Heliopolis. Since Josephus’ source for this detail was a reliable Roman military report, the corresponding distance points to the fact that Onias’ Temple was indeed located in Heliopolis’ vicinity.⁹⁹ Why Onias chose precisely the region of Heliopolis for his temple is a question I have discussed in Chapter 11.

9 The Organization of the Oniad Community and the “Land of Onias” Both the “Onias Papyrus” (CPJ 132) and Josephus’ notice at C. Ap. 2.49 confirm Onias’ rank within the Ptolemaic state. There can be little doubt that he was appointed strategos of the Heliopolitan nome, where he established several (Jewish) military settlements, fortresses, and, of course, a temple. As indicated by the extant epigraphical and literary evidence, this conglomerate of Oniad settlements obtained the sobriquet “Land of Onias”,¹⁰⁰ and was obviously famous enough to have been recognized by Hellenistic writers such as Nicolaus of Damascus and Strabo.¹⁰¹ In light of the epigraphic evidence from one of the Oniad settlements, that of Tell el-Yahoudieh and more recent papyrological data, I have argued that the Oniad community, presumably right from the time of its formation, was organized as a politeuma,¹⁰² and that assumption holds also with respect to other Jew-

 Josephus adds that, besides the temple, Onias built a city and a fortress. See BJ 1.33, which mentions a city and a temple and BJ 7.427, which mentions a fortress and a temple. As I have observed elsewhere (Chapter 5), Tell el-Yahoudieh is rather small in scale and it is difficult to assume that this locality has the adequate capacity to house all necessary elements. See on this G. Hata, “Where is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” 186 – 187. Hata also contends that Josephus’ datum in Ant. 14.131– 133 implies coverage of a larger district.  See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 29 and there (n. 49).  JIGRE 38; BJ 7.421 and BJ 1.190 // Ant. 14.131. Ant. 14.117 too implies the existence of the “Land of Onias.”  See D. R. Schwartz, “More on Strabon’s Datum: On ‘The Land of Onias’ (Ant. 14.117),” 230 – 234 [Hebrew].  JIGRE 39, the funerary epitaph of “Abramos the πολιτάρχης.” See Chapter 6. I thus concur with Kasher’s hypothesis and Sänger’s analysis, A. Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 126 – 127, 356– 357; P. Sänger, “Considerations,” 171– 194.

10 Oniad-Hasmonean Relations (164 – 31/30 BCE)

351

ish mercenary communities in Egypt.¹⁰³ With respect to the Oniad mercenary community, one more assumption should be considered, viz. the question whether the Oniad mercenary community was solely composed of Jews.¹⁰⁴ I have drawn attention to the fact that this view may be incorrect and that there is good reason to assume that, at least so in case of Tell el-Yahoudieh, Onias’ settlements were mixed.¹⁰⁵ It may be conjectured that the strategic location of Onias’ land required the maintenance of many fortifications and settlements and that the Jewish population of Onias’ community, for demographic reasons, did not yield enough man-power to man all those positions. Therefore, additional foreign mercenaries may have been drafted, who served alongside their Jewish Oniad comrades and were probably buried next to them, accounting for non-Jewish names on the burial stelae at Tell el-Yahoudieh. On the other hand, perhaps the community was Jewish in its entirety and only its cemetery was mixed in nature. Sadly we lack the evidence to confirm either possibility.

10 Oniad-Hasmonean Relations (164 – 31/30 BCE) We may imagine Onias’ frustration and disappointment about the Hasmonean assumption of the high priesthood sometime in 153/152 BCE.¹⁰⁶ Until then, the Hasmoneans were the agents of defiance against the Seleucid Empire that subdued the Jews in their homeland, suppressed their religion, and polluted their Temple. Onias sat in Egypt and observed the events from afar. Perhaps he even harbored hopes and aspirations to return one day to Jerusalem and to regain his position as the legitimate high priest of the Temple and the whole Jewish nation. But these dreams were shattered with Alexander Balas’ acceptance of Jonathan as high priest in 153/152 BCE.¹⁰⁷ In consequence, we should assume

 See A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 62– 63; A. Kasher, Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 50. The papyri from Heracleopolis provide clear evidence for the existence of Jewish politeumata in the 2nd century BCE. See J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, passim. They, however, refer to Jewish settlements which were not mercenary communities per se. See also the epigraphic data from Cyrene, S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, 160 – 163 (SEG 931 = CIG 5361 and 5362).  This notion is presupposed by V. Tcherikover, The Jews in Egypt, 38 – 40 [Hebrew]; M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 29; A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 57– 59.  T. Ilan, “The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis,” 79 – 80; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 124.  1 Macc. 10:18 – 21. The year given there (1 Macc. 10:21) is 160 SE (Seleucid Era).  See also D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” [Hebrew] 20 and L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 59.

352

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

that the Oniads and the Hasmoneans started out on the wrong foot.¹⁰⁸ Onias and his family must have felt betrayed and robbed of their natural and legitimate right to power. The Hasmoneans, on the other hand, being fully aware of the Oniads’ prerogative to the high priesthood, followed what seems to be an “out-ofsight-out-of-mind” tactic by making every effort to hush up the very existence of the Oniads. The best example we can give of this tactic is (the Hasmonean propaganda work par excellence) 1 Maccabees’ avoidance of any reference to Onias or his kin.¹⁰⁹ In the meantime, the Oniads concentrated on consolidating their position within the Ptolemaic regime,¹¹⁰ while the Hasmoneans were preoccupied with gaining acceptance of their rule in Judaea and outside of it. The latter is testified by 2 Maccabees 1:4– 6, a passage that bespeaks Hasmonean efforts to claim responsibility over the welfare of the Jews of Egypt, and by 1 Maccabees 5:9 – 23 that records similar efforts concerning the Jews of the Galilee and the Gilead. Whether these efforts were fruitful remains debatable. A good indication that they were not, at least with regard to some levels of Egyptian Jewry (if not all), emerges from 3 Maccabees that constitutes, so I have argued, a negative response to those endeavors. I have claimed that 3 Maccabees conveys the idea that the Jews of Egypt felt that they did not require any intervention on their be-

 The Oniads were certainly not the only Jewish group that witnessed the Hasmonean assumption of power with disdain. We recall that the Hasidim too detached themselves from the Hasmonean in the course of the latter’s struggle for power. See 1 Macc. 2:42; 7:13; 2 Macc. 14:6 and J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 38 – 40 and, more nuanced, D. R. Schwartz, “Hasidim in 1 Maccabees 2:42?” SCI 13 (1994): 7– 18. Perhaps a better-known example of Hasmonean opposition is the Jewish splinter group under the leadership of the mysterious ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ that left Jerusalem to settle at the shores of the Dead Sea where it established the Qumran community. See for instance L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substiuierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kultes im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 267– 269.  On 1 Maccabees as a work of Hasmonean propaganda see U. Rappaport, The First Book of Maccabees, 48 – 50 [Hebrew]. An Onias (the high priest) is in fact referred to once in 1 Maccabees in 12:7– 8, 19 – 20, in the context of a Judeo-Spartan correspondence. But here, its author is at pains to date that correspondence – and with it Onias too – into the remote past. Note too that Onias’ correspondence with the Spartans is only recorded here, because Jonathan wrote the Lacedaemonians, obviously for the purpose of boasting his prowess as an able statesman and leader of the people. On the Judeo-Spartan correspondence see our Chapter 1 (pp. 84– 85 nn. 148 – 149) and M. Stern, The Documents of the Maccabean Revolt, 111– 116, 126 – 127 [Hebrew].  Although Josephus may have gotten carried away by the success of the Jews in the Egyptian Diaspora, his datum in C. Ap. 2.49 that Cleopatra II “entrusted their whole kingdom and the army to the Jews,” certainly reflects some truth.

10 Oniad-Hasmonean Relations (164 – 31/30 BCE)

353

half from their Judaean compatriots and were perfectly capable of looking after themselves – be that on account of the Oniads, or God Himself. Once more, such an attitude represents a reality in which Hasmoneans are not much esteemed. In light of this observation we may understand too, why a work of the kind of 2 Maccabees was sent, precisely, to Egypt in the first place. But there is another dimension to the initially cool Oniad-Hasmonean relations, one that concerns matters of international, rather than domestic politics. Namely, we should remind ourselves that the Maccabean revolt occurred against the backdrop of the decline of the Seleucid Empire and while the Oniads were loyal subjects to the Ptolemies, the Seleucid’s traditional foe, the Hasmoneans rose to power aided by various Seleucid pretenders to the throne. Thus, in the eyes of the Oniads, the early Hasmoneans were nothing more than political puppets of the Seleucids. Moreover, another aspect we should keep in mind, is that the Seleucids (in particular Antiochus IV) played a significant role in ousting Onias from Jerusalem, a fact that he (and we may imagine his descendants, too) probably did not easily forget. Thus, given the Seleucids’ bad record with the Oniads, it is hardly surprising that Oniad-Hasmonean relations were strained at the beginning.¹¹¹ With time however, it seems that they must have gradually improved.¹¹² One text in particular, namely Josephus’ Ant. 13.354– 355, illustrates that by the time of Alexander Yannai’s reign (103 – 76 BCE), that is in the generation after Onias III, Oniad-Hasmonean relations improved greatly.¹¹³ The passage is embedded, as noted, into Josephus’ narrative of Yannai’s reign and recounts the events of Ptolemy IX Soter II Lathyrus’ invasion of Judaea and its aftermath.¹¹⁴

 Note that no Seleucid dynastical names appear in the funerary inscriptions from Tell el-Yahoudieh, which is best explained against the background of the strained Ptolemaic-Seleucid relations and the even more strained Jewish-Seleucid relations – particularly with Antiochus IV.  This is perhaps due to a vivid interaction and cultural exchange between Judaea and the Egyptian Diaspora, as is indicated by examples such as the translation of the Hebrew original of the book Ben Sira into Greek by the latter’s grandson, who moved to Egypt in ca. 132 BCE according to the prologue of the book (Ben Sira 1:1). See M. Hengel, Judentum und Hellenismus3, 241– 243. Another example is the Greek translation of the biblical Book of Esther, which was translated – according to its colophon – by a certain Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy and brought to Egypt (perhaps) in 78/77 BCE. See E. J. Bickerman, “The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther,” JBL 63 (1944): 339 – 362.  Josephus seems to rely on Strabo for this piece of information. See G. Hölscher, Die Quellen des Josephus, 15, 38 and K. Albert, Strabo als Quelle des Flavius Josephus, 17– 18.  Ant. 13.328 – 356. This conflict is also known as “the War of the Scepters” (103 – 101 BCE), a regional conflict that involved the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Empires, as well as Judaea. See E. Van’t Dack, E. Van’t Dack (et al.), The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103 – 101 B.C.E., passim.

354

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

Ant. 13.353 – 355 is an episode that chronicles how some of Cleopatra’s III advisors tried to persuade the queen to take advantage of Yannai’s current political (and probably also military) weakness and to annex Judaea to the Ptolemaic Empire.¹¹⁵ Josephus tells us that this attempt was foiled by Cleopatra’s Jewish chief of staff Ananias, who some paragraphs earlier (Ant. 13.285 – 287), is described as none other than Onias’ III son.¹¹⁶ Ananias threatened the queen by corroborating that all Jews would ally against her were she to implement the plan of her advisors. The queen “duly” complied and Ananias thus saved Yannai’s reign and Judaean independence. In light of the shaky Oniad-Hasmonean relations that I have illustrated above, this change of heart is quite remarkable and usually puzzles commentators. However, Oniad-Hasmonean relations indeed seem to have been sore in the wake of the Hasmonean assumption of the high priesthood, but that does not mean that they necessarily remained that way. With time, we have good reason to assume that the Oniads and the Hasmoneans reconciled.¹¹⁷ Perhaps it was the Oniads astounding success at the Ptolemaic court that contributed to the circumstance that they finally came to terms with the new reality they were faced with after arriving in Egypt. In other words, by the time of Alexander Yannai’s reign (in the beginning of the 1st century BCE) the Oniad Temple was already active for more than half a century and seems to have been a well-established religious center, while the Oniad community flourished. We may thus infer that any resentment or ill-will on the side of the Oniads via-à-vis the Hasmoneans had gradually evaporated. One may perhaps compare that turn of events with an example from recent history. For centuries, up until after the end of the Second World War, France had been Germany’s archenemy. But within the sixty odd years after the end of the war France became, and remains, Germany’s strongest political ally and “friend” in the EU. Consequently, the generation that separates Onias and his sons seems to have been enough time to vanquish old disputes and to bury the hatchet between the Oniads and the Hasmoneans. Willrich perhaps

 The story employs elements of typical Jewish Diaspora court-stories, which involve the motif of a persecution of the Jews because of the advice of evil anti-Jewish advisors of Gentile rulers. See L. M. Wills, The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King, passim and D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 29 – 40.  Ananias had a brother, Ḥelkias, who according to Ant. 13.351 fell in battle while in pursuit of Ptolemy Lathyrus. Both brothers are described as high ranking military men (i. e. generals; see Ant. 13.285 – 287, 349) just as their father (compare C. Ap. 2.49).  See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 32– 34; M. Stern, “The Hasmoneans and their Relation to Ptolemaic Egypt at the Backdrop of the International Politics in the Second and First Centuries BCE,” Zion 50 (1985): 101– 102 [Hebrew].

11 Drunken Elephants: The Oniad Community after 145 BCE

355

put it best when he posited that: “der Aaronide Ananias vergab es dem Makkabäer Jannai, dass er auf dem Fürstensitz seiner Väter sass…”¹¹⁸ In Chapter 10, I suggested that Pseudo-Hecataeus’ treatise On the Jews, which seeks to promote a Jewish constitution governed by priests rather than by kings, is an Oniad reaction towards the assumption of kingship by Alexander sometime in 95/94– 93 BCE. I have surmised too, that the treatise was perhaps even sent to Judaea in order to remind the Hasmonean leadership what is proper. The general tone of the treatise is mild in such a way as to preclude a renewed deterioration in Oniad-Hasmonean relations. Criticism, after all, can come from a friend, too.

11 Drunken Elephants: The Oniad Community after 145 BCE – C. Ap. 2.49 – 55 and Onias’ Role in the Ptolemaic Dynastic War The period subsequent to Philometor’s death (145 – 124 BCE) was marked by fierce dynastic conflicts in the House of Ptolemy. The Oniads, having such an important (political and military) position in the Ptolemaic court, could not have remained aloof from these internal dynastic struggles. I have bemoaned, on occasion, that Josephus is conspicuously silent about the ensuing history of Onias’ Temple and its community after its foundation. Yet, notably in his apologetic treatise Contra Apionem, and not, as we would expect, in one of his major historical works, War or Antiquities, we come across a reference to Onias’ involvement in the Ptolemaic civil war of 145 – 124 BCE. I have referred to this episode previously in my analysis of 3 Maccabees (in Chapter 9). At C. Ap. 2.49 – 55, Josephus reports that in the wake of Philometor’s death (around 145 BCE), Physcon attempted to seize power over Egypt. Instead of siding with the latter, Onias, together with another (Jewish) general named Dositheos,¹¹⁹ remained loyal to Cleopatra II and was ready to face Physcon’s army. They succeeded in defending Alexandria and negotiating a truce, since, so

 H. Willrich, “Der historische Kern des III. Makkabäerbuches,” 255.  Dositheos was a very common theophoric name among Egyptian Jews – T. Ilan lists an impressive 81 occurences in the Diaspora alone (Lexicon of Jewish Names, 3:250 – 256). On account of the military role ascribed to him in C. Ap. 2.49, he may have been a member of Onias’ community too. Note though, that this is the only instance in which a Dositheos is mentioned in context of Onias, or the Oniad Temple and, in addition, he is never mentioned again in the whole piece on Onias (§§ 50 – 55).

356

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

claims Josephus, Physcon did not dare to confront Onias’ troops in open battle. Here Josephus appends the episode of the Jews being held hostage by Physcon in the Alexandrian hippodrome and their near extermination by means of trampling by drunken elephants, which has a parallel in 3 Maccabees 5.¹²⁰ But this attempt was spoiled by divine intervention and the Jews were delivered from destruction. Josephus adds that these events are the origins of a “well-known” feast hitherto celebrated by the Alexandrian Jews. In my previous analysis of 3 Maccabees in Chapter 9, I have argued that Josephus’ account of the story, and particularly the historical context into which the story is embedded, is to be given precedence over that of 3 Maccabees which places the episode in the reign of Ptolemy IV Philopator, almost a century earlier than Josephus’ version. I have claimed too, that the story should be read cum grano salis, given the legendary character of the deliverance of the Jews from annihilation by divine intervention, but that it is essentially enveloped around a historical kernel dealing with Oniad involvement in the Ptolemaic civil war. If I am correct in my assumption, then Josephus’ report in C. Ap. 2.49 – 55 offers insight into the fate of the Oniad (and the Alexandrian) Jews during that particular period in time. This is so regardless of the fact that the claim of persecution of Jews under Physcon is a matter of debate.¹²¹ We are left, however, with the information that the Alexandrian Jews were in distress during the civil wars of 145 – 124 BCE and that Onias and his men seem to have played a significant role in protecting them. Previously (also in Chapter 9) I pointed to a reference in one of the two prefixed letters preserved in 2 Maccabees that testifies to the precarious situation of the Egyptian Jews around 145 – 143/142 BCE.¹²² In agreement with the assumption that the current version of 2 Maccabees, which contains the prefixed letters and other additions, were sent to Egypt in ca. 143/142 BCE, it is significant to note that this date corresponds, more or less exactly, to a year of distress in the dynastic conflict in Egypt, namely 145 BCE. Although the genuineness of 2 Maccabees’ prefixed letters has been a

 C. Ap. 2.53 – 55.  See on the issue V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 275, J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 147. The historicity of the story was rejected by E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes 3, 3:365 – 366; L. Fuchs, Die Juden Ägyptens, 9 – 10 (and there n. 7) argues that Physcon’s persecution of the Jews did not take place in Alexandria, but in the Fayûm only. Also Willrich conceded to a historical kernel in the story. But for him, that historical kernel pertains to the persecution of the Jews under Ptolemy Lathyrus in 88 BCE. See H. Willrich, “Der historische Kern des III. Makkabäerbuches,” 244– 245.  2 Macc. 1:5 – 6. See also L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 101 and L. Capponi, “Martyrs and Apostates,” 290.

11 Drunken Elephants: The Oniad Community after 145 BCE

357

matter of debate, there is a consensus that they are genuine.¹²³ 2 Maccabees’ letters therefore, seem to confirm the notion that the Egyptian Jews were in distress in the period of the civil wars from 145 BCE to 124 BCE. This allows us to accept Josephus’ somewhat colorful report in C. Ap. 2.49 – 55 about persecution of Jews in Egypt during that time; although perhaps one should eliminate the legendary element from the story, the miraculous deliverance of the Jews in the hippodrome. What remains is that Onias and his troops fought loyally on behalf of their patroness, Cleopatra II, during the period of the civil wars in the years 145 – 124 BCE, as Josephus illustrates in somewhat exaggerated tone.¹²⁴ That view includes the notion that Onias was left in charge of Cleopatra’s whole army and that he was still invested with the office of strategos even after Philometor’s demise, and so, it appears, were his sons under the rule of the Ptolemaic successors. Josephus, or his source, is silent about whether Onias, in fact, engaged in combat with Physcon’s troops. Josephus merely mentions that Onias marched towards Alexandria, not mentioning any skirmishes.¹²⁵ In the same vein, he says that Physcon did not dare to face Onias’ force, but here we may suspect Josephus of wanting to aggrandize Onias’ military prowess vis-à-vis the cowardly portrayal of Physcon. Alexandrian Jewry, and we have to assume likewise the rest of the Alexandrian citizenry, suffered from the hostilities staged in the city and Onias and his forces contributed to relieving their distress.

 See in particular E. J. Bickerman, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v.Chr. (II Macc. 1.1– 9),” ZNTW 32 (1933): 233 – 254 and see on the issue also B.-Z. Wacholder, “The Letter from Judah Maccabee to Aristobulus: Is 2 Maccabees 1:10b-2:18 Authentic?” HUCA 49 (1978) 89 – 133.  Recently, Barclay has underlined the problematic nature of C. Ap. 2.49 – 55, noting that no actual war was fought between Physcon and Cleopatra II in 145 BCE. Armed conflict between both only erupted at a later time, between 132– 124 BCE. Barclay points out that different parts in C. Ap. 2.49 – 55 can be related to different events in the period of 145 – 124 BCE and prefers a 127 BCE, rather than a 145 BCE setting for most of Josephus’ story in C. Ap. 2.49 – 55. Cf. J. M. G. Barclay, Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Vol. 10: Against Apion (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 196 – 197 n. 172. However, as Barclay admits himself, the mention of the Roman ambassador Thermus in § 50 (p. 198 n. 175), the historical context of Physcon’s arrival from Cyprus to claim the Ptolemaic throne and the ensuing treaty between Physcon and Cleopatra recorded in § 50 too, all point to a 145 BCE dating for that opening sequence. Following that internal chronology, Physcon’s misdeeds in Alexandria and Onias’ involvement therein should be dated to the same time. For the historical events of the Ptolemaic dynastical conflict of 145 – 124 BCE, see G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 172– 179.  C. Ap. 2.50 – 53.

358

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

12 The Death of Onias III and the Next Generation of Oniads Notably, after the episode of Onias’ involvement in the Ptolemaic dynastic war, he disappears from the scene and none of the sources at our disposal mention him again after 145 BCE. Considering that he was born (if we follow Josephus’ internal chronology) around 200 BCE, in 145 BCE (or shortly thereafter), he would have been considered an old man by ancient standards.¹²⁶ Indeed, the next text that mentions Oniads is Ant. 13.285 which records that in 107 BCE Cleopatra III appointed Ḥelkias and Ananias, Onias’ (the temple founder) sons, generals of her army.¹²⁷ No mention is made of Onias or his fate, but in Ant. 13.349 – 355 we meet Ḥelkias and Ananias again and once more it is stated that both were high ranking generals in Cleopatra III’s army. Save for Josephus’ explicit references to Ḥelkias’ and Ananias’ prominent position in the Ptolemaic military, he is frustratingly silent about their biography. In fact, the only biographical note supplied by Josephus (Ant. 13.351) is a note about Ḥelkias’ death in pursuit of Cleopatra III’s rogue son Ptolemy (IX Soter II) Lathyrus. But assuming that Ḥelkias and Ananias were the sons of Onias III, and not those of Onias IV, and assuming further that Onias III was born around 200 BCE, would mean that by the time of the “War of the Sceptres” in 103 – 101 BCE Ḥelkias and Ananias would have been old men (probably in their 60s or 70s) – as was Onias III in 145 BCE.¹²⁸ Being old,

 In this context we may refer to Pseudo-Hecataeus’ note preserved by Josephus in C. Ap. 1.187 that Ḥezekiah the high priest, Onias’ III alias in that story, was sixty-six years of age when he came to Egypt. Of course, this detail should not be taken as prima facie evidence for Onias’ precise age when he arrived in Egypt. Rather, the introduction of the figure into the story simply denotes that Onias was a man of age when he came to Egypt.  Josephus links the appointment of the sons of Onias III to Cleopatra II’s conflict with her son Ptolemy Lathyrus, who was ousted by her in 107 BCE, see G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 183 – 188. For epigraphical and papyrological attestations of Ḥelkias and Ananias, see for Ḥelkias: W. Peremans and E. Van’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica: II, L’armée de terre et la police (Studia Hellenistica 8; Louvain: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lovanii, 1952) 46 (no. 2183); W. Peremans and E. Van’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica: VI, La cour, les relations internationales et les possessions extérieures, la vie culturelle (Studia Hellenistica 17; Louvain: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lovanii, 1968) 113 (no. 15252); W. Peremans and E. Van’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica: VIII, Addenda et Corrigenda aux volumes I (1950) et II (1952) (Studia Hellenistica 21; Louvain: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lovanii, 1975) 49 (nos. 342a; 355a) [henceforth: ProsPtol]. For Ananias: ProsPtol II, 43 (no. 2149); ProsPtol VI, 107 (no. 15173).  As emphasized, we do not have any hints as to when Ḥelkias and Ananias were born. If Onias III was born around 200 BCE, then we can speculate that his eldest son (we are neither told which of the two sons was born first, nor do we know anything about the age difference between them; or were they twins?) was born around 180 or 175 BCE and the second son, per-

12 The Death of Onias III and the Next Generation of Oniads

359

of course, does not seem problematic at all, but, given the tradional and still prevalent view in the study of ancient demography of a statistically low life expectancy,¹²⁹ it might seem more rational to assume that Ḥelkias and Ananias were Onias IV’s sons – and thus much younger – rather than to assume that they were Onias III’s sons, which, as said, would make them much older. However, recent demographical studies of the ancient world have emphasized and disclosed the shortcomings of earlier studies and models, maintaining that those earlier studies are based on distorted statistical data (mostly the high child mortality rate, and the over-emphasis of fatalities caused by illnesses, plagues, and other deseases). Accordingly, older studies of ancient demography obscure the fact that in antiquity, one could quite comfortably reach an age that we would regard as normal (i. e. something between 60 and 70 for men) by modern standards.¹³⁰ In light of these new findings, Ḥelkias’ and Ananias’ ripe age and the conclusion that they were Onias III’s sons, and not those of Onias IV, should therefore not bother us. This conclusion may be substantiated by two further points. One is that it seems more appropriate, and more natural, to assume that someone holding the rank of general, would be of a more mature age, rather than being young. In this context, it would be interesting to consult a survey of the avarage age of generals in antiquity, but such a survey, to my best knowledge, does not exist. Linked with the previous assumption that generals were generally not young, is my second point, which shall illustrate that old-aged generals were by no means all that exceptional. For example, in two places in his Judaean War, Josephus makes some remarks about Vespasian’s advanced age: Once in BJ 3.4, where he notes that Vespasian has “gone grey in the service,” and once in BJ 5.123, where he essentially states the same thing by having Titus say that his father (Vespasian) has “grown grey in warfare.” Vespasian was born in 9 CE and began his operations in Judaea in 67 CE, which means that he must have been 56 or 57.¹³¹ This example too, shows that we can comfortably assume that in spite of their old age, Ḥelkias and Ananias indeed could have been the sons of Onias III and could have been actively involved in the events of 103 – 101 BCE. Consequently, and returning to Onias III, we thus conclude by way of summary that Onias III must have died (a peaceful death so it seems) in the years

haps, a few years later. Again, this would mean that by 103 – 101 BCE, one of them (the elder son) would have been in his 70s and the other (the younger) in his 60s.  See the next note.  M. Harlow and R. Lawrence, Growing Up and Growing Old in Ancient Rome: A Life Course Approach (New York and London: Routledge, 2002) 1– 17 (“Introduction”).  B. Levick, Vespasian (London: Routledge, 1999) xx-xxi.

360

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

between 145 and 107 BCE. It also appears that Onias III was replaced by one of his sons, most likely Ananias, since Ant. 13.351 records Ḥelkias’ death. Nothing more, however, is known about the next generation of Oniads.

13 The Oniads in the Shadow of Rome Ptolemaic Egypt became part of the Roman orbit long before the Battle of Actium 31/30 BCE which finally and officially turned it into a Roman province. It is therefore hardly surprising that our next reference to Oniad history comes in the context of Julius Caesar’ Alexandrian war (48/47 BCE). It was the pursuit of Pompey that brought Julius Caesar to Egypt, but it was his own decision to stay. In short, Caeasar got involved in the Ptolemaic dynastic conflict between the infamous Cleopatra VII (on whose side he was) and her brother, Ptolemy XIII Theos Philopator. In a bad turn of events, by 48/47 BCE Caesar found himself besieged in Alexandria. However, Caesar would not have been Caesar if he would not have found a way out of this precarious situation. He called for help. Mithridates of Pergamum answered his call and assembled an army that marched towards Egypt.¹³² And Mithridates did not come alone: his entourage included a Judaean contingent led by the Hasmonean ruler Hyrcanus II and Antipater, Herod the Great’s father. It bears mentioning that Josephus is the only ancient author who mentions the involvement of Jews in this event, but this is an issue for a separate discussion.¹³³ Of more importance is what Josephus tells us next, namely that after taking Pelusium and advancing towards the “Land of Onias,” Mithridates’ relief force was halted by Oniad contingents, whereupon letters by Hyrcanus II were produced in order to persuade the Egyptian (Oniad) Jews to back down. The Oniads obeyed – so Josephus claims – on account of “their common nationality.”¹³⁴ Moreover, they provided Mithridates’ force with logistic assistance, and Josephus even records that Jewish fighters joined Mithridates’ ranks. What may be inferred from this story is that on the one hand, Onias’ garrison was still of strategic importance at the time and thus demanded Mithridates’ attention. On the other hand, we are under the impression that the Oniad troops,

 On this episode in history, see P. J. Sijpesteijn, “Mithridates’ March from Pergamum to Alexandria,” Latomus 24 (1965): 122 – 127.  BJ 1.187– 196; Ant. 14.127– 139. Even in his own memoires (the commentarii) Caesar himself has no recollection of any Jewish involvement, see Bellum Alexandrium XXVI.3 and Dio Cassius 42.41– 43. This fact has been pointed out by Bohak, too. G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 35.  “κατὰ τὸ ὁμόφυλον” (Ant. 14.131).

14 Postscript: The Decline of the Oniad Community

361

though capable of blocking the advance of a foreign invading force, could easily be overcome. This implies a certain weakness or inefficiency on the part of the Oniad force.¹³⁵ The once prominent position of Oniad commanders and units within the Ptolemaic defense and administrative apparatus thus seems to have declined with time until it came to a complete halt with the Roman annexation of Egypt.¹³⁶

14 Postscript: The Decline of the Oniad Community We are not told what happened in Oniad history after the incident during Julius Caesar’s Alexandrian war. Our next information comes only in context of the end of the First Judaean War against Rome. The silence of our sources concerning Oniad history could well be rooted in the assumption that there simply was nothing to tell, or in other words, that the importance of Onias’ Temple and its community continued to decline. The main reason for this is certainly to be sought in the Roman annexation of Egypt in the wake of the Battle of Actium 31/30 BCE. The Roman takeover of Egypt was accompanied by several changes, minor or major, and these had a significant impact on the Oniad community. The most important and certainly the most fateful of them, was the Roman re-organization of the Ptolemaic army, to which the Oniad community – being military settlers and a conglomerate of military settlements – essentially belonged. Al-

 In this context we should turn our attention to an episode narrated by Josephus in BJ 1.279 that chronicles Herod’s exploits while fleeing from Judaea to Rome. Stuck in Alexandria, Cleopatra paid court to Herod and promptly tried to draft him as commander of her forces in an upcoming expedition. In the assessment of Bohak, this little episode implies the mitigation of the importance and strength of the Oniad community as a military force. G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 35. True, that the military strength (and importance) of the Oniad community had slowly decreased. However, in this instance, which is said to have occurred before the Roman annexation of Egypt, we take note of the fact that this small piece of information is lacking in the parallel account in the Antiquities (Ant. 14.375), even though we should assume that both accounts share the same source (most probably Nicolaus of Damascus). It follows that it was Josephus himself who was responsible for dropping this note later in his Antiquities (and/or that, in any case, it was not in his source for the period), and this, I suggest here, has something to do with Cleopatra’s image as a devious, seductive oriental harlot, who seduced two of Rome’s leading men and thus caused a civil war in Rome as well as the end of the Republic. This description suits BJ’s themes better than those of the Antiquities. See also J. W. van Henten, “Cleopatra in Josephus: From Herod’s Rival to the Wise Ruler’s Opposite,” in The Wisdom of Egypt: Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. by A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 115 – 134.  See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 35 – 36.

362

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

though recent research has revealed that the Ptolemaic army was not dissolved per se, as previously assumed, it was absorbed into the Roman army.¹³⁷ That being the case, former Ptolemaic units continued to function mostly as soldiers in auxiliary forces and as sailors in the Roman navy. How much these changes affected the Oniad community is difficult assess. This notwithstanding, it seems that military settlements such as the Oniad community were dismantled and the former katoikic land was transformed into private land.¹³⁸ Whether Oniad soldiers thus continued a military career in the service of Rome cannot be proved. We can imagine, however, that some did. In addition to the abolition of the military settlements I underline too, on a more general note, that one of the main reasons for the very existence of the “Land of Onias” was its strategic importance as a buffer-zone for attacks from the north.¹³⁹ This function, however, became superfluous in view of the fact

 M. Chauveau, Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra: History and Society under the Ptolemies (Ithaca: Cornell University Pess, 2000) 168, 193; L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province (New York and London: Routledge, 2005) 19, 22– 23. Quite a number of former Ptolemaic soldiers were also recruited as policemen and for other civil tasks. See M. Chauveau, Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra, 171.  The disbandment of the Ptolemaic military settlements was thus intimately linked to an overall Roman land-reform. In Ptolemaic times, the land was divided into 1) royal land; 2) holy land; 3) private land; 4) endowed land [δωρεί], and 5) katoikic/klerurchic land. See L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 97. Apart from the territory of the Oniad Temple, which must have been considered sacred land, most of the “Land of Onias” was katoikic land. Therefore, we have all reason to assume that also the “Land of Onias” was privatized. See L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 97, 99 – 100. We may add here that in the wake of the de-militarization of the Ptolemaic Empire, the Romans also transformed the office of the strategos – an office that was once held by Onias and probably also by some of his descendants. The strategos was stripped of his military tasks and merely became an administrator fulfilling more economic and judicial tasks. See L. Capponi, Augustan Egypt, 42– 45, 172; H. Bengtson, Die Strategie in hellenistischer Zeit, 3:14– 91.  On the strategic importance of Onias’ garrison, see G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 520,” 36 (esp. there, n. 21); and G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth 36. In BJ 7.427, Josephus mentions that Onias also built a fortress in his district of Heliopolis. And we recall too, the reference to the “camp of the Jews” made in BJ 1.191 and Ant. 14.133 that might have been part of the “Land of Onias” and might have been manned by Oniad fighters. For some suggested identifications of “camp of the Jews” with various sites connected to Onias and Onias’ Temple see: P. J. Sijpesteijn, “Mithridates’ March,” 123 – 124. E. Schürer, The History of the Jewish People, 3.1:47– 49. Du Mesnil du Buisson proposed to identify the place with Onias’ Temple compound, Comte R. du Mesnil du Buisson, “Le temple d’Onias el le camp d’Hyksôs à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” 71; Tell el-Yahoudieh’s neighboring site Demerdash was suggested by A. Kasher, The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 121– 122 and J. E. Taylor, “A Second Temple in Egypt,” 318. Bohak considers it an Oniad settlement belonging to the territory of “Onias’ Land,” see G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 26.

14 Postscript: The Decline of the Oniad Community

363

that Egypt, being a Roman province and thus part of the Pax Romana, was no longer threatened by northern foes, since these territories were also under Roman dominion. For that reason, Onias’ mercenary community lost its identity and its military (and political – if it still had any) influence and was transformed into a “regular” Jewish community in the Egyptian chora; save for one significant distinction, namely its temple.¹⁴⁰ The decline of the once important Heliopolitan region is documented by Strabo, the ancient historian and geographer, who visited Heliopolis as part of his itinerary on his “Grand Tour” of Egypt in the 20s of the 1st century BCE. Notably, Strabo has not one word to spare on the Oniad Temple, although he seems to have been aware of the fact that the area was known as the “Land of Onias” as I have illustrated earlier.¹⁴¹ As a matter of fact, he describes Heliopolis and its area as “entirely deserted, with only a few priests and some tourist-guides present.”¹⁴² Finally, in 73 or 74 CE,¹⁴³ the Temple of Onias was forcefully shut down by the Romans on account of their fear of insurrection caused by an influx of Jewish radicals seeking refuge at Onias’ Temple.¹⁴⁴ Although Josephus – most probably for apologetic reasons¹⁴⁵ – speaks of a closure of Onias’ Temple and only alludes  The decline of the Oniad community in the Roman period led Bohak to the assumption that it was for this reason, i. e. the decline of the community, that Onias’ Temple is not mentioned by Philo, who is our major source on Jewish history and culture in Egypt during that period. G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 36.  Ant. 14.117 and see above, n. 102.  Strabo Geography 17.1.27– 9.  The exact date of the closure or destruction (see below, nn. 145 – 146) of Onias’ Temple remains obscure because of Josephus’ placement of the story in his War. The general arrangement of the part of the War which contains the episode of Onias’ Temple is geographical, rather than chronological. However, Josephus places the episode of Onias’ Temple in succession with his narrative on the fall of Masada, thus providing the historical context of the year 73 CE. On the basis of recently discovered papyrological evidence, it has been suggested to postpone the date of the fall of Masada by one year, i. e. 74 CE. See B. Campbell, “Dating the Siege of Masada,” ZPE 73 (1988): 156 – 158 and H. M. Cotton, “The Date of the Fall of Masada: The Evidence of the Masada Papyri,” ZPE 78 (1989): 157– 162. Thus, we may assume that the closure/destruction of Onias’ Temple too fell in that year.  BJ 7.421– 423, §§ 433 – 436. Capponi conjectures that the Judaean revolutionary factions were affiliated with Onias’ Temple because both groups were orthodox. Cf. L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 126.  It has often been noted that Josephus sought to absolve his patrons, i. e. Vespasian and Titus, from any ill-doings concerning the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple. See G. Alon, “The Burning of the Temple,” in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud, ed. by G. Alon (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977) 252– 268; T. Leoni, “’Against Caesar’s Wishes:’ Flavius Josephus as a Source for the Burning of

364

Chapter 12 Reconstructing Oniad History

to its destruction, other sources state more clearly (on whatever basis) that the temple was, in fact, destroyed by the Romans.¹⁴⁶ Although the Oniad Temple lay in ruins, we have no reason to assume that the Oniad settlements were uninhabited or depopulated. This only happened at a later point in time, some forty years after the destruction of Onias’ Temple, in the wake of the great purge of Egyptian Jewry during and/or following the Diaspora Revolt under Trajan (115 – 117 CE).¹⁴⁷

the Temple,” JJS 58 (2007): 39 – 51. On this issue, see also S. H. Rutledge, “The Roman Destruction of Sacred Sites,” 179 – 195, esp. 190 (n. 46).  This is corroborated by the Fifth Sibylline Oracle (“Then there will be a great holy temple in Egypt, and a people fashioned by God will bring sacrifices to it. To them the imperishable God will grant to reside there. But when the Ethiopians leave the shameless tribes of the Triballi and are about to till the land of Egypt, they will launch on a course of wickedness, so that all the later things may come to pass, for they will destroy the great temple of the land of Egypt… (5.501– 507)” and the Targumic (Pseudo-Jonathan) “update” on the prophecy of Isaiah (19:18 – 19) that predicts that the city of Beth Shemesh (the “City of the Sun,” i. e. Heliopolis) is destined to be destroyed (‫)קרתא דבית שמש דעתיד למיחרב‬. Also Jerome (in Danielem III on 11:14) states that Onias’ city and temple were “razed to the ground” (ipsa autem urbs…ad solum usque deleta est…et templum et urbs postea detruentur. [ed. F. Glorie, 908 – 909]).  See also G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 37– 40. On the Diaspora Revolt see A. Fuks, “The Jewish Revolt in Egypt (A.D. 115 – 117) in Light of the Papyri,” Aegyptus 33 (1953): 131– 158; A. Fuks, “Aspects of the Jewish Revolt in AD 115 – 117,” JRS 51 (1961): 98 – 104; S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, 261– 327; E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations (Leiden: Brill, 1979) 389 – 427; T. D. Barnes, “Trajan and the Jews,” JJS 40 (1989): 145 – 162; D. Frankfurter, “Lest Egypt’s Cities be Deserted: Religion and Ideology in the Egyptian Response to the Jewish Revolt (116 – 117 CE),” JJS 43 (1992): 203 – 220; M. Hengel, “Messianische Hoffnungen und politischer ‘Radikalsimus’ in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Diaspora: Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdischen Aufstandes unter Trajan 115 – 117 n.Chr.,” in Apocalypticism in the Ancient Mediterranean World and the Near East; Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala August 12 – 17, 1979, ed. by D. Hellholm (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 655 – 683; W. Horbury, “The Beginnings of the Jewish Revolt under Trajan,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion; Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H. Cancik and P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 1:283 – 304; M. Goodman, “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews,” Past and Present 182 (2004): 3 – 29; M. Pucci Ben Zeev, Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6; Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2005); A. M. Schwemer, “Der jüdische Aufstand in der Diaspora unter Trajan (115 – 117 n.Chr.),” BN 148 (2011): 85 – 100.

Part IV Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran 1 Introduction In an article published in 1997, P. A. Rainbow wrote that there remain two unsolved riddles concerning the second century BCE: (1) who built the “temple at Leontopolis [sic]” and (2) who founded the Yaḥad group of Qumran?¹ He contended that both questions had something to do with the Oniad line of high priests, and hence Rainbow’s comment merits our attention. Indeed, the issue was addressed already in the 1960s, dominated scholarship on Onias’ Temple a few decades later in the 1990s, and has recently re-gained some attention.² It was H. H. Rowley who first suggested identifying Onias III with the enigmatic founder of the Qumran community known as the ‘Teacher of Righteous-

 P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 52.  Scholarship on Onias’ Temple in the 1990s was dominated by the relationship between the Oniad Temple and Qumran. See e. g. R. T. White’s completely untenable identification of the “House of Peleg” with Onias’ Temple and community R. T. White, “The House of Peleg in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. by P. R. Davies and R. T. White (JSOTSS 100; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 67– 98; G. Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok – Priests – Congregation,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion; Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 1:375 – 384; D. J. Kaufman, “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oniad High Priesthood,” 51– 63 and D. J. Kaufman, “From Tennes to Leontopolis: A Political and Literary-Historical Study of the High Priesthood in Hellenistic Palestine (350 – 159 BCE),” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 117– 122. Two further studies argue for an identification of Qumran’s ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ with an Oniad priest: P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 30 – 52 and É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 137– 158. More recently, another study examined the issue from an archaeological viewpoint. M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: A New Paradigm (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002) especially, 83 – 105, who opine, in my view not very convincingly, for a continuous relationship and exchange of manpower between the two localities. A recent study by D. J. Freedman suggested the identification of the “Wicked Priest” with Onias III, see D. J. Freedman, “Another Stab at the Wicked Priest,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins, Vol. II.: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community, ed. by James H. Charlesworth (3 vols.; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006) 2:17– 24. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-019

368

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

ness.’³ Since the ‘Teacher’s’ identity is not disclosed in the Dead Sea Scrolls, his enigmatic background still arouses scholarly interest and leaves much room for speculations about his identity.⁴ Yet, an alleged Oniad background of the ‘Teacher’ is not the only issue linking Qumran with the Oniad community. Other studies focused on different aspects indicating a connection between both communities, viz. archaeological aspects and in particular, the prominence of the so-called “Sons of Zadok” (‫ )בני צדוק‬in the Scrolls, etc. Therefore, the present chapter will elucidate five central issues: one historical that deals with the establishment of the Qumran community; another concerning the composition and leadership of the Oniad and Qumran communities; a third and forth will focus on one cultic and archaeological aspects of the communities; and lastly, one concerns priestly Judaism in a Diaspora/exilic context. (1) The first issue concerns the history of the last Zadokite priests during the political vicissitudes following the Maccabean revolt, and their affinity to the founding and founder of the Qumran community by the ‘Teacher of Righteousness.’ In other words, I shall ask whether the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ was an Oniad.⁵ (2) The conventional hypothesis is rooted in the assumption that the Qumran community was run by a group of priests named the “Sons of Zadok.”⁶ It is commonly assumed that the Oniads belonged to the prominent (Jerusalemite) high priestly dynasty of Zadok that were later displaced by the Hasmo-

 H. H. Rowley, “The Teacher of Righteousness and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BJRL 40 (1957): 114– 146. See also Driver’s treatment of this identification in G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls, 227– 228.  Several suggestions have been made of which I only cite a few: Judah the Essene: J. MurphyO’Connor, “Judah the Essene and the Teacher of Righteousness,” RQ 10 (1981): 579 – 586; Zadok the Pharisee, the student of Antigonos of Sokho (B.-Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and The Teacher of Righteousness [Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983] 211); Simon the Just (N. Kokkinos, “Second Thoughts on the Date and Identity of the Teacher of Righteousness,” SJC 2 [2004]: 7– 15); John the Baptist (B. E. Thiering, Redating the Teacher of Righteousness [Australian and New Zealand Studies in Theology and Religion 1; Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1979] 213 – 215), Jesus (J. L. Teichler, “Jesus in the Habakkuk Scroll,” JJS 3 [1952]: 53 – 55), James Jesus’ brother (M. Dacy, “Is James the Just the Teacher of Righteousness,” AJJS 12 [1998]: 6 – 24). For further suggestions of the identification of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness, see J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 32– 33 and the relevant literature cited there in nn. 62– 78.  On this issue, see H. H. Rowley, “The Teacher of Righteousness,” 114– 146; J. G. Bunge, “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie,” 28, 45; P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 30 – 52; É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 137– 158, and the corresponding chapter in M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 83 – 105.  See below, n. 54.

1 Introduction

369

neans.⁷ Some ousted Zadokite priests fled Jerusalem and successfully established a new community elsewhere (the “Sons of Zadok” at Qumran), while other Zadokties fled to Egypt where they built a temple (the Oniads); This scenario, thus, allows for an identification of Qumran’s founder with an ousted Zadokite priest – perhaps even Onias III himself, one of his brother(s), or his son. All of the above has been suggested.⁸ (3) The third argument focuses on the importance of the sun for both communities,⁹ which in my opinion, is reflected in the common use of the solar-calendar in the worship at Qumran and at Onias’ Temple. (4) Related to the cultic issue of the calendar is the assumption that both communities maintained a temple. According to some scholars, the alleged discovery of an altar at Qumran not only indicates that sacrifices were offered there, but also hints at the existence of an actual temple at the site.¹⁰ (5) One standard trait of Diaspora Judaism is the absence of a holy place featuring sacrifices. This applied to the priesthood too, for the priest’s only prerogative was his exclusive right to offer sacrifices in the Temple. The absence of a temple, thus, renders priests and the priesthood redundant. But what do priests do in the Diaspora/self-perceived exile? One option is to build to a temple – and this is what the Oniad priests did in Heliopolis; the other is to create an imaginary one (a “Temple of Man”) and to wait until the real Temple in Jerusalem is cleansed of illegitimate elements – which was the approach taken by the members of the Qumran community. These two approaches will be of my concern in this section of this chapter. Having briefly introduced these five points, let us examine them more closely.

 The commonly assumed predominance of the Zadokite dynasty after the Babylonian Exile until the Hasmonean takeover has recently – in my view not very convincingly – been challenged. Cf. A. Hunt, Missing Priests, passim. Similarly, the Zadokite origin of the Oniads has (equally unconvincingly) been called into question, cf. A. Hunt, Missing Priests, 40 – 41.  See n. 5.  We recall that Onias’ Temple stood in the nome of Heliopolis, the “City of the Sun.” Nomen est omen and despite the fact that the sun plays an important role in the cultic context of the native Egyptian worship, we shall see that not only the location chosen by Onias for his temple is pregnant with solar-symbolism, but other details concerning his temple are too, which bear most telling implications.  Compare S. H. Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 57– 58. But see R. DeVaux’s post-scriptum in M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 204– 205. Steckoll’s hypothesis of a connection between the Oniad and Qumran communities based on archaeology has recently gained renewed attention by the Lönnqvists. See e. g. M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 274– 275.

370

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

2 “…and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide them…(CD 1:10)” and also built a Temple in Egypt? Was the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ an Oniad? H. H. Rowley once put forward the possibility of an Oniad identity of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness.’¹¹ But his identification was readily rejected by G. R. Driver, primarily because the ‘Teacher,’ to his mind, was a teacher (instructor), not a high priest, and certainly not someone like Onias III who had social connections with the Seleucid court.¹² Since then, Rowley’s case was laid to rest until it was re-opened by Paul A. Rainbow and Émile Puech.¹³ Both, independently (and as Rowley), came to the same conclusion that the ‘Teacher’ was an Oniad, more precisely, a son of Onias III whom Josephus failed to mention in his writings for one reason or another.¹⁴ Both scholars surmised, on account of papponymy (the custom of naming one’s child after the grandfather), that this “ghostpriest’s” name was Simon (III).¹⁵ But let me briefly review this hypothesis. Set aside for the moment the possible Oniad identity of the ‘Teacher,’ let me briefly illustrate what else we know of him and what his function was in the Qumran community. The ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ is mentioned several times in the sectarian writings from Qumran, but, notably, not in all of them.¹⁶ He is also believed to have been the author of important sectarian texts, such as the Temple Scroll (11QT), the “Halakhic Letter” (4QMMT), and the Hymn Scroll (1QH).¹⁷ Perhaps the most telling text concerning the ‘Teacher,’ appears in the Damascus Document’s [henceforth: CD] “admonition”-section which records the genesis of the Qumran movement and the ‘Teacher’s’ involvement therein:

 See our subsequent note. See also J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 32 (n. 35).  See H. H. Rowley, “The Teacher of Righteousness,’” 114– 146 and Driver’s discussion in G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls, 135. On Onias’ III contacts with the Seleucids, see e. g. 2 Macc. 3:9; 4:4– 6.  See above, n. 5.  P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 42– 44; É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 152– 154.  P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 40 – 41; É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 155. See also more recently, D. J. Kaufman, “From Tennes to Leontopolis,” 119.  The title ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ seems to be derived from Hos 10:12 (‫)עד יבוא ויורה צדק לכם‬.  Y. Yadin, Die Tempelrolle: Die verborgene Thora vom Toten Meer (München and Hamburg: A. Knaus, 1985) 97, 253 – 257; E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqṣat Ma’as’e HaTorah, passim; On the ‘Teacher’s’ authorship of the Hymns Scroll (1QH) see M. O. Wise, The First Messiah (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999) 44– 46 and M. C. Douglas, “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux,” DSD 6 (1999): 239 – 266.

2 Was the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ an Oniad?

371

For when they were unfaithful and forsook Him, He hid his face from Israel and His Sanctuary and delivered them up to the sword. But remembering the Covenant with of the forefathers, He left a remnant to Israel and did not deliver it up to be destroyed. And in the age of wrath, three hundred and ninety years after He had given them into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, He visited them, and caused a plant root to spring from Israel and Aaron to inherit His land and to prosper on the good things of His earth. And they perceived their iniquity and recognized that they were guilty men, yet for twenty years they were like blind men groping for the way. And God observed their deeds, and He raised for them a Teacher of Righteousness to guide him in the way of His heart (CD 1:3 – 14).¹⁸

The most crucial details in the text concerning the emergence of the sect are the chronological references. Evidently based on Ezekiel 4:4– 5, we learn that 390 years after Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem¹⁹ and an additional 20 years of “groping,” a ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ emerged and led a group of people, a “remnant of Israel,” into the wilderness. Taking the chronological references in the text prima facie, we would hence date the emergence of the ‘Teacher’s’ movement to the year 177/176 BCE.²⁰ This roughly coincides with the period in which Onias III was still high priest in Jerusalem and comes strikingly close to the date of Antiochus’ IV Epiphanes assumption of power (175 BCE) and the eve of the Maccabean revolt. It is also remarkably close to the date of Onias III’s ousting, if we choose to follow the chronology provided by 2 Maccabees. Apart from the chronology of the emergence of the ‘Teacher’ and his sect, we discover too, that the ‘Teacher’ is designated in the text as priest (‫)הכוהן‬.²¹ The reference to the ‘Teacher’s’ pedigree and his prominent position within the Qum-

 The translation is Vermes’, G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (revised ed.; London: Penguin, 2004) 129.  Which is usually fixed at 587/586 BCE.  The calculation is rather simple and based on the date of the beginning of the Babylonian Exile and Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem at 587/586 BCE. Subtracting the 390 years from that date produces the years 197/196 BCE and subtracting an additional 20 years of “groping,” yields the date 177/176 BCE. One of the problems with that calculation, however, is that it is questionable whether the Jews were aware of the exact date of the destruction of the First Temple (587/6 BCE), see also M. O. Wise, “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of his Movement,” JBL 122 (2003): 63.  4QpPSa 1– 10, 3:15 – 16 (a commentary on Psalm 37:23 reads: “Its interpretation concerns the Priest, the Teacher of Righteousness whom God has chosen to stand before Him to build for Himself the congregation of…”), and J. Maier, “Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit,” in Interesse am Judentum; die Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesungen 1989 – 2008, ed. by J. C. de Vos and F. Siegert (Münster: LIT, 2008) 74; J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 88.

372

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

ran community led several scholars to the conclusion that he must have been the former (Zadokite) high priest of Jerusalem who was displaced by the upcoming and “illegitimate” Hasmonean priests in the wake of the Maccabean revolt. Stegemann, who was later followed by Murphy-O’Connor,²² conjectured that the hiatus of high priests in Jerusalem recorded by Josephus in Ant. 20.237, the so-called Intersacerdotium, constitutes a perfect time-window for the actual term of office of an unknown high priest deposed by the Hasmonean Jonathan in 153/152 BCE. This former high priest should be identified with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness.’²³ This reconstruction of the ‘Teacher’s’ biography, so it was argued, matches the general disdain for the Hasmoneans that emerges from several sectarian texts from Qumran. And in order to corroborate the assumption that the ‘Teacher’ was a former Jerusalemite high priest, scholars have pointed to the ample references to the “Sons of Zadok” in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which indicate that the Qumran community was affiliated with the Zadokite priesthood and not with the non-Zadokite, Hasmonean establishment in Jerusalem. This dossier of evidence indeed seems to suggest that an Oniad (Zadokite) ex-high priest consolidated and led the Qumran group. But are all the above-made assumptions historically and factually sound? Let me briefly summarize and revisit the arguments for the identification of an Oniad priest with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’: (1) 2 Maccabees is Historical: Puech and Rainbow, in particular, consider 2 Maccabees’ notice on the assassination of Onias III’s in Daphne (3:34– 36) historical.²⁴ That assumption allows for their reconstruction of Oniad genealogy and their claim that Onias III had two sons: one (Onias IV) who fled to Egypt and the other, a certain Simon III, who remained in Judaea, but left Jerusalem and founded the Qumran community (see below, no. 4). However, recall that I have called the historicity of Onias’ assassination into question in Chapter 2. Specifically, we have also seen that the parallel evidence, first and foremost Josephus, backed by papyrological evidence (CPJ 132), the Rabbis, and Theodore of Mopsiestia, suggests that Onias was well and alive in Egypt by 164 BCE. Thus, the very foundation of Puech’s and Rainbow’s reconstruction of Oniad genealogy stands on shaky ground.

 Compare H. Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Diss.; Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1971) 198, esp. 231– 232; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The Essenes in Palestine,” BA 40 (1977): 100 – 124.  H. Stegemann, Entstehung, 102– 104 (nn. 328 and 329), 218.  P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 30; É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 156.

2 Was the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ an Oniad?

373

(2) Josephus’ Intersacerdotium: The premise here is that an Oniad high priest, whom we should identify with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ served during the period of the so-called Intersacerdotium (159 – 152 BCE) and was subsequently ousted by Jonathan the Hasmonean.²⁵ He fled to the “Land of Damascus” where he founded a community that later settled at Qumran after a split in the group had occurred.²⁶ Stegemann first suggested that Josephus’ Intersacerdotium is not historical and that it makes little sense to assume that no one offered sacrifices in the Temple for that long a time, especially not on the Day of Atonement.²⁷ But let us refer to a similar incident narrated by Josephus in Ant. 13.304 that occurred during the brief reign of Aristobulus I (104/103 BCE). Josephus tells us here that Aristobulus I fell ill during the festival of the Booths (i. e. Tabernacles) and, being bed-ridden, was replaced by his brother Antigonus in the Temple as acting high priest. Now, we are well aware of a high priest named Aristobulus I from other sources (such as coins for instance), and were it not for Josephus, we probably would know nothing about a high priest named Antigonus who filled in for Aristobulus when he was unable to serve in the Temple. In other words, we cannot really blame Josephus for not having a source on high priests here and there, assuming that this lies behind his inability to provide a name of a high priest for the years 159 – 152 BCE. This does not necessarily mean – and this we may conclude with Stegemann – that there was no high priest serving for seven years in the Temple. On the other hand, whether the high priest of the Intersacerdotium was indeed the ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ or any other replacement-priest for that matter, still remains moot.²⁸ (3) The ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ was a High Priest: The hypothesis in no. 2 can only be maintained if the ‘Teacher,’ who is referred to in the scrolls (1QpHab 2, 8; 4Q171 [4QpPsa] 3, 15) as priest (‫)הכהן‬, actually was a high priest. However, problems with the identification of the ‘Teacher’ with an Oniad high priest already begin here. For, while we can without special hesitation accept the note

 P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 48 – 49; É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 156.  It has alternatively been claimed that Jason or Onias III, after having fled to Egypt, returned to Judaea and after the Hasmoneans attained power, established a community and a temple at Qumran. Compare M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 100.  H. Stegemann, Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, 207– 208.  After all, the high priest had a replacement: the ‫ הכהן המשנה‬or ‫סגן‬, i. e. the prostates (προστάτης) in Greek, as was Simon (2 Macc. 3:4). Compare Burgmann’s and Rainbow’s hypothesis that the Seleucids purposefully refrained from nominating a new high priest, H. Burgmann, “Das umstrittene Intersacerdotium in Jerusalem, 159 – 152 v.Chr.,” JSJ 11 (1980): 135 – 176 and P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 48 – 49.

374

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

on the ‘Teacher’s’ pedigree, it is another thing to assume (with Stegemann and others) that he was a high priest. ²⁹ Indeed, nowhere in the entire corpus of Qumranic literature is the ‘Teacher’ explicitly referred to as such; not even in those texts believed to have been authored by him.³⁰ What is more, if we compare the sobriquet “priest” with other extant contemporary literary and especially numismatic sources, we discover that the title “priest” never denotes a high priest, but is employed to merely distinguish one’s priestly pedigree.³¹ It follows that Stegemann’s hypothesis is not entirely sound. (4) Onias III’s Lost Sons: Who were Simon III and Onias Aegypticus? Due to Josephus’ garbled Oniad genealogy, the fate of the last Oniads remains unclear. This uncertain situation invites much speculation. For example, it leaves room for the possibility that Onias III had an unmentioned son, whose name (according to papponomy) could have been Simon III. If so, the latter is a most likely candidate for being the ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ or so it is contended.³² The reason why the ‘Teacher’s’ name and identity was not recorded by Josephus may have been that his name was lost or deliberately deleted (damnatio memoriae) from the priestly records that later served as Josephus’ source for his list of high priests.³³ The existence of a Simon III or an Onias Aegypticus and their identification with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ is championed by Rainbow and Puech. In order to examine the validity of their claim, I shall briefly illustrate

 See especially H. Stegemann, Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde, 102– 104 (nn. 328 and 329), 218, who meticulously collected all the relevant biblical references denoting ‫ הכהן‬as high priest. However, the meaning of the term varies with time, and not in every period (including the Second Temple period), and in every situation, does the term denote “high priest” as Stegemann himself admits in his n. 329: “Der nicht-titulare Gebrauch des absoluten ‫( הכהן‬biblisch über 200 Belege) bezeichnet streng genommen nur dann den Hohenpriester, wenn dies durch Zusätze wie ‫המשיח‬, ‫הגדול‬, ‫הראש‬, oder entsprechende Umschreibungen kenntlich gemacht ist (Belege oben Anm. 328) oder im Kontext einer solchen Erwähnung ‫ הכהן‬sich auf den zuvor genannten Hohenpriester bezieht.” See also M. O. Wise’s reservations and arguments against Stegemann’s contention in his, “The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches,” RQ 14 (1990): 589 – 602.  J. J. Collins, “The Origins of the Qumran Community: A Review of the Evidence,” in To Touch the Text; Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. by M. P. Horgan and P. J. Kobelski (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 165 – 167; J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 88 (n. 265).  Compare the case of Ezra (Ezra 7:1– 6, 11– 12) and Josephus (Vita 1, BJ 1.3; 5.419) and M. O. Wise, “The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches,” 589 – 602.  See the subsequent note.  So P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 40 and É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 151.

2 Was the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ an Oniad?

375

how they came to this conclusion. I shall begin with Rainbow, who presumes that 2 Maccabees’ narrative of the murder of Onias’ III is historical.³⁴ He also takes as fact some genealogical references in 2 Maccabees concerning Onias’ opponents Simon the “captain of the Temple” (2 Macc. 3:4) and his brother, Menelaus (2 Macc. 4:23).³⁵ In addition, Rainbow, in my view correctly, states that Josephus’ Oniad genealogy (Ant. 12.237– 239) is haunted by a number of inaccuracies and is based on a bogus family tree. Intriguingly, Rainbow concludes that Onias IV was not Onias III’s son and that the bogus family tree used by Josephus was forged by Menelaus or by one of his partisans in order to provide Menelaus with an Oniad descent.³⁶ Josephus, therefore, wrongly identified Onias IV as Onias III’s son. A key indication that this is unrealistic, so Rainbow, is that Jews did not name their sons after their father, but after their grandfather. But this claim, as we shall see below, is readily refuted. Because, in Rainbow’s mind, ancient Jews slavishly followed the custom of papponymy, Onias III’s son must have been called Simon III and not Onias (IV).³⁷ But if Simon III was Onias III’s son, who then was Onias IV? Rainbow circumvents that problem by arguing that Onias IV is simply a figment of Josephus’ imagination. However, since CPJ 132 attests an Onias in 164 BCE in Egypt, he concedes the existence of an Onias Aegypticus. ³⁸ Onias Aegypticus must have arrived in Egypt prior 164 BCE and Josephus, as noted, falsely identified him with Onias III’s son. What Rainbow essentially claims is that Josephus used a list of Oniad priests, which was forged by followers of Menelaus, in order to provide him with an Oniad descent and thus a legitimate claim to the high priesthood that he had, in fact, snatched away from the Oniads (Jason and Onias III). Rainbow conjectures that this list contained the information that Onias III had left behind an unnamed infant son (Ant. 12.387). The pro-Menelaus forger betokened Menelaus as Onias III’s youngest brother and correctly added that he had a son of his own and a nephew named Onias (see Ant. 12.387), who was, in fact, the Onias Aegypticus who fled to Egypt. The name of the latter’s real father (a brother of Menelaus) was suppressed in order to represent Menelaus as an Oniad. But Rainbow infers from 2 Macc. 4:23 – 29 (which names Menelaus’ brothers), that Onias Aegypticus was in fact the son of Simon (the Templecaptain) and thus Menelaus’ nephew too (as indeed noted by Josephus in Ant. 12.237– 239). According to Rainbow, Onias III’s real son, Simon III, was     

P. P. P. P. P.

A. A. A. A. A.

Rainbow, Rainbow, Rainbow, Rainbow, Rainbow,

“The “The “The “The “The

Last Last Last Last Last

Oniad,” Oniad,” Oniad,” Oniad,” Oniad,”

30. 42– 43. 36 – 38, 42. 40. 31.

376

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

still a child when his father was murdered in Daphne, and he remained in custody of pro-Oniad/Zadokite partisans. This allows Rainbow to make Simon III’s biographical profile conform to that of the ‘Teacher’s’ who himself claimed to be a fatherless orphan (1QHa 9, 34– 36).³⁹ Rainbow points to the possibility that the “twenty years of groping” mentioned in CD represent the time of Simon III’s immaturity until he reached the proper age for the high priesthood. It is then that he proceeded to found the community of Qumran.⁴⁰ On the one hand, Rainbow’s indeed creative suggestion is based on very interesting premises such as a forged high priestly list used by Josephus’, for instance. But his hypothesis, on the other hand, is based on assumptions I have shown to be untenable. Chief amongst them is the historicity of 2 Maccabees’ report on Onias III’s violent death and strict compliance with the custom of papponymy. As will be explained below, this compliance was not strict at all. Hence, his invention of characters such as Simon III and Onias Aegypticus, interesting as it may be, is unfounded and hence too his identification of the ‘Teacher’ with an Oniad. In a fashion quite similar to Rainbow, Puech too argued that Josephus’ contradictions regarding the Oniad genealogy are rooted in a mistaken identification of priests by the name of Onias. Puech relied on the historicity of 2 Maccabees concerning Onias III’s death as well but put more emphasis on the assumption that the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ was the high priest of the Inersacerdotium. ⁴¹ And like Rainbow, Puech too juxtaposed the details of Menelaus’ family tree provided by 2 Maccabees with the genealogical information provided by Josephus’ flawed Oniad genealogical list of high priests in order to make the claim that Josephus incorrectly presents Menelaus as Onias III’s younger brother and as an uncle of Onias IV (Ant. 12.387).⁴² Puech, moreover, assumes that Josephus, in his Antiquities, also confused Onias IV (Onias III’s son) with an homonymous independent individual who resided in Egypt and who had built a temple there (i. e. Onias’ Temple). That Egyptian Onias, so Puech, was Menelaus’ nephew (Ant. 12.387) and another son of Onias III, who is not named by Josephus in his description of the former’s death (Ant. 12.237). In accordance with the custom of papponymy, the name of Onias III’s real son, the infant mentioned in Ant. 12.237, should have been Simon III, for it is unlikely that the son of Onias would carry the same name as his father, as claimed by Josephus in Ant. 13.62

   

P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 44– 45. P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 44– 49. É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 156. É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 152– 153.

2 Was the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ an Oniad?

377

and elsewhere (Ant. 20.236).⁴³ When Simon III’s father was murdered in Daphne (2 Macc. 4:33 – 36), he was still a child as stated by Josephus (Ant. 12.387) and unfit for office. But when Alcimus died (159 BCE), he became high priest in his stead and thus the unnamed high priest of the Intersacerdotium. Puech surmises that the reason why Simon III is not mentioned in any contemporary priestly chronicle is because his name was deleted (damnatio memoriae) by Jonathan the Hasmonean who persecuted him (1QpHab 11, 3 – 8). Simon III fled to the Judaean Desert where he became the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ and founded the community that later would settle at Qumran, while his brother, the Egyptian Onias founded a temple in Egypt in the meantime.⁴⁴ While we can accept Rainbow’s and Puech’s argument that Josephus erred in his Oniad genealogy, as I too have illustrated in Chapter 1, other assumptions both rely on, however, are faulty and make their hypotheses untenable. One such assumption is 2 Maccabees’ flawed note on the death of Onias III which leads both to introduce (and invent) characters, such as an “Egyptian Onias” or an alleged son of Onias III called Simon III.⁴⁵ Another mistake, in my view, is to assume that all Jews compulsorily followed the custom of papponymy, which, as we will see shortly, has no foundation. Their third mistake is to claim that the ‘Teacher’ was a former high priest, which is just a model for competition. Hence, Puech’s and Rainbow’s admittedly very interesting and initially convincing hypothesis of an Oniad background of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ does not withstand critical examination. The following points corroborate this conclusion. Papponymy: The crux for the argument for the existence of a Simon III, or an Onias Aegypticus, is the presumption that Jews (or at least the Jewish high priests of the time) named their sons after their grandfathers.⁴⁶ Thus, according to Rainbow and Puech, it is impossible that Onias III named his son Onias, i. e. “Onias, son of Onias.” However, there is ample evidence to the contrary, both literary and papyrological. This shows that not all Jews followed that custom and

 É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 151– 154.  É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 154– 157.  Compare Kaufman, who recently argued for the existence of a Simon III as well, on account of the alleged impossibility that Onias III would have “violated the tradition of papponymy.” See D. J. Kaufman, “From Tennes to Leontopolis,” 119.  P. A. Rainbow, “The Last Oniad,” 39; É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 151. On the subject of papponymy in connection with the high priesthood and resulting problems see B. E. Scolnic, Chronology and Papponymy: A List of the Judean High Priests of the Persian Period (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999).

378

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

profoundly undermines Rainbow’s and Puech’s argument. Here are a few examples: – A tax-list written on a papyrus dated to the 3rd century BCE from the Egyptian village of Trikomia in the Arsinoite nome, registers a Simon, son of Simon. The latter is indisputably Jewish (because he is designated as a ’Ιουδαίος in the papyrus), although the name was also popular with and favored by Greeks. The papyrus gives testimony to the fact that already by the 3rd century BCE (in the Ptolemaic period), Jews did give their sons their own names. There are further examples of papyri and inscriptions from the Ptolemaic and early Roman periods.⁴⁷ – The Gospel of Luke (Lk 1:59) mentions a son of a priest called Zechariah who was named “after his father” (i.e Zechariah, son of Zechariah). – Similarly, Josephus tells us that he had a brother named Matittyahu (V 8) and that one of his (priestly!) ancestors also named Matittyahu, had a son bearing the same name (V 4). We note with interest that both examples provided by Luke and Josephus involve priests, just as Onias himself. Since one may argue that regular Jews perhaps did not follow the custom of papponmy, but priests did, the above-referred evidence clearly militates against such claims. These few examples suffice to bring across the point that not all Jews (including priests) followed the same practice. It follows that there is no firm ground for the assumption that Onias III could not have named his son Onias too.⁴⁸ This is not to say that Onias IV was indeed Onias III’s son, as we have seen in Chapter 1, but building a theory or a genealogical reconstruction based on a flawed assumption does not bring us far. The Chronology of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness:’ All the above assumptions are based on the chronology of the emergence of the Qumran sect in the years 177/176 BCE supplied by CD. The identification of an Oniad with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ is intimately linked with CD’s chronology and serves as a fundamental point of departure for scholars advocating the identification of the ‘Teacher’ with an Oniad. CD’s chronological references are generally held to be genuine and reliable and thus also the 177/176 BCE date for the emergence

 For example: P. Vindob. G 40663, Col. VIII. See also CPJ 24 (a document signed by a Theodorus, son of Theodorus); CPJ 417 (mentions a Ḥelkias, who named one of his sons Ḥelkias); JIGRE 43 (mentions a Barchias, son of Barchias), JIGRE 54 (mentions a Judas, son of Judas), JIGRE 57 (records a John, son of John).  In this respect, see also Scolnic’s findings, B. E. Scolnic, Chronology and Papponymy, 273 – 275.

2 Was the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ an Oniad?

379

of the ‘Teacher’ and his community. Puech amended that calculation by adding two important observations: The first one deals with the fact that Jerusalem was besieged and its population exiled twice by the Babylonians, once in the year 572 BCE and once in 562 BCE. Taking these dates as points of departure for a new calculation provides us with the years 162 and 152 BCE.⁴⁹ The latter date coincides with the year in which Jonathan the Hasmonean, who is likely to have been the ‘Teacher’s’ archenemy, the “Wicked Priest,” was appointed as high priest.⁵⁰ According to Puech’s calculation, the date of the emergence of the ’Teacher’ thus correlates with the Oniads’ loss of power in Jerusalem, which supports the assumption that the ‘Teacher’ was a scion of the Oniad priestly family.⁵¹ However, CD’s reference to the “390 years” is an allusion to Ezekiel 4:5, a verse that comes in the context of Ezekiel’s prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem. True, most scholars treat the reference as history and hardly ever as prophecy – but that is the reference’s real purpose, to my mind. That is to say, while one may choose to perceive the reference to the 390 years to be reliable chronological data, it is just as reasonable to offer an alternative explanation for CD’s chronology. In order to do so, I will presently embark upon a brief mathematical detour and note that the subsequent verse of Ezek 4:5 adds forty additional years (4:6) to the 390 years of the previous verse. Thus, adding these forty years to the 390 mentioned in the previous verse, plus the twenty years (“of groping”) mentioned in CD, yields 450 years.⁵² Since CD obviously connects this calculation to the biography of the ‘Teacher,’ we may add, say, forty more years bringing us to the time of his demise after one generation of the ‘Teacher’s’ Wirkungszeit. Adding the two figures (450 + 40) produces 490 (years), a figure pregnant with symbolism. For in the Book of Daniel the “490 years” signify the last jubilee which is succeeded by the “end of days” (Dan 9:24– 27). By applying this ideological reading to the chronology supplied by CD, after “490

 572– 390 – 20 = 162 and 562– 390 – 20 = 152. See É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 147– 148.  1 Macc. 10:18 – 25; Ant. 13.45 – 57. On the identification of Jonathan (and other suggestions) with the “Wicked Priest,” see J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 36 – 37.  J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 36 – 37.  See also Wacholder’s observations regarding CD’s prophetic calculation, B.-Z. Wacholder, “Historiography of Qumran: The Sons of Zadok and Their Enemies,” in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 354– 356 and those of H. Ulfgard, “The Teacher of Righteousness, the History of the Qumran Community, and our Understanding of the Jesus Movement: Texts, Theories and Trajectories,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, ed. by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 316 – 317.

380

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

years” we would expect the demise of the ‘Teacher’ which would coincide with the beginning of the Danielic “end of days.” The concept of the “end of days,” moreover, nicely dovetails with the Qumranic belief system of the eschatological age.⁵³ In other words, the chronology provided by CD does not necessarily transmit a historical truth, but rather an eschatological plan of the Qumran community divided into historical periods and calculations that includes the floruit of the ‘Teacher.’ Therefore, we should be hesitant to deduce historical data by relying on CD’s chronology, especially for the purpose of identifying the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ with and Oniad priest. “The Sons of Zadok”: The references to the “Sons of Zadok” in Qumranic literature allude to the Zadokite heritage of the “legitimate” former Jerusalemite Zadokite high priest, the ‘Teacher of Righteosness.’ I will deal with the “Sons of Zadok” more in depth in the next section, but suffice it to mention that in conjunction with the claim of the alleged high priesthood of the ‘Teacher’ and some further references relating to the predominance of the “Sons of Zadok” in the Qumran scrolls, Stegemann, and others following him have assumed that the ‘Teacher’ was a former high priest of Zadokite decent. While we certainly lack the evidence indicating a Zadokite descent of the ‘Teacher,’ nothing, in fact, would speak against that. However, while a high priest may certainly be of Zadokite descent, being a Zadokite was not a prerequisite of being a high priest. Therefore, while we cannot confirm or deny the Zadokite descent of the ‘Teacher,’ we have nonetheless clearly seen that he was no high priest either. To conclude this section, we have discovered that the hypothesis of identifying the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ as an Oniad holds no water and should hence be rejected. It seems that we ought to come to terms with the fact that the real identity of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ will remain an enigma for the meantime.

 See L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 329 – 339; J. C. VanderKam and P. W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2002) 264– 265.

3 The ‘Sons of Zadok’ at Qumran and the Oniad Dynasty: The Ideology of Power

381

3 The ‘Sons of Zadok’ at Qumran and the Oniad Dynasty: The Ideology of Power The “Sons of Zadok” are frequently mentioned in Qumranic literature and have aroused the curiosity of many scholars.⁵⁴ Their mention (i. e. the “Sons of Zadok”) is usually taken as evidence for the Zadokite origin of the Qumran community and the presence and prominence of Zadokite priests in it.⁵⁵ In view of the fact that the LXX version of Isa 19:18 renders the “City of Righteousness” (πόλις ἀσεδέκ) or the “City of Zadok” as opposed to other readings,⁵⁶ clearly in allusion to Onias’ Temple and the Zadokite descent of its priesthood, the presence of Zadkites at Qumran too, invites the suspicion of a possible affinity between the Qumranite and the Oniad Zadokites. Therefore, inquiring whether the references to the “Sons of Zadok” indeed hints at a connection with the Oniads, perhaps via the ‘Teacher’s’ descent, or whether there is another explanation for the prominence of the Zadokite priesthood at Qumran, merits our attention.⁵⁷ The “Sons of Zadok” appear in several places in the Qumran scrolls: In the Serekh HaYaḥad, the Community Rule (1QS),⁵⁸ the Damascus Document (CD),⁵⁹ and in 4QFlorilegium (4Q174).⁶⁰ Since CD is an important text for us in connec J. Liver, “The ‘Sons of Zadok the Priest’ in the Dead Sea Sect,” RQ 6 (1967): 3 – 30; B.-Z. Wacholder, “Historiography of Qumran,” 347– 377; G. Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community,” 375 – 384; R. A. Kugler, “A Note on 1QS 9:14: The Sons of Righteousness or the Sons of Zadok?” DSD 3 (1996): 315 – 320; A. I. Baumgarten, “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration,” DSD 4 (1997): 137– 156; C. Werman, “The Sons of Zadok,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 1997, ed. by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Israel Museum, 2000) 623 – 630; Ch. Hempel, “The Sons of Aaron in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino; Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. by A. Hilhorst, É. Puech, and E. Tigchelaar (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 207– 224; A. Hunt, Missing Priests, 157– 175.  For instance F. M. Cross, “The Early History of the Qumran Community,” in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. by D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield (Garden City: Doubleday, 1969) 70 – 89. But see A. I. Baumgarten, “Crisis in the Scrollery: A Dying Consensus,” Judaism 44 (1995): 399 – 413 and A. Hunt, Missing Priests, 167– 175.  See the previous chapter (Chapter 12).  My intention here is not to reiterate the whole debate on the subject. I shall limit my discussion of the “Sons of Zadok” to questions pertaining to the issue of a common origin of the Oniad and Qumran communities. For a more detailed treatment of the subject view the literature cited in n. 54 above.  1QS 5, 1– 3; 7– 10; 9, 12– 15; 1QSa 1, 1– 5; 24– 25; 2, 1– 3; 1QSb (Benedictions) 3, 22– 25.  CD 3:13 – 14, 19 – 21– 4:6. CD 5:4– 5 contains a reference to a Zadok; see also Copper Scroll (3Q15, col. 11).  4Q174 1, 16 – 17.

382

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

tion with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ and the “Sons of Zadok,” it seems reasonable to begin here. The text reads as follows: As God ordained for them by the hand of the Prophet Ezekiel, saying, “The Priests, the Levites and the Sons of Zadok who kept the charge of my sanctuary when the children of Israel strayed from me, they shall offer me fat and blood [Ezek 44:15]…The Sons of Zadok are the elect of Israel, the men called by name who shall stand at the end of days (CD 3:21– 4:6).

At first glance, this passage seems to connect the ‘Teacher,’ who is mentioned again just a few verses before (at 3:8), with the “Sons of Zadok.” But the text, at closer scrutiny, reveals itself to be a Midrash on Ezekiel 44:15;⁶¹ much as is CD 1:3 – 14, that deals with the emergence of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ and the genesis of the Qumran community. The present passage, however, has little to do with the Zadokite descent of the ‘Teacher,’ but much with the exalted role Zadokite priests are to play in the Temple of Jerusalem. I shall return to this issue below. Next are the references in the Community Rule,⁶² which, overall, underscore the superiority of the “Sons of Zadok” vis-à-vis other priests and Levites in the community. Hence, they are of hierarchical nature. The Community Rule refers to the “Sons of Zadok” as the “perpetuators” and “protectors” of the covenant and their prominence within the community, so it is explained, is substantiated by their Zadokite descent.⁶³ Most tellingly, the Community Rule is a composite document of which several copies exist.⁶⁴ Each copy represents a different distinguishable redaction stage.⁶⁵ In other words, by comparing the manuscript from Cave 1 with those from Cave 4 (which constitute earlier drafts of 1QS), we

 See for instance, E. Bammel, “Sadduzäer und Sadokiden,” ETL 55 (1979): 113 and C. Werman, “The Sons of Zadok,” 624– 625, 628 who emphasizes that Ezekiel did not make any explicit mention that the high priesthood should be eternally given to the “Sons of Zadok,” but rather accentuates that they should oversee the sacrificial cult. For Ezekiel, the leading figure in the Temple shall be the Nasi (‫)נשיא‬. She believes that the mention of the “Sons of Zadok” is not to a specific group of priests per se, but to the community as a whole.  See above, n. 58.  See e. g. J. Liver, “The ‘Sons of Zadok the Priest’,” 29; G. Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community,” 283.  4QpapSa (4Q255); 4QSb (4Q256); 4QpapSc (4Q257); 4QSd-j (4Q258 – 264); 5QS? (5Q11).  Y. Licht, The Rule Scroll – A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea – 1QS, 1Qsa, 1QSb: Text, Introduction and Commentary (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1965) 3 – 7 [Hebrew] and in particular, S. Metso, The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1997).

3 The ‘Sons of Zadok’ at Qumran and the Oniad Dynasty: The Ideology of Power

383

discover that 4QS has “the many” (‫)הרבים‬, where 1QS substituted “the Sons of Zadok” (‫)בני צדוק‬.⁶⁶ How do we explain that phenomenon? Some have argued that this development is linked with the ‘Teacher’s’ death whose name might even have been Zadok,⁶⁷ and therefore, the references to the “Sons of Zadok” were introduced post-mortem in order to maintain the superiority and leadership of the “Sons of Zadok” within the community.⁶⁸ Others have proposed that some sort of leadership-change occurred within the Qumran community which resulted in the deposition of the “the many” and the introduction of the “Sons of Zadok” as the community’s new leaders – with the ‘Teacher’ in capacity of the executive authority. This view is essentially based on the assumption that the ‘Teacher’ was of Zadokite descent too, and was ousted from Jerusalem before escaping to Qumran with his followers. His prominent social status based on his Zadokite priestly pedigree, enabled him to establish himself and his followers, as the community’s new leader(s).⁶⁹ Thus, one may readily explain both the emendations of the Community Rule and the prominent status of the “Sons of Zadok” within the community itself.⁷⁰ There is, however, one more alternative that may account for the mention of the “Sons of Zadok” in the Qumran texts. That alternative is based on J. M. Baumgarten’s work concerning the semantics of ẓedek (‫ )צדק‬in Qumranic ideology. The term “righteousness, or justice” (‫)צדק‬, we remember, and its derivate “Zadok” (‫)צדוק‬, is a significant conceptual term at Qumran.⁷¹ The pun on ‫ צדוק‬and ‫צדק‬, obviously, served to underline the righteousness of the community, while it was also employed to connect the Qumranic priesthood with their leader, the ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ who was, as I have noted, himself a priest (but  R. A. Kugler, “A Note on 1QS 9:14,” 315 – 320; G. Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community,” 280.  Cf. B. Z. Wacholder, The Dawn of Qumran, 135. Similarly, M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 98 – 99, 273 – 275.  É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 157 (n. 68); Ch. Hempel, “The Sons of Aaron in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” 223 – 224. Hempel argues the same concerning the references to the “Sons of Aaron” in the Qumranic texts, which were replaced at a later stage (most probably after the death of the ‘Teacher’) with the sobriquet “Sons of Zadok” in order to maintain the leadership of the group by his followers.  See e. g. L. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 120 and É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 157.  G. Vermes, “The Leadership of the Qumran Community,” 283 – 284; J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 31. See also Baumgarten’s discussion, A. I. Baumgarten, “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran,” 152– 153.  J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 223. Note also the affiliation of the term to the political fraction of the Sadducees (‫)צדוקים‬. On the affinity of the later with “Zadok,” see also C. Werman, “The Sons of Zadok,” 629.

384

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

not necessarily a high priest). In addition, and returning to Baumgarten’s assumption, ‫ צדק‬was also perceived as a personified term.⁷² Baumgarten pointed out that not only was the personified concept of ‫ צדק‬pivotal at Qumran, but also among the Jerusalemite Sadducees (the ‫ )צדוקים‬great importance was attached to the concept of ẓedek. However, ẓedek had different connotations for the members of the Qumran community and for the Jerusalemite Sadducees respectively.⁷³ For the latter, ‫ צדק‬was first and foremost related to traditions about Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 – 20), the legendary and archetypical Jerusalemite priest.⁷⁴ Secondly, and no less of important, is (the biblical) Zadok’s position as Solomon’s chosen high priest of the Jerusalem Temple.⁷⁵ This fostered the notion that the Zadokite priesthood was the only legitimate priestly dynasty, which is ultimately embodied in Ezekiel’s vision of the ideal future Temple (Ezek 44), in which Zadokite priests shall oversee the cultic practice in the Temple.⁷⁶ Apropos of proper worship in Jerusalem, we recall that precisely this issue was the Qumranites bone of contention and the reason for their self-imposed exile. This notwithstanding, we should remark here that it was not the missing Zadokite descent of the Hasmonean high priests to which the sectarians were opposed, but rather to what those priests did in the Temple. In other words, nowhere in the entire corpus of Qumranic literature is the Hasmonean “Wicked Priest(s)” attacked for his pedigree, but always for his acts of impiety, impurity, for calendrical inaccuracy, and other halakhic issues.⁷⁷ The Qumran sect’s opposition to the Jerusalemite (Hasmonean) establishment, that usurped the former Oniad (Zadokite) leadership, was not conceptualized to be permanent. The Qumran sectarians believed that the Jerusalem Temple and its priesthood were, for the time being, polluted until in the time of redemption when this situation would change (in “the end of days”).⁷⁸ In the meanwhile, they yearned for a “New Jerusalem” and an “ideal Temple,” much as the one envisioned by Ezekiel (Ezek 40 – 45). This forms the background for the Qumranic perception of Ẓedek and represents the larger context into which we should place the references to  J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 219 – 239.  J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 239.  J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 238.  See e. g. 1Sam 2:27– 36; 1Kings 2:27, 35; Ant. 5.361– 362.  According to Hunt, these explicit references to the prominence of the Zadokites are later interpolations in Ezekiel 44– 48, Ezra, Nehemiah, and Chronicles. A. Hunt, Missing Priests, 166.  See also J. Liver, “The ‘Sons of Zadok the Priest,’” 29; J. J. Collins, “The Origin of the Qumran Community,” 164– 165; C. Werman, “The Sons of Zadok,” 627.  For the notion of the temporary “polution” of the sanctuary and its priests is what scorned the community in the time of its foundation, see the “Halakhic Letter” 4QMMT, which is considered yet another document associated with the ‘Teacher of Righteousness.’

3 The ‘Sons of Zadok’ at Qumran and the Oniad Dynasty: The Ideology of Power

385

the “Sons of Zadok” too.⁷⁹ Namely, the references to the “Sons of Zadok” do not refer to the Zadokite priesthood per se, but to the entire body of the Qumran community, which, like in Ezekiel’s vision, ought to have authority over a new and ideal Temple in a new and ideal Jerusalem.⁸⁰ That observation helps to clarify our text from CD (3:21– 4:6) as well, which expounds Ezekiel’s (Ezek 44:15) envisioned prominence of the “Sons of Zadok” in the utopian Jerusalem Temple. It seems that this is the intended message of CD’s author(s).⁸¹ To conclude, the references to the “Sons of Zadok” mirror a self-conception of a community, a “remnant of Israel,” that is led into exile by priests. This community, in fact, functioned like any other Jewish community in the Diaspora.⁸² Therefore, the references to the “Sons of Zadok” have little to do with the pedigree of the Qumran community or its leader(s). Rather the references serve to convey an ideal situation which the members of the community hoped to restore. The sectarians perceived themselves to be the rightful representatives of a form of Judaism that envisaged a new ideal Jerusalem with a Temple whose cult would be performed in proper manner and that would be overseen by the “Sons of Zadok” (i. e. themselves) as foreseen by God Himself and transmitted through the words of his prophets.⁸³ The “Sons of Zadok” are an ideological (or idealistic) construct belonging to the realm of pious imagination. They do not reflect an actual bloodline. But this ideological claim is also linked with a claim of power, first and foremost over the Temple, an ideological claim the Qumranites shared with the Sadducees in Jerusalem, and most probably with the Zadokite priests of the Oniad community as well. Nonetheless, any specific affinity between the references to Zadokite priesthood at Qumran and the actual Zadokite priests serving at Onias’ Temple, based on an exchange of manpower (or priests) or a dynastic relation manifested in the person of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ cannot be established – despite the likelihood that Zadokite

 J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 238 – 239.  C. Werman, “The Sons of Zadok,” 628.  Ezek 40:46, 43:19, 44:15 – 16, 48:11– 12. See also J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 238 – 239 and A. I. Baumgarten, “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran,” 137 – 156. This Weltanschauung is similar to that of the author(s) of the Temple Scroll (11QTa [11Q19]), a Torah which will be implemented in the eschaton. See M. O. Wise, “The Eschatological Vision of the Temple Scroll,” JNES 49 (1990): 155 – 172.  See N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity in the Qumran Sect and in Hellenistic Judaism,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9 – 11 January, 2005, ed. by E. G. Chazon, B. Halpern-Amaru, in collaboration with R. A. Clements (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 3 – 21.  C. Werman, “Sons of Zadok,” 627– 628.

386

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

priests were certainly amongst the members of the Qumran community.⁸⁴ Instead, both communities, just as the Sadducees in Jerusalem, shared a parallel ideological claim to being the future agents of restoration. It is this claim which is reflected in the references to Zadok. It seems that the Oniad Jews’ claim of Zadokite supremacy in the Jerusalemite Temple was abandoned by them and exchanged for a claim of supremacy of the Zadokite priesthood elsewhere. In other words, the Oniad Jews, who, at some point came to terms with the fact that they ought to lay their claims on the Jerusalem Temple to rest, solved the problem of not being in charge in Jerusalem by being in charge of the Oniad Temple in Heliopolis. After all, Isaiah’s prophecy predicting the existence of an altar in Egypt had left open the question who should oversee the cultic activity there. If Zadokite priests are chosen to fulfill that task in Jerusalem, why not so in Heliopolis too? And that notion seems to be echoed in the “City of Zadok/Righteousness” (πόλις ἀσεδέκ) of LXX Isa 19:18, which quite obviously alludes to the Zadokite heritage of the city’s founder, the Zadokite priest Onias III.⁸⁵ Why those references were added at a later stage in the existence of the Qumran community, may be linked to the demise of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness.’ On the other hand, we should consider the option that the ideological concept of Ẓedek was a later development and then introduced in the documents.

4 The Sun: Same Calendar, Same Community? One of the main reasons for the detachment of the Qumran community from the cult of the Jerusalem Temple was the issue of the calendar.⁸⁶ Our earliest written

 For the view that Qumranic Halakhah was essentially (Zadokite) Sadducean Halakhah see for instance: L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 273 – 287 and L. H. Schiffman, “Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Case of “Tevul Yom,” DSD 1 (1994): 285 – 299; D. R. Schwartz, “Law and Truth: On Qumran-Sadducean and Rabbinic Views of Law,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls; Forty Years of Research, ed. by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 229 – 240.  R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 439 – 443. For Driver, as also for the Lönnqvists, the LXX reading of Isa 19:18 serves as evidence for the Oniad/Zadokite background of the ‘Teacher of Righteousness.’ Compare G. R. Driver, The Judaean Scrolls, 227– 228 and M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 97.  S. Talmon, “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judean Desert,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958) 162– 199; L. Schiffmann, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 301– 305; J. J. Collins, “The Origins of the Qumran Community,” 161– 162. See also J. C. VanderKam, Calendars in the

4 The Sun: Same Calendar, Same Community?

387

source for the promotion of the sun-calendar is the Book of Jubilees, dated to the middle of the 2nd century BCE.⁸⁷ The fact that separation from the Jerusalem Temple by a group of Jews was to a large degree provoked by disagreements about calendrical issues not only reflects upon the gravity of the issue, but also implies that the traditional (solar‐)calendar adhered to in Jerusalem had been replaced at some point in time by a different calendar.⁸⁸ Indeed, several literary passages allude to such a change during the time of the Antiochic persecution 168/167– 164 BCE.⁸⁹ Notably, the Hasmoneans do not seem to have reversed the calendrical changes introduced by Antiochus IV Epiphanes, or by the Jerusalemite Hellenizing priests (Jason, Menelaus, or Alcimus).⁹⁰ The dissent over the calendar was, in the opinion of most scholars

Dead Sea Scrolls, 110 – 116 and Maier’s useful overview in J. Maier, “Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit,” 94– 98.  J. C. Endres, Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 18; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987) 4, 54, 239; J. C. VanderKam, “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 3 – 24; M. Albani, “Zur Rekonstruktion eines verdrängten Konzepts: Der 364-Tage-Kalender in der gegenwärtigen Forschung,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 79 – 125; U. Glessmer, “Explizite Aussagen über kalendarische Konflikte im Jubliäenbuch: Jub 6,22– 32.33 – 28,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 127– 164. J. C. VanderKam, The Book of Jubliees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 94– 100. We may add that an impressive total of fifteen or sixteen copies of the book were discovered at Qumran (1Q17– 18; 2Q19 – 10; 3Q5; 4Q482[?]; 4Q216 – 228; 11Q12), which accounts for the popularity of the work among the Dead Sea sectarians. Notably, the work was cited under its title in the Damascus Document (CD 16:3).  That point in time was most probably during the de-sanctification of the Temple (167– 164 BCE). A verse in the Book of Daniel alludes to a change of the calendar in the wake of the Antiochic persecutions (Dan 7:25). See J. J. Collins, Daniel, 322. In the same vein, one may interpret the Antiochic prohibitions of keeping the Sabbaths and other Jewish holidays (1 Macc. 1:45, which is echoed in 2 Macc. 6:6 – 7) and the note that Epiphanes forced the Jews to celebrate his birthday every month (1 Macc. 1:59). These “changes” could be interpreted as a change in the cultic calendar. See also J. C. VanderKam, Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 114– 115; and J. C. VanderKam, “2 Macc. 6,7 A and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” JSJ 12 (1981): 52– 74 and R. Bauckham, “Josephus’ Account of the Temple in Contra Apionem 2.102– 109,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 342.  See the previous note.  Puech has suggested that Jonathan had adopted certain Temple laws and the cultic calendar akin to that of his Hellenized predecessors Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus. It is for that reason that he was the addressee of the “Halakhic Letter” written by the ‘Teacher of Righteousness.’

388

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

and as I noted above, one of the major reasons for detachment of the Qumranites from the Jerusalem.⁹¹ A much discussed passage in the sectarian Habakkuk Pesher (1QpHab) records an attempt on the life of ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ by the ‘Wicked Priest’ on the Day of Atonement, which could only have happened, if the hostile party commemorated that holiday on a different date.⁹² Thus, the relevant texts referring to the dispute over the calendar also teach us that the Qumran community adhered to a cultic calendar based on the sun and if so, we should deduce from that that the priests in Jerusalem did not. Recently, it has been pointed out that the solar-calendar was only one aspect of the Qumran community’s reverence of the sun. As M. and K. Lönnqvist have suggested, the sun, or more precisely solar-influenced calculations, form the basis of the Qumran settlement’ architecture.⁹³ Apart from the calendrical issue, J. M. Baumgarten has referred to another intriguing aspect of solar imagery at Qumran, namely its connection with the priesthood. Of particular interest is a passage in the Qumranic Pesher on Isaiah (4QpIsad 1, 6), which likens the judgments of the priesthood to the sun in all its radiance.⁹⁴ He concludes that “although the use of solar metaphors to glorify the priesthood was not limited to Qumran, it is particularly there that we find them

É. Puech, “Le grand prêtre Simon (III),” 142 and against that view, J. J. Collins, “The Origin of the Qumran Community,” 65.  CD 1.3 – 5; CD 4:17– 18; CD 5:6. See also L. Schiffman’s comments in his Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 290, and 4QMMT (4Q397 14– 21 7– 8): “…and you know that we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people . . . and from being involved with these matters and from participating with them in these things.” E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V (Miqsat Maase Ha-Torah), 59.  1QpHab 11, 3 – 8. See also J. H. Charlesworth, The Pesharim and Qumran History, 89 – 91.  M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, passim. In the context of the issue of the importance of the sun and its relationship to the Qumran community, attention is often drawn to Josephus’ remarks on the Essenes who, according to the former, offered prayers at sunrise (BJ 2.128) and even took care “not to offend the divine rays of light” when relieving themselves (BJ 2.148). These passages, allegedly, give testimony to the fact that the Essenes/members of the Qumran sect were sun-worshippers. Cf. e. g. M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 172– 173, who claim that the solar-calendar, whose origin is Egyptian, was only employed at Qumran, because its members were sun-worshippers. That claim, however, should be rejected. For more on the issue see T. S. Beall, Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988) 54, 132, 147 (n. 101) and M. Smith, “Helios in Palestine,” Eretz-Israel 16 (1982): 202– 203, 206 – 210.  J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 229 – 230. For a more detailed discussion of the text, see J. M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977) 146 – 150.

4 The Sun: Same Calendar, Same Community?

389

within the wider setting of the illuminative aspects of Ṣedeq [sic].”⁹⁵ Thus, the Zadokite priesthood and solar-imagery seem to be connected. That observation is particularly intriguing in reference to the Oniad Temple that was founded by Zadokite priests in Heliopolis, the “City of the Sun.”⁹⁶ Apart from the symbolic significance of the location of Onias’ Temple, we recall that Josephus preserved some details about the temple’s appurtenances, in particular its Menorah, which betray the importance of the sun in the worship at Onias’ Temple.⁹⁷ In the previous chapter (Chapter 12) I have referred to the well-known biblical connection between conceptions of righteousness and solar-imagery, which we meet again in this context too.⁹⁸ And as previously stressed, we should discard any accusations of a syncretistic form of worship at Onias’ Temple. Instead, the importance of the sun at Onias’ Temple should be interpreted in a different light. Namely, it seems that the Oniads, just as the Qumranites, followed the traditional cultic calendar based on the sun. If the Zadokite priesthood is committed ideologically to the solar-calendar, then we may also understand the allusions to the sun in reference to the priests at Qumran discovered by Baumgarten (see above). We should remember too, that both communities (Qumran and Onias’) were founded immediately after (Qumran) or shortly before the Hasmonean takeover and thus preserved and adhered to forms of religion as they were accustomed to in pre-Hasmonean times, which includes the compliance with the solar-calendar. In other words, the adherence to the solar-calendar at Qumran and Onias’ Temple should be considered a feature of the Zadokite priesthood. This neither implies that a rigid contact existed between the two communities, nor that they had a common founder. Rather, as in case of the references to the “Sons of Zadok” and the fact that Zadokite priests founded a temple in Heliopolis, the affinities between both communities do not stem from an actual dynastic relation, but from a common pool of (Zadokite) traditions, heritage, and ideals that may even be found among the Sadducees in Jerusalem.

 J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 230. A reference outside of the Qumranic context is Ben Sira 50:6– 7 which likens the high priest Simon the Just (‫ )שמעון הצדיק‬to a “morning star among the clouds” and “the sun” that “shines upon the Temple of the Most High.” See also Philo, who, in one passage, says that the Temple shined like a sun (Leg. ad Gaium 191).  As I have emphasized many times, the Greek name Heliopolis (“City of the Sun”) alludes to the local sun-cult, which is attested, e. g., in a Harris papyrus (P. Harris I, 31,5 and 32a, 8) that in Naville’s reading, refers to the site as “the House of Ra, the Sun, North of On.” See E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 20 and M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 95.  BJ 7.428 – 429 and R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 434– 440.  See for instance Malachi 3:20; Zeph 3:5; Isa 41:2 and J. M. Baumgarten, “The Heavenly Tribunal,” 225 – 230.

390

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

5 The Temples of Onias and Qumran: Was there also a Dead Sea Sanctuary? The widely held assumption of a cultic relationship between Qumran and Onias’ Temple is largely based on tentative interpretations of the archaeological data of Tell el-Yahoudieh and Qumran. In the case of Qumran, particularly Steckoll put forward the idea of a relationship between Qumran and Onias’ Temple.⁹⁹ Steckoll, without adequate foundation, interpreted a stone discovered at the Qumran site as an altar.¹⁰⁰ In addition, and on equally shaky grounds, he pointed to a buried jar discovered at the site which contained burnt and half-burnt animal bones as evidence of sacrifice. Together with his earlier conjecture about the existence of an altar-stone, the jar suggested to him that sacrifices were indeed offered at Qumran.¹⁰¹ In that context, he underlined that Petrie too, had found burned jars containing animal bones at Tell el-Yahoudieh. And since we all know that a temple stood at Tell el-Yahoudieh (the Temple of Onias) in which sacrifices were offered, Steckoll concluded that the Qumranites too must have built a temple.¹⁰² There are, however, two problems with this assumption. The first involves the problem of the identification of Tell el-Yahoudieh with the site of Onias’ Temple, which I have called into question for good reason.¹⁰³ The other concerns the actual bones contained in the jar discovered at Qumran, which seem not to have belonged to animals fit for slaughter, but rather appear to have been destined for consumption.¹⁰⁴ In addition, we take note of the fact that there is no known halakhic prescription to bury bones in the context of sacrificial practice, which makes Steckoll’s argument all the more speculative.¹⁰⁵

 S. H. Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 55 – 69.  S. H. Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 57. And see contra Steckoll, J. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law, 61, who emphasizes that the dimension of the stone discussed by Steckoll is only 26 cm, which in his view, is hardly sufficient to qualify as an offering stone-altar.  S. H. Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 55 – 56. Note that a multitude of animal bones were discovered in the sacred precinct of the Samaritan Temple at Mt. Gerizim, believed to be connected to the sacrificial cult. See Y. Magen, Gerizim Excavations, 108, 160.  See W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 22.  See Chapter 5.  L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 325, 337– 338 and F. E. Zeuner, “Notes on Qumrân,” PEQ 92 (1960): 28 – 30. See also J. Baumgarten’s criticism in his Studies in Qumran Law, 59 – 61.  L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 272. Once more, we note the discovery of a large number of animal bones in close proximity to the Samaritan sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim. However, none of them were buried in jars. See Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, 108, 148.

5 The Temples of Onias and Qumran: Was there also a Dead Sea Sanctuary?

391

Therefore, and with Schiffman, we should reject the claim that sacrifices were performed at Qumran.¹⁰⁶ Yet, the assumption of the existence of a temple at Qumran is not Steckoll’s only argument. He contended that the large room labelled “Locus 30” discovered at Qumran, better known under its sobriquet Scriptorium,¹⁰⁷ was the actual location of the Qumranic temple. Steckoll pointed out that the measurements of the Scriptorium (approximately 20 x 70 cubits) match those of Solomon’s and Onias’ Temples (22 by 72 cubits).¹⁰⁸ Last but not least, Steckoll concluded his dossier of arguments by referring to a note by Josephus in Ant. 18.19 that the Essenes offered sacrifices by themselves. However, Josephus’ claim that the Essenes did, in fact, offer sacrifices remains uncomfortably vague as to where they did so. All he says is that they did so themselves. Elsewhere (Ant. 18.22) Josephus refers to Essenes who resided in cities, in contrast to those, we presume, who lived in the wilderness (as those Essenes at Qumran). It follows that Ant. 18.19 contributes little to proving the existence of a temple at Qumran.¹⁰⁹ In order to round off this discussion, let me refer to perhaps the strongest argument against Steckoll’s presumption that a temple with a fully functioning sacrificial cult existed at Qumran. I refer to the fact that several sectarian texts from Qumran promote the perception of the community as a “Temple of Man,” that is a (spiritual) temple.¹¹⁰ That kind of a belief, it seems, hardly leaves

 L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 290 and L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 272, 280.  “Locus 30,” see R. DeVaux, Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973) 29 – 33; M. Broshi. “The Archaeology of Qumran – A Reconsideration,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls; Forty Years of Research, ed. by D. Diamant and U. Rappaport (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 113 – 115; J. Magness, The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 15 – 16, 60 – 61; Y. Hirschfeld, Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) 50, 93 – 96; 146 – 147.  Petrie’s measurements for the Oniad Temple are 16’7’’ by 54’10’’ which are 22 x 72 Greek cubits (each 9.12 inches; the Greek foot, which was popular, measured 12.45 inches). See W. M. F. Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, 20, 27. According to S. H. Steckoll, “The Qumran Sect,” 58, the measurements at Qumran are closer to the ideal. See for the same assumption, M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 236.  See also A. I. Baumgarten, “Josephus on Essene Sacrifice,” JJS 45 (1994): 169 – 183, who argues that the Essenes maintained their loyalty to the Jerusalem Temple and did not erect an alternative altar at Qumran on which they offered sacrifices. Also J. Baumgarten rejects Steckoll’s assumption of the existence of an altar at Qumran, see J. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law, 59 – 62 (“The Essenes and the Temple – A Reappraisal”).  4QFlorilegium (4Q174) 1, 8 – 9. On the ‫מקדש אדם‬, see D. Dimant, “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikoprowtzky ‫ז”ל‬, ed. by A. Caqout, M. Hadas-Lebel and J. Riaud (Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 1986) 165 – 189; G.

392

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

room for a physical existence of a temple. I shall investigate this issue in the following section.

6 ‫מקדש אדם‬: The Qumran Community as a “Temple” in Exile At the beginning of this chapter, I have referred to the Qumranic foundation narrative in the Damascus Document. We recall that the group, the “remnant of Israel,” detached itself from Jerusalem and the Temple because “He [i. e. God] hid His face from Israel and His sanctuary” due to the iniquities and sins done by His people.¹¹¹ That notion recurs in other sectarian texts too, that refer to the “remnant group’s” voluntarily (and temporary) exile in the wilderness¹¹² because of the “polluted” sanctuary and “ignoble” priesthood in Jerusalem.¹¹³ The sect’s voluntary departure is depicted there in order to underscore its holiness and election by God.¹¹⁴ Their prior participation in the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem was substituted by prayers,¹¹⁵ a life in purity, and the adherence to a specific set of (sectarian) laws. The detachment from the Temple, as I have pointed out earlier, was intended to be only temporary, until the end of days, after which a new and purified Temple will be built by God Himself that shall be ad-

J. Brooke, “Miqdash Adam, Eden, and the Qumran Community,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel/Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange and P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 285 – 301.  CD 1:3 – 5; CD 4:17– 18 contains further references to the impurity of the Temple. See also CD 5:6– 8; 6:17, 18 on the various transgressions performed by the Temple authorities.  4QMMT (4Q397 14– 21, 7– 8): “…and you know that we have separated ourselves from the multitude of the people . . . and from being involved with these matters and from participating with them in these things.” E. Qimron and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4.V (Miqsat Maase HaTorah), 59. The War Scroll (1QM col. 1:2– 3) refers to the community as “exiled in the desert” and as “the exiled Sons of Light.” The Habakkuk Pesher chronicled a persecution of the ‘Teacher’ in his “House of Exile” (‫)בית גלותו‬, 1QpHab 11, 6.  CD 5:6. See also Schiffman’s comments in L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 290.  N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity,” 15. Here, Hacham points to the common motif of voluntary separation at Qumran and at Onias’ community: the chosen one left out of a sense of spiritual superiority and of a mission of religious continuity, and configured the place or group left beyond as sinful and rejected.  CD 6:11– 12 constitutes a proclamation by those entering the sect and their prohibition of entering the Temple and offering sacrifices.

6 ‫מקדש אדם‬: The Qumran Community as a “Temple” in Exile

393

ministered by themselves, the “Sons of Zadok.”¹¹⁶ Until then, the Qumranites developed the extraordinary self-conception of being a “Temple of Man” (‫מקדש‬ ‫)אדם‬.¹¹⁷ Two major issues are at hand here: the first is that regardless of the fact that the Qumran settlement was physically located within the geographical borders of the Land of Israel, its members, nonetheless, believed that they resided in exile.¹¹⁸ The other is that by separating themselves from Jerusalem, its priestly political and religious authority, and the Temple and its sacrificial worship, the Qumranites found themselves in a situation that required them to alter the forms of worship they were accustomed to from Jerusalem. The example of rabbinic Judaism is often given by comparison; namely a form of Judaism in which the Temple and sacrifices are obsolete. Thus, both Qumranic and rabbinic Judaism is characteristic by its replacement of sacrifices with prayers and the notion that adherence to the Law ensures the persistence and survival of the (religious) society.¹¹⁹ In other words, we may observe here a shift from a “religion of place”

 To quote Schiffman: “such a leadership structure would fit well with the sect’s self-image as a replacement Temple. Because the Zadokites considered the current conduct of the sacrificial system in Jerusalem illegitimate, it makes sense that they would include priests among their core leadership group, replacing their former role in the sacrificial worship with that of leaders of the sect. Indeed, the sect saw its entire religious life and communal existence as a substitute for the Temple worship in which they no longer participated.” L. H. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 116.  See above, n. 110. 1QS 8, 5: “…It [i. e. the Council of the community, the ‫ ]עצת היחד‬shall be an Everlasting Plantation, a House of Holiness for Israel [‫]בית קודש‬, an Assembly of Supreme Holiness for Aaron.” This perception puts the congregation on one level with the Temple that should be overseen by the “Sons of Aaron,” i. e. the priests. See also L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 272, for the notion that the phrase ‫ בית קודש‬is a clear metaphorical designation of the Temple. 4Q174 Florilegium, in addition, discusses three temples: an eschsatological one built by God, the current one which is depicted as desecrated, and the “Temple of Man” (‫מקדש אדם‬, 4Q174, 1, 8 – 9) – a reference to the sect itself, which replaces the Temple in the present age. See L. Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 230, 331 and F. Schmidt, How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 163 – 165.  1QS 8, 13 stresses the separation of the community from the Temple and delineates their chosen exile in the “wilderness”: “…they shall separate from the habitation of unjust men and shall go into the wilderness to prepare there the way of Him.” According to Vermes’ translation, G. Vermes, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, 109. On the Qumran sect’s detachment from the Temple see also J. M. Baumgarten, Studies in Qumran Law, 57– 74 and Schiffman’s discussion in L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 269 – 272.  L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 274. Schiffman stresses that Diasporan Jews prayed due to their geographical remoteness to the Temple, while the Qumranites did so because of ideological reasons. See also N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity,” 3 – 4, 10.

394

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

to a “portable” form of religion that is not tied to a specific location such as the Temple (and Jerusalem). The Qumranites shared the temple-less reality with their co-religionists in the Jewish Diaspora, who, equally remote from the Temple and sacrificial worship, (by and large) substituted sacrifices with prayers as well.¹²⁰ However, the attitudes towards the Temple of the Diasporan and Qumran communities differed decisively: (some of) the former considered it a place of holiness,¹²¹ while for the latter, it was a place of sin and pollution. Nonetheless, it is intriguing to observe that the Qumran and Diasporan communities diminished the importance assigned to the Temple in search of a substitute, and an attempt to place God outside of a specific location in Jerusalem.¹²² Linked to the efforts of substituting sacrifices with alternative forms of worship comes the conception that it is usually the people, and not the place, which is defined as the chosen group.¹²³ The sole exception to that model is Onias’ community that solved the problem of its geographical remoteness from the holy place in Jerusalem by substituting it with one elsewhere in the Egyptian Diaspora.¹²⁴ Despite its many differences, the case of Qumran shares some aspects with the Oniad community. Chief among them is the phenomenon that both communities established a temple in the Diaspora, although that the temple and the Diaspora context in case of the Qumran community were virtual, rather than material. It stands to reason why the Qumranites, in contrast to the Oniads, did not actually settle in the Diaspora and actually built a temple. The best explanation for this is that the Qumranic believe that in the end of days God will rebuild and purify the Temple in Jerusalem and that their current plight is only temporary.¹²⁵ The Oniads, by contrast, at least in the first years of the existence of their temple, considered Jerusalem and its Temple irrevocably and permanently impure. Thus, the Oniads substituted the lost Jerusalem Temple with a physical replica elsewhere; the Qumranites followed a different approach and replaced the lost Tem-

 1QS 9, 4– 5 stresses that the members of the community shall “atone for guilty rebellion and for sins of unfaithfulness, that they may obtain loving-kindness for the Land without the flesh of holocausts and the fat of sacrifice.” See also F. García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without a Temple,” 304; L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 274; D. R. Schwartz, “From the Maccabees to Masada,” 29, 39; N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity,” 10 – 12.  Diasporan attitudes towards the Temple see N. Hacham, “The Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple,” 155 – 179 and M. Tuval, “Doing without the Temple,” 181– 239.  N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity,” 10.  N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity,” 10. Compare 2 Macc. 5:19 (“But the Lord did not choose the nation for the sake of the holy place, but the place for the sake of the nation.”).  See also F. García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without a Temple,” 304.  L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 279 – 280.

7 Conclusion

395

ple with themselves and turned the community into a spiritual temple.¹²⁶ Moreover, while the Oniads initially disregarded the holiness and uniqueness of Jerusalem as the place of worship, the Qumranites still considered Jerusalem the legitimate location par excellence, even though the city and its Temple was currently polluted.¹²⁷ True, the Qumran community exhibits characteristics known from Jewish Diaspora communities, first and foremost the notion of substituting prayers for sacrifices. But what distinguishes the Qumran community from other Jewish Diaspora communities was the importance they attached to the priesthood. In other words, the Qumran community continued to revere the most important institution linked with the Temple, namely the priesthood, without physically having one.¹²⁸ What this form of Judaism shares with Oniad Judaism is the emphasis and importance of the institution of the priesthood that is crucial for the existence of a temple; be it a real one, as in case of the Oniad community, or a spiritual one as in case of Qumran.

7 Conclusion From the outset of this examination I illustrated possible points of contact and similarities between the Qumran and Oniad communities. Let me now summarize my findings: (1) I have found no basis for the presumption that the founder of the Qumran community, the legendary ‘Teacher of Righteousness,’ was an Oniad (high) priest. The ‘Teacher’ and Onias III were two different individuals, who each founded different communities in different places. (2) The references to and the prominence of the “Sons of Zadok” in several of the Qumran texts do not betray kinship of the Oniads and the members of the Qumran sect, or with its founder (the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’). It re-

 F. Schmidt, How the Temple Thinks, 138 – 139. See also Paul’s conception in 1Cor 3:17; 6:19.  L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 280.  On the priestly functions maintained at Qumran see F. García Martínez, “Priestly Functions in a Community without a Temple,” 303 – 322, esp. 304– 307 and Schiffman’s comment that texts like 4QMMT, the Damascus Document (CD) and the Temple and War Scrolls “testify that the sectarians still continued to devote themselves to the ideal of sacrificial worship and that they believed that in the end of days, they would once again be restored to the leadership of Israel’s sacrificial worship in the Jerusalem Temple.” L. H. Schiffman, “Community without Temple,” 280.

396

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

Chapter 13 The Temple of Onias and Qumran

mains uncertain whether the ‘Teacher’ was a scion of the Zadokite dynasty at all. The references to the “Sons of Zadok” in the texts from Qumran should be interpreted ideologically. That is, they are linked with Qumranic conceptions of how and by whom the ideal, future Jerusalemite Temple of the eschaton should be governed. Precedents for this scenario are anchored in biblical prophecy, especially in the prophecies of Ezekiel, which envisioned the ideal Temple in the world to come (Ezek 40 – 44) and most tellingly, referred to the “Sons of Zadok” in that context in the first place. The Qumran and Oniad communities reveal an ideological claim to the/a temple rooted in the traditional conception of the supremacy of the Zadokite priesthood. The Oniads’ claim to their Zadokite heritage is evident in the LXX rendition of Isa 19:18 that refers to the “City of Righteousness/Zadok” (πόλις ἀσεδέκ), obviously because the temple’s founder was a scion of that dynasty. The importance of the sun for the Qumran and Oniad communities, likewise, does not point to a common founder of both communities. Rather, it should be understood in light of a common background of priestly (Zadokite) conceptions of the cultic (solar) calendar. The improper use of a different calendar in the Jerusalem Temple after the ousting of Onias III and the ensuing Hasmonean takeover was one of the reasons for the secession of a group of Jerusalemite (priests), a “remnant of Israel,” who retreated into a self-imposed exile at Qumran. The case of the Oniad community was different; the Oniads were ousted from Jerusalem and seem to have continued to abide by the solar-calendar as they were accustomed to in Jerusalem prior to their ousting. Regarding the question of the existence of a temple at Qumran that included the offering of sacrifices, I have demonstrated that this hypothesis holds no water. Instead, I have pointed out that the members of the Qumran community believed themselves to be a “Temple of Man.” The self-perception at Qumran of being a “Temple of Man” was like living in an exile that was destined to be temporary only and limited to the time until the eschaton when an ideal temple would be erected by God in the Jerusalem of the “end of days.” The Oniad Jews, by contrast, did not eschew constructing a real (and not a spiritual) temple in the Diaspora as a substitute for the defiled shrine at Jerusalem. Both concepts constitute different strategies of coping with the perceived defilement of the Jerusalem Temple.

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism 1 Introduction The Oniad community assumes a special place within the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora. Diaspora Judaism was far from homogenous and entailed all kinds of approaches to Judaism. The Egyptian Diaspora was no exception. In fact, just as Judaean Judaism turned out to be versatile, as is so overtly demonstrated by the Qumran texts, Egyptian Judaism too, was quite heterogeneous.¹ Perhaps the best example of the heterogeneity of Egyptian Judaism is Onias’ community, whose unique form of Judaism I shall explore in this final chapter. In addition to drawing a portrayal of Oniad Judaism, the main purpose of this chapter is to turn our attention to a hitherto neglected aspect of Diaspora Judaism. Older scholarship especially, conceived of Diaspora Judaism as a universalistic, syncretistic, Greek-speaking, philosophically inclined Judaism embodied by Philo, that was diametrically opposed to the orthodox, Hebrew- or Aramaic-speaking, Judaean Judaism that is characterized by its focus on the Temple, the priesthood, and sacrifices.² While this monolithic, black-and-white view of Judaism rightly should be deconstructed (a task which has already begun), the fact remains that Judaean Judaism is characterized by its focus on a holy place, the holy seed, and on sacrifices. In other words, Judaean Judaism was essentially a form of priestly Judaism. While it is not at all my intention to challenge this view, the question that concerns us here is what to make of the phenomenon of priestly Judaism in a Diaspora context, as exemplified by the case of Onias’ Temple and its community in Egypt. What is Oniad Judaism? What are its characteristics and what was the community’s place in its Diaspora context? Oniad Judaism constitutes a unique form of Judaism, blending two major aspects of both Diasporan and Judaean Judaism, namely the universalistic aspect usually associated with the former on the one hand, and on the other, the priest-

 For various forms of Judaism in Egypt see for instance, S. Honigman, “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt,” 117– 135.  View Barclay’s survey of Diasporan scholarship, J. M. G. Barclay, “Diaspora Judaism,” in Religious Diversity in the Graeco-Roman World: A Survey of Recent Scholarship, ed. by D. Cohn-Sherbok and J. M. Court (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 47– 64. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-020

398

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

ly Judaism usually characteristic of the latter, based on a holy place, holy seed, and sacrifices. I will therefore attempt to build a profile of priestly Judaism and will then proceed by discussing it in reference to the Oniad community in its Diaspora setting. We shall see that the profile of priestly Diaspora Judaism shares some characteristics with other (Jewish) communities centered on holy places and holy seed residing outside of Judaea and Jerusalem, such as the Oniad community’s predecessor, the Elephantine community, the Samaritans, and the Qumran community to which I will refer on occasion. This model of priestly Diaspora Judaism may thus also shed some light on those communities and may as well highlight their similarities and many points of contact.

2 Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community I A Holy Place Everywhere? In the introduction to this chapter I posited that Diaspora Judaism usually distinguishes itself, almost by definition, by the lack of a holy place. Although a temple existed in Jerusalem, it was something rather remote for Diaspora Jews. By detaching oneself from a religion centered on a place and adhering to a form of religion that does not require sacrifices, which are substituted by prayers, one may carry one’s religion everywhere. This includes the notion of pedigree, which becomes pointless in view of a lack of a holy place, for in Judaism the only significant implication of holy pedigree is the privilege it gave the priests to enter the holy place. Consequently, it becomes easier for anyone to become a member in a form of religion that neither requires place, nor pedigree. Such a form of religion is, in its extreme form, propagated by Paul, for instance.³ The Jewish community of Onias constitutes an interesting example of a form of religion that is centered on a holy place and pedigree,⁴ but which adopted a

 Gal 1:16; Rom 2:14, 3:28 – 29, 11:32 and D. Boyarin, A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997) 7– 8; Ch. Kingsley Barrett, “Paulus als Missionar und Theologe,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. by A. v. Schlatter, M. Hengel, and U. Heckel (WUNT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991) 1– 15; G. Theissen, “Judentum und Christentum bei Paulus; Sozialgeschichtliche Überlegung zu einem beginnenden Schisma,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. by A. v. Schlatter, M. Hengel, and U. Heckel (WUNT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991) 331– 359.  Next to Onias’ Temple, I have pointed to several similar sites that existed outside the perimeters of Jerusalem and Judaea, namely, the Jewish temple at Elephantine in Egypt and the Sa-

2 Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community

399

view, or views, that one may label universalist, as we shall see in the course of this chapter. This also entails the conclusion that anybody who wished to join Oniad ranks may do so on the condition that he or she accepts the laws of the (Jewish) religion. Such an attitude, for instance, emerges from the Jewish novel Joseph & Aseneth (and the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles) for whose Oniad origin I have tried to make a case. This text suggests that becoming a member of the community is not impossible. The, let us say, lack of complacency about foreigners is echoed in the evidence from the funerary epitaphs and the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh and its mixed nature. I have stressed that the Oniads in Egypt continued with their way of life the way they were accustomed to in Jerusalem, which they were forced to abandon in the wake of the Maccabean revolt. They translocated their former holy place to their new home in Egypt, apparently, with remarkable ease – that is, without being troubled by the predicament posed by the law of centralization in Deut 12.⁵ As we have seen, the legitimacy for the existence of their temple was supplied by Isaiah’s prophecy (Isa 19:18 – 19). This allowed for the practice of their form of priestly Judaism, the form they adhered to in Jerusalem, in their place of exile in Egypt.

II Priests and Priestly Pedigree The existence of a place of worship also required adequate personnel, i. e. priests, who were in charge of the permanent maintenance of the cult. Priests constitute the heart and soul of priestly Judaism.⁶ Therefore, we expect an emphasis on priests and the priesthood in communities such as Onias’ that were centered on a temple. And indeed, one of the epitaphs from the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh, JIGRE 84, as we recall, belongs to a woman called Marin. She, and presumably her family (who were, after all, responsible for erecting

maritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim in Samaria. We have seen too, that a temple did not necessarily need to be a physical edifice; the Qumran community for instance, who had not built a physical temple, considered itself a “Temple of Man,” i. e. a spiritual temple, but this is an outstanding case. See N. Hacham, “Exile and Self-Identity,” 3 – 21.  On the issue of the law of centralization (Deut 12) and the existence of multiple Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem, see Appendix 3.  I. Knohl, The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007); E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief, 47– 76; L. L. Grabbe, Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992) 2:607– 608. Josephus’ statement in C. Ap. 2.193 – 194 is particularly telling in this respect.

400

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

her tombstone), proudly emphasized her priestly descent.⁷ While this known inscription continues to puzzle scholars who debate whether Marin actually actively participated in the worship at Onias’ Temple, I merely point out the fact that those close to Marin found it important to emphasize her priestly pedigree.⁸ Marin’s inscription, thus, gives testimony to reverence for priests and the priesthood in Onias’ community. No other known Jewish inscription from Egypt preserves such a reference.⁹ Although a reverence of priests and the priesthood can be sensed in some pieces of ancient Egyptian Jewish literature, which delineate the elevated social status of priests in Jewish society by depicting them as communal leaders,¹⁰ it is nevertheless significant that the only known epigraphic source for the emphasis of one’s priestly pedigree comes from a site associated with the Temple of Onias. In my opinion, this is no mere chance, and it is not necessarily connected to the privileged social status that priests enjoyed within Jewish society. Rather, it reflects the fact that the community was founded by a

 The inscription reads: “Marin the priestess, good and friend to all, causing pain to no one and a friend to your neighbors, farewell. About 50 years old. In the third year of Caesar [Augustus], on the thirteenth day of Payni [= June 7, 28 BCE, M. P.].” I have slightly altered Horbury’s and Noy’s translation. For literature on this inscription and a thorough discussion, see Chapter 6.  The claim that women served as priestesses in Onias’ Temple based on this inscription is highly speculative and should be rejected. Cf. P. Richardson and V. Heuchan, “Jewish Voluntary Associations,” 235 – 239, 246. As suggested by Brooten, Marin could have been a wife of a priest or a priest’s daughter. B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders, 78 – 95. Nothing speaks against her priestly descent and it is this background against which we should understand the reference to her pedigree, namely as a matter of pride.  Notably, a “Yoḥanan the priest” (‫ )יוחנן כהנא‬is mentioned in l. 85 of an Aramaic papyrus (dated to the early Hellenistic period, i. e. third-second centuries BCE) from Edfu (CPJ 525 = Oxford, Bodleian Library Ms. Heb. a. 5) which led Honigman (S. Honigman, “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt,” 122) to assume that a Jewish temple also existed at Edfu. However, in view of the lack of any additional evidence to support this, Honigman’s conjecture remains inconclusive.  Priests are depicted as communal leaders in one passage in the Letter of Aristeas (310); see D. R. Schwartz, “The Priests in Ep. Arist. 310,” JBL 97 (1978): 567– 71. Also Philo lauds the priesthood, particularly the high priest (see J. Leonhardt-Balzer, “Priests and Priesthood in Philo: Could We Have Done Without Them?” 127– 53). Note however, that Philo interpreted biblical law, which assigns particular importance to the priesthood and the Temple(‐service). Philo’s view of the priesthood is therefore essential for his overall view of Judaism and Jewish religious practice and conforms with his view of the Bible. For this reason, it is difficult to assess whether Philo’s attitude toward priests and the priesthood is representative of Egyptian Jewry in general. Special importance to priests and the priesthood is also assigned in 3 Maccabees (in particular in 3 Macc. 6:1) and Pseudo-Hecataeus (apud Josephus’ C. Ap. 1.187– 89). However, both are compositions for whose possible Oniad origin I have made a case above, in chapters 9 and 10. The possible Oniad origin of these compositions would thus account for the references to and the importance of priests and the priesthood in them.

2 Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community

401

scion of the Jerusalem priesthood and that it maintained a sanctuary where priestly status, or priestly heritage, was crucial for the upkeep of the cult.¹¹ Thus, it is the existence of a Jewish temple that accounts for the reference to the priesthood on Marin’s tombstone. Being a priest wins one the right to enter God’s House, a privilege not granted to any common Israelite – not even in the Diaspora.

III Sacrificial Worship That sacrifices were performed at Onias’ Temple seems certain. Not only do most of the rabbinic references to Onias’ Temple give testimony to that fact, but we may also allow credibility to the rabbinic claim that (Nazirite) vows were taken at Onias’ Temple.¹² In addition, it is noteworthy that Josephus records the appurtenances of Onias’ Temple, which furthermore corroborates the assumption that a proper sacrificial cult was conducted there.¹³ It is intriguing to ask whether the Oniad priests offered sacrifices for the well-being of their Ptolemaic/Roman overlords, as was customary in Jerusalem.¹⁴ Unfortunately, we are in no position to answer this question on account of the paucity of evidence. However, by analogy, we may take a cautious guess that indeed, a daily offering for the well-being of the Ptolemaic ruler was offered at Onias’ Temple.¹⁵ It is important to accentuate that those offerings in no way substituted for the worship of YHWH.

 That there seems to have been a substantial number of cultic personal – or at least enough for the up-keep of the sacrificial temple-cult – in the Oniad community is suggested by Josephus, see Ant. 13.63, 73. See also P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, 1:83, who maintains that Onias IV [sic] fled to Egypt with a “large number of Jews.”  M Men. 13:10 and T Men. 13:12– 15; Y Yoma 6,3 (43c-d); B Men. 109b; B Megillah 10a; B Avodah Zarah 52b.  BJ 7.428 – 430. Josephus also states that votive offerings were displayed in Onias’ Temple (BJ 7.428), something that was done in the Jerusalem Temple as well (2 Macc. 5:15 – 16). See also W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 119 – 120.  Ezra 6:9 – 10; 1 Macc. 7:33; BJ 2.197, 409 – 410 and E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief, 85. According to Porten, it is likely that such offerings were performed at Elephantine for the Persian king, B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 114.  After all, the Ptolemies were adamant to introduce and to enforce their dynastic cult. See G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 69 – 107; G. Dietze, “Temples and Soldiers in Southern Ptolemaic Egypt,” 85.

402

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

IV The Sun and the Calendar In the previous chapter (Chapter 13) on the affiliation of the Oniad community with the community of Qumran, I have argued that the solar-imagery connected with the site of Onias’ Temple (Heliopolis, the “City of the Sun”) and of some of its temple appurtenances, in particular its Menorah, indicate the use of the solarcalendar at Onias’ Temple. The solar-imagery employed in connection with Onias’ Temple, in my view, does not imply that some syncretistic cult involving sun-worship was performed there.¹⁶ R. Elior has argued that the solar-calendar was crucial for priestly Judaism since the exact fixation of holidays and sacrifices depended on a precise calculation of time, which only the solar-calendar could ensure.¹⁷ Given that this concept of holy time was ordained by God Himself, any chronological deviation from it equalled a transgression of the law. Whether or not the solar-calendar was adopted from the Egyptians, it seems that it was put to use in the pre-Hasmonean Temple, before the ousting of the Oniads and the defilement of the Temple by Antiochus IV.¹⁸ Therefore, Onias’ adherence to the sun-calendar was a souvenir imported from the pre-Hasmonean temple cult from his days in office in Jerusalem. The continuation of the use of the solar-calendar at Onias’ Temple should thus be seen as an effort to preserve the priestly, cultic form of Judaism prevalent in Judaea.¹⁹ Tellingly, the Qumran community too, remained loyal to this former Jerusalemite custom in this respect. Both the cultic (solar) calendar and the Oniads’ pedigree are linked to the concept of ẓedek (‫ )צדק‬and are alluded to in Onias’ choice of the location of his temple in Heliopolis, the “City of the Sun” or the “City of Righteousness/ Zadok” (πόλις ἀσεδέκ) as it is referred to in the LXX translation of Isa 19:18, a

 For the opinion that a syncretistic sun-cult was performed at Onias’ Temple compare L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 67; M. and K. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 97– 98. I have vehemently rejected this assumption in Chapter 13. Note that the discovery of a sun-dial with a Greek inscription containing the phrase “God Most High” at the sacred precinct of Mt. Gerizim could be interpreted as evidence for the use of the sun-calendar in the worship at Mt. Gerizim, too. See Y. Magen, Mount Gerizm Excavations, 156.  R. Elior, The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism (Oxford and Portland: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization) 82– 87.  On this issue, see Chapter 13 on the solar-calendar (pp. 386 – 389).  I.e., in the words of E. P. Sanders: “Common Judaism.” E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice and Belief, 47– 54.

2 Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community

403

text that is believed to have been produced by circles affiliated with Onias’ Temple.²⁰

V Scribal Activity In Chapter 7, I attempted to draw attention to the observation that Jewish scribal activity was not confined to Judaea (in particular Jerusalem) and Alexandria alone. Instead, I have posited that scribal activity was part and parcel of Onias’ community too, as showcased by the works Joseph & Aseneth, the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 3 Maccabees, and probably other compositions as well.²¹ Since scribal activity can only exist in a literate environment, it should be pointed out that literacy and literary production is traditionally the domain of priests:²² Of course, this does not mean that every piece of contemporary Jewish(‐Hellenistic) literature was necessarily written by priests, but we should take note of the strong correlation between literary output and the priesthood. In other words, the presence of priests is likely to be a catalyst of literary production. The Qumran community is perhaps the most fitting example of a community centered on priests and the priesthood with an impressive literary output.²³ By analogy, the assumption that literature was produced by the Oniad community, thus, seems very likely. This hypothesis is supported by two additional examples, namely the Oniad community’s predecessor, the Elephantine community, and the Samaritans. Notably, both communities were centered on a holy place of their own and were located outside of Judaea and Jerusalem. Of the little we know about the Elephantine community and their temple, we recognize a fairly substantial number of papyri that attest to its literary abilities. Apart from several documents of administrative nature, we should single out a large papyrus fragment of the so-called Story of Aḥiqar. In spite of the rather cloudy circumstances that surround the text’s composition, one should at

 I. L. Seeligman, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah, passim, K. Kim, Theology and Identity, passim; A. van der Kooij, “’The Servant of the Lord,’” 383 – 396; M. N. van der Meer, “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis,” 281– 316.  See my Introduction to Part II.  See A. I. Baumgarten, The Flourishing of Jewish Sects, 116 – 123; C. Hezser, Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine, 34– 35.  To date, some 800 – 900 fragments have been retrieved from the site. See J. C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994) 12. With respect to literary output, the sheer amounts of manuscripts discovered at Qumran speak for itself.

404

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

least consider the possibility of its Elephantinian origin. Hence, in the words of B. Porten, the Elephantine Jews were a “literary people.”²⁴ The Samaritan community too, is responsible for the creation of quite a substantial number of literary works. These include their own version of the Torah, a Targum, and various other compositions.²⁵ Of note in this context is the fact that some of those compositions, first and foremost the Samaritan Pentateuch, seek to justify and legitimize the existence of their sanctuary. This is paralleled by similar efforts of the Oniad community.²⁶ In light of all of these observations, it is likely that scribal activity was an integral part of Oniad Judaism, which gives furthermore testimony to the importance of the Oniad community and its temple as a cultural and religious center in the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora.

VI Mercenarism The raison d’être of Onias’ community (from the point of view of the Ptolemies) was their employment as military settlers (klerurchoi) in the service of the Ptolemaic army. Communities of military settlers, Jewish or not, were characteristic of Ptolemaic Egypt and part of the spectrum of the Greek (i. e. foreign) population. Being considered Greek in affiliation automatically procured a privileged social status within Ptolemaic society; most notably in contrast with native Egyptians. This roused their envy and ultimately led to frictions with the Greek foreigners – Jews and other ethnicities included.²⁷ Until the Roman conquest of Egypt, Jews fought loyally on behalf of their Ptolemaic sovereigns, a fact that is underlined by Josephus on many occasions. We find that the Jews were often-

 B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 250.  See for instance, A. Tal, “Samaritan Literature,” in The Samaritans, ed. by J. D. Crown (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 413 – 467.  The most prominent example are the various readings of Isa 19:18 – 19, in particular the LXX version. Bohak has argued that the purpose of Joseph & Aseneth was to promote the legitimacy of Onias’ Temple, see G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 30. With respect to Oniad efforts to promote the legitimacy of their temple, we should also refer to the Ḥezekiah story in Pseudo-Hecataeus and 3 Maccabees, which both retain elements in the narrative which seems to cater that need.  On the privileged social standing of those foreign mercenaries vis-à-vis the local Egyptian, see G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 520,” 32– 41 and in more general terms G. Hölbl, Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches, 135– 136. Compare 3 Maccabees’ remark in 6:3 that describes the Jews as “foreigners in a foreign land.”

2 Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community

405

times the victims of anti-Jewish slander concerning the issue of loyalty.²⁸ We must assume, though, that Jewish fighters were indeed renowned, a perspective echoed in contemporary literary sources that bespeak the success of Jews in the Ptolemaic military and administrative apparatus. The most eminent example is the Oniads.²⁹ Their prominent status within the Ptolemaic state certainly filled them with pride and therefore, as I have argued in previous chapters, the military background of the Oniad community must certainly have influenced the literature composed within its milieu (in particular 3 Maccabees, Pseudo-Hecataeus, and Joseph & Aseneth).

VII Hellenism, Universalism, and Assimilation An aspect that is connected with the service of Oniad Jews as mercenaries in Ptolemaic Egypt is acculturation and assimilation. The continuous exposure to the customs and culture of their non-Jewish fellow-warriors, and to their native Egyptian and Greek neighbors, must certainly have accelerated the process of assimilation of the community to a certain extent. This development, however, seems to contradict the conservative orientation of priestly Judaism. There is evidence for the notion that these two currents coexisted within the same community, much as they do in Jewish communities today.

a) Greek Language It is quite significant that all the funerary epitaphs of Tell el-Yahoudieh are in Greek.³⁰ In fact, there is not one inscription in Hebrew or Aramaic. This is striking when we consider the overall number of Jews buried there, but perhaps not so surprising, keeping in mind that we are talking about a Jewish community located in a Greek-speaking Diaspora. We note that the preferred language of Oniad literature was Greek as well.³¹

 Suffice it to refer to C. Ap. 2:49 – 55 and in particular to N. Hacham, “Joseph and Aseneth: Loyalty, Traitors,” 53 – 67.  A. Kasher, “First Jewish Military Units,” 57– 67.  D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 165; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 129. Based on parallel evidence from Edfu, Capponi speculates that Aramaic and Hebrew was spoken at Onias’ community too. Cf. L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 136 – 137. On account of the paucity of evidence attesting Hebrew or Aramaic in Onias’ community, Capponi’s conjecture is unfounded.  M. Hengel, Juden, Griechen und Barbaren, 126 – 144.

406

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

b) Greek/Hellenistic Ideas Once more, it is the funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh that allow us a glimpse of the Ideenwelt of the Oniad Jews who settled there. In Chapter 6, we were already impressed by the fact that those epitaphs are replete with outside influences from their Graeco-Roman environment. For instance, we have discerned a profound adaptation of concepts such as Hades and the Greek metric rhyme format in which the funerary inscriptions of Tell el-Yahoudieh were written.³² Correspondingly, one is astonished by the general absence of Jewish symbols on the funerary stelae, as well as by the fact that none of the dead is designated ’Ιουδαίος (Jew), an observation which gives rise to the speculation that the cemetery was not (entirely) Jewish.³³ Consequently, I have raised the possibility that Oniad Jews were laid to rest next to their non-Jewish comrades in arms.³⁴ Greek and Hellenistic ideas are also well represented in the literature produced by the Oniad community. So for instance, we re-meet the profound interest in the concept of Hades in 3 Maccabees,³⁵ while we observe that in terms of literary genres, compositions such as the latter, Joseph & Aseneth, the ethnographic character of Pseudo-Hecataeus, and the Sibylline Oracles, were common and popular literary genres in the Greek-Hellenistic world – in spite of their Jewish twist.³⁶ And on the subject of Greek literary genres, we recall that the funerary poetry on the tombstones of the Tell el-Yahoudieh cemetery is written in metric rhymes, which is a rarity in Jewish-Egyptian epigraphy.³⁷ On the other hand,

 Hades is mentioned in JIGRE 31, 34, 38, 39. See also L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 145 – 148. I have discussed these inscriptions in Chapter 6 and consider them Jewish.  D. Noy, “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” 182; T. Ilan, “The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis,” 79 – 80; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 124.  So I argue with W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 124.  3 Macc. 4:8; 5:42, 51; 6:31.  Both Joseph & Aseneth and 3 Maccabees may be considered a Greek romantic novel and historical fiction respectively. S. West, “Joseph and Aseneth: A neglected Romance,” 70 – 81; R. I. Pervo, “Joseph and Aseneth and the Greek Novel,” 171– 181; S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 111. Their purpose was the enjoyment and entertainment of their readership. On the popularity of the Sibylline Oracles and its Jewish adoption H. W. Parke, Sibyls and Sibylline Prophecy, passim; and J. J. Collins, “The Jewish Adaption of Sibylline Oracles,” 181– 188. For the “Jewish twist” of Graeco-Roman literary genres see E. S. Gruen, “Hellenistic Judaism,” in Cultures of the Jews: Vol. 1: Mediterranean Origins, ed. by D. Biale (3 vols.; New York: Schocken, 2002) 80 – 94.  C. C. Edgar, “More Tomb-Stones from Tell el Yahoudieh,” 12– 13; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 123; P. W. van der Horst, “Jewish Metrical Epitaphs,” 1– 7. Note Lietzmann’s comment that “die metrischen Grabinschriften, die uns die Hellenisierung dieser Judenkolonie besonders illustrieren.” H. Lietzmann, “Jüdisch-griechische Inschriften aus Tell el Yehu-

2 Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community

407

as I concur with Ameling, no funerary inscription exhibits antagonism toward any Jewish belief.³⁸

c) Greeks and Jews Before the deterioration of the status of the Jews in Egypt in the Roman period, which took hold particularly in the years from 38 CE onwards, Jews were regarded on the same level as Greeks in the social hierarchy of the Ptolemaic Empire. Thus, and measured against this background, it is not surprising that neither in the funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh, nor in Oniad literature, do we encounter antagonisms directed against Greeks. As a rule, the attitude towards Greeks in Oniad literature is quite sympathetic, but at times, quite ambivalent too.³⁹ On the whole, though, the Oniad community does not exhibit hostility toward Greeks, which is explainable considering their important position in the Ptolemaic military and administration that required them to cooperate closely with the Greek (Ptolemaic) establishment. In addition to that, I have surmised that the Jewish mercenaries of Onias’ community served together with non-Jewish (Greek) soldiers, who might even have been buried next to them.⁴⁰ The close cooperation with Greeks certainly facilitated the acculturation of the Oniad com-

dieh,” 280. Also in this case, the Jewishness of these inscriptions has been called into question and thus remains doubtful. However, even when applying a minimalist approach, according to which only inscriptions with Jewish names are considered Jewish, about a quarter of these metric inscriptions are undoubtedly Jewish.  W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 125 and L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 148.  Pseudo-Hecataeus gives us the impression that Jews and Greeks get along quite well with each other and accentuates that some Jews went to Greece as colonists together with Cadmus and Danaus, while others went to Judaea (Diodorus 40.3.2). Thus, Jews and Greeks not only get along well with each other, but even share a common heritage. See D. R. Schwartz, “Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” 192; R. Gmirkin, Berossus and Genesis, 45 – 47. When 3 Maccabees comes to describe the relationship between the Jews and their neighbors, its author is at pains to make clear that “the Greeks (‘έλληνες) in the city…wronged in no way (3:8).” Collins notes that in case of J & A “the benevolence of the sovereign is assumed. The enemy of the Jews is the enemy of pharaoh too. This pattern is reminiscent of Esther, and we will find it again in 3 Maccabees.” J. J. Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem, 109. The attitude towards Greeks in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, on the other hand is ambivalent; Greeks are initially sympathized with (3.545 – 572), but they are rebuffed for their hybris and adherence to the pagan religion and thus punished by the Romans towards the end of the work (3.732– 740). However, this means too that they shared that fate with the Jews. E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 286 – 288.  Once more, we refer to the mixed nature of the cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh in this context. T. Ilan, “The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis,” 79 – 80.

408

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

munity which becomes visible in the Greek/Hellenistic Ideenwelt displayed in the funerary epitaphs from Tell el-Yahoudieh and in Oniad literature.

d) Egyptians and Jews As a rule, native Egyptians were not well liked by the Greeks and the Romans and hence often ridiculed.⁴¹ Correspondingly, we find that also in Oniad literature Egyptians do not come off very well.⁴² Keeping in mind that Jews were not particularly fond of Egyptian idolatry and animal worship (see the next point), we consider too that, in particular during Philometor’s reign, intense native revolts erupted and that Oniad military settlements, apart from their strategic importance in guarding the empire’s borders, were instituted to police the local population and to smother further possible local rebellions. Onias’ Temple was built on the site (or near the site)⁴³ of Heliopolis, one of the most ancient sacred cities of Egypt, and in all likelihood, a former Egyptian shrine needed to make way for it (Ant. 13.66 – 67). All this would certainly have caused animosity on the side of the Egyptians and it appears that the sentiment was mutual. In this context, we recall, comes Bohak’s suggestion to re-date papyrus CPJ 520 that constitutes a hostile Egyptian reaction towards Onias’ Temple and its community.⁴⁴

e) Idolatry and Monotheism True, any Jew living in the Diaspora (especially in Egypt) would have encountered, and objected to, idolatry. Indeed we discover particularly in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles and in Joseph & Aseneth, that idolatry is vehemently condemned.⁴⁵ It seems that the Oniad Jews particularly abhorred the idola-

 B. H. Isaac, The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004) 352– 369.  M. Philonenko, Joseph et Aséneth, 49 – 50; J. M.G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 224; E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 284– 285. 3 Maccabees does not make an explicit reference to native Egyptians, but diplomatically singles out “those of other races (3:6)” and their misdeeds to the Jews while contrasting their behavior with that of the Greeks (‘έλληνες) in the city, who “wronged in no way (3:8).”  As long as the dearth of archaeological evidence beclouds the exact site of the Oniad Temple, we are left in the realm of speculation concerning its location.  G. Bohak, “CPJ III, 520,” 32– 41. See also L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 78.  J & A 3:11; 8:5, 9; 10:12– 13; 11:7– 9, 16; 12:5 – 6; 13:11; 19:5; 27:10, and see Sib. Or. 3.38 – 39, 59, 279, 341– 343, 586 – 590.

2 Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community

409

trous Egyptian religion and its animal worship. In this context we take note that Onias overtly dedicated his temple to YHWH, even though he was attacked for erecting his temple on the site (or near the site) of a former Egyptian deity (Bubastis).⁴⁶ Thus, despite the fact that the Oniad community was a fairly Hellenized community, to the best of our knowledge their degree of acculturation did not undemine their monotheistic beliefs.

f) Universalism, or: the Lack of Fear of the “Other” Universalism in a broader sense refers to religious, theological, and philosophical concepts with universal application or applicability. In other words, it signifies a general attitude of openness toward outsiders and outside influences. Jewish universalism, in its extreme form, implies a complete detachment from the traditional norms and customs. Perhaps the most prominent example of such an extreme form of Jewish universalism, as noted, is Saul/Paul.⁴⁷ The example of Onias’ community is far less extreme. However, the main implication of universalism in the context of priestly Judaism is that its main focus on matters revolving around pedigree, religion and, for that matter, exclusivity, takes new shape. The emphasis shifts to more general terms such as openness towards everybody. To give an example, the importance of being a priest, or being of priestly heritage dwindles in favor of such aspects of merely being a good person.⁴⁸ In the context of the reduced fear of mingling, I once more refer to the conjecture that Oniad Jewish mercenaries and their descendants were buried next to their non-Jewish fellow combatants.⁴⁹ We may ask too, whether Oniad Jews were as lax about intermarriage as they were with regard to sharing their final place of rest with non-Jews. This shall be of our concern in the next section. In sum, we discern that next to an explicit exclusivity concerning the pedigree of the members of the Oniad community as displayed by Marin’s inscription (JIGRE 84), we also identify universalist traits within the same community that perhaps  BJ 7.424; Ant. 13.62– 73. The accusation that Onias had built an idolatrous temple is mirrored in the rabbinic stories on the temple’s foundation too. See Y Yoma 6,3 (43c-d); B Men. 109b; B Avodah Zarah 52b.  See above, n. 3.  Examples for such an attitude in Jewish-Hellenistic literature are ample; one of them is 2 Macc. 6:18, that praises the scribe Eleazar as being a “man (ἀνήρ) advanced in age and of noble presence,” instead, say, a pious Jew or priest. Another example from the same composition is Onias’ III portrayal, where he is not praised as an outstanding high priest, but as a “noble and good man (ἀνήρ)” who hates wickedness. 2 Macc. 3:1, 33, and 15:12. See also D. R. Schwartz, “From the Macabees to Masada,” 36.  T. Ilan, “The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis,” 71– 86.

410

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

emerged later in the life of the community, the more it was exposed to the forces of acculturation and assimilation.⁵⁰

g) Conversion The previous point, the Oniad community’s universalist outlook, includes the notion of conversion as well. Indeed, conversion is a major theme of Joseph & Aseneth and is also solicited in the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles.⁵¹ At the same time, we have seen that from a priestly perspective, conversion is impossible, since one is a Jew (or a priest) by birth and, one cannot change the way one is born – no matter what one does.⁵² However, that does not deny an outsider the option of embracing God and living according to His laws; becoming what is known as a “God-fearer.”⁵³ And we may emphazise that also these attitudes may change over time and that the particularistic view which postulates that no matter what one does, one cannot change one’s pedigree, with time, can experience a shift towards a more universalist outlook. Of course, a more universalistic outlook would not change much about the issue of one’s pedigree, but it would make room for more acceptance.⁵⁴ That is, while not being able to become a Jew technically, one may become so practically. In other words still, we may imagine that those Oniad priests, for whom pedigree was all that important, as demonstrated by the Marin inscription (JIGRE 84), would also realize, given the fact that they lived in an environment in which Jews and Gentiles lived alongside each other, that they are not that different from each other. This could have triggered a debate within the Oniad community of whether to allow for Gentiles to convert and to accept them into their ranks – not as priests notably. The fact that two Oniad compositions, J & A and the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, are concerned with conversion implies that it seems to have been an issue in Onias’ community. I have surmised that some non-Jews were affiliated with the community and that this mingling seems to have provoked the problem of

 On the various degrees of acculturation and assimilation of Diasporan Jewry, see J. M. G. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 82– 102.  R. D. Chesnutt, From Death to Life, passim and Sib. Or. 3.624– 634/ 3.624– 627, cf. 5.494– 497. See also E. S. Gruen, Heritage and Hellenism, 287.  D. R. Schwartz, “Doing like Jews or Becoming a Jew?” 93 – 109.  On the so-called “God-fearers” see, Chapter 11 (p. 320 n. 105).  On this issue, see D. R. Schwartz, “Ends Meet: Qumran and Paul on Circumcision,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. by J.-S. Rey (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 295 – 307.

2 Priestly Diaspora Judaism and the Oniad Community

411

intermarriage.⁵⁵ Since this matter invites a great deal of speculation, I have chosen to refrain from making firm statements about conversions in the Oniad community. But we may consider it a distinct possibility.⁵⁶ Once more, in view of the fact that the Oniad community had ample exposure to its non-Jewish environment, the notion of conversion is something to be reckoned with.

h) Oniad Onomastics As for the names employed in the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh, we find a rather balanced mixture of Greek and Hebrew/Jewish names.⁵⁷ This suggests that, on the one hand, its members still retained their Jewish heritage in the form of their onomastic behavior. On the other hand, the employment of Greek names by Jews, which makes much sense in a Greek-speaking community in the Diaspora, suggests that Onias’ community was fairly Hellenized. This picture also emerges from corresponding details, such as Greek/Hellenistic ideas displayed in several of the funerary epitaphs and the literature of the community, which is based on Greek/Hellenistic models. But while the members of the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh did adopt non-Jewish names without much hesitation, we observe at the same time that they wished to retain their Jewish heritage by giving Jewish names to their offspring.

 In Johnson’s view, J & A expresses a genuine concern of the community about the assimilation of proselytes. Aseneth’s conversion speaks to the experiences of the proselytes themselves, even though the novel promotes the conversion of non-Jews to Judaism. S. R. Johnson, Historical Fictions, 117.  Note that intermarriage between Jews and non-Jews appears to have existed in the community at Elephantine, the Oniad community’s predecessor. B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 250.  Most names derive from the Bible: Abramos, Eleazar, Iesus, Ioanes, Iosephos, Isakis, Iudas, Nethanin / Nethanis, Rachelis, Somoelos. Next to this list of biblical names, we encounter theophoric names as well, which were very popular among Diaspora Jews (Dositheos and its derivates: Dosa, Dosithon, Dosarion; Sabbataios and its derivates: Sabbathos, Sabbation, Sambathion, Sambaios; Theodora, Theodosios, Theophilos and its derivates. T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 1:11; S. Honigman, “The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a Jewish Self-Definition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of Onomastics,” in Diasporas in Antiquity, ed. by S. J. D. Cohen and E. S. Frerichs (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 110; W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 124. See Chapter 6.

412

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

3 The Place of Onias’ Community in the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora Onias’ community was certainly an abnormality in the Egyptian Diaspora. While it shared many commonalties with other Jewish communities in Egypt, for example the Greek language, Hellenistic concepts and ideas, and even mercenary activity,⁵⁸ and its organization as politeuma,⁵⁹ it distinguished itself through the existence of a temple devoted to YHWH.⁶⁰ What distinguishes priestly Diaspora Judaism from Judaean priestly Judaism, as we have seen, is its odd mixture of a universalistic attitude that nevertheless retained an exclusivity with regard to the priesthood. The question of the place of Onias’ community in the Egyptian Diaspora, however, is intimately linked with the question of the importance and acceptance of Onias’ Temple by Egyptian Jewry. I will treat this question in the conclusion of this book. For now, suffice it to refer to two observations in this context. One is that Onias’ Temple and its community were a major cultural and religious center where works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature were produced and that was in no way inferior to the Jewish community of Alexandria. Two, Onias’ community was not as isolated as is usually assumed.⁶¹  Edfu, Syene, Heracleopolis, etc. See S. Honigman, “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt,” 120 – 122 and J. M. S. Cowey and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis, 20 – 21.  A. Kasher, The Jews of Hellenistic and Roman Egypt, 356, and also the preceding note.  I have rejected the claims by several scholars that a syncretistic cult was performed at Onias’ Temple, which affected the local priesthood too. Cf. A. Momigliano, “Un documento,” 172; L. H. Feldman, “The Orthodoxy of the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt,” JSoS 22 (1960): 231, who considers Onias’ Temple “a considerable deviation from orthodoxy;” L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 61– 67. In the same vein, I find it difficult to accept Capponi’s claim that some form of syncretistic cult that was performed at Onias’ Temple that bore similarity to the Isis-Osiris mystery cult, or that the Oniad community developed a mystical doctrine similar to that of the Therapeutae. L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 157– 160. Her arguments are simply not convincing. The same holds for her claim that Oniad Judaism shows an influence of the philosophical Judaism of Alexandria and the Stoicism of the Pharisees, with whom she contends the Oniads had contact when the Pharisees fled to Egypt because of their persecution by Alexander Yannai. Compare, L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 154– 156.  See also D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 5 – 23 [Hebrew]. Ameling states that next to the existence of votive offerings, Onias’ Temple was frequented by Diaspora Jews who went there for pilgrimage, as is proven by the inscriptions of the nearby cemetery of Tell el-Yahoudieh. W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 120. I do not see proof for the pilgrimage of Diaspora Jews to Onias’ Temple in the funerary inscriptions, even though we may indeed presume that Jews came there to celebrate one or all of the major Temple festivals such as Pentecost, or the Feast of the Tabernacles (Sukkoth). Elsewhere (Chapter 7), I have referred to the onomastical behavior (on papyrus) of some Egyptian Jews who seem to

4 The Temple of Onias and Jerusalem

413

On a civil level, we learn from the funerary inscription of Abramos the politarch (JIGRE 39), who was the local leader of the Oniad community at Tell el-Yahoudieh, that he was active in a neighboring community too. This strongly suggests that the Oniad community was not unimportant and isolated.⁶² But also on a military level, we discern that Onias’ community was of import. Oniad forces were certainly not the only Jewish soldiers on Egyptian soil, but they were perhaps the most successful and the most prominent.⁶³ Moreover, it is difficult to believe that Oniad soldiers had no contact whatsoever with other Jewish (and non-Jewish) units. In previous chapters (9 and 12) I have argued that Onias’ troops played a significant role in the civil war between Cleopatra II and Ptolemy Physcon in 145 – 124 BCE and that Oniad troops were adamant about protecting the Jewish population during the political vicissitudes of those years (especially at the beginning of the conflict). This certainly would have helped to raise their popularity among Egyptian Jews, which was, so I have argued, the initial purpose of 3 Maccabees. In all, the Jewish Temple of Onias and its community flourished for some 250 years and it certainly was a unique and important cultural and religious institution in the Jewish Egyptian Diaspora.

4 The Temple of Onias and Jerusalem Reading modern scholarship on the Diaspora, one is sometimes left with the impression that Diasporan Jews, including those of Egypt, were all loyal to Jerusalem.⁶⁴ But one also encounters the view that Egyptian Jews were either loyal to

have commemorated the legacy of Onias and his temple by naming their offspring after Onias III. I have concluded that Onias, his community, and his temple were revered by a number of Egyptian Jews.  That Onias’ community was not isolated also emerges from JIGRE 98, a funerary epitaph from someone who came to Tell el-Yahoudieh from the village Teberkythis. Whether or not this individual was Jewish (although he bore the name Shabtai, that was also very popular with Jews) is actually irrelevant here (the inscription is listed as “doubtfully Jewish” by Ilan [“New Jewish Inscriptions,” 86]), because it suggests that people came to a larger “center” – in this case Tell el-Yahoudieh – from the periphery for whatever reasons. See also our discussion in Chapter 6.  Here, let me once more refer to Josephus’ perhaps somewhat exaggerated statement in C. Ap. 2.49 – 50 that Cleopatra entrusted the whole Ptolemaic kingdom (including its army) to Onias and the Jews.  Cf. for instance M. Goodman, “Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. by M. Goodman, J. Cohen, and D. Sorkin (Oxford: Oxford

414

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

Jerusalem and its Temple or to the Oniad Temple, not both. And where lay the loyalties of the Oniad Jews (and their supporters): in Heliopolis or Jerusalem? Some scholars contend that the Oniad Jews were unswervingly loyal to the Temple of Jerusalem and even paid the Temple tax on behalf of the community.⁶⁵ If Diaspora Jews were put before the dilemma of choosing between the Jerusalem and the Oniad Temples, then we are entitled to ask too, whether the Jews of Egypt, or from any other place in the Diaspora for that matter, would have paid the Temple taxes in support of the Temple of Onias. While I shall address the question of the Temple tax elsewhere,⁶⁶ we are impressed by the fact that there is not much evidence for tension between the authorities of the Jerusalem Temple (or Alexandrian Jews) and those of the Temple of Onias, or vice versa.⁶⁷ That however, does not imply that the Oniad Jews were loyal to the Jerusalem Temple. We have to assume that they and, for that matter, other Egyptian Jews too, had little interest in the Jerusalem Temple. Note, however, that this does not mean that Jews who were uninterested in the Temple of Jerusalem, were necessarily interested in Onias’ Temple instead.⁶⁸ As I have frequently underlined, Onias’ Temple coexisted with its Jerusalem counterpart for more than two hundred years, even though the Temple of Onias is usually considered to be schismatic and even “heretical” by Deuteronomistic standards by modern scholars.⁶⁹ There is ample evidence for an attempt by Onias to recreate, or to establish, a New Jerusalem in Heliopolis – but not as an act of rivalry, as claimed by Jose-

University Press, 2002) 38: “For all Jews in this period, in both Diaspora and homeland, the Jerusalem Temple was the central religious institution. The wide dispersal of Jews prevented many from regular participation in Temple worship, and some Jews sometimes reacted unfavorably to the way in which the Temple cult was administered by the priests. But no religious Jew – not even those who established a temple of their own in Elephantine in Egypt in the 5th century BCE, or those who built a shrine for worship in Leontopolis [sic] in the Egyptian delta in the mid-2nd century BCE, – seem to have ignored the significance of the sacrificial and other offerings in Jerusalem.” On the relationship between the Jewish Diaspora and the Judaean homeland, see also; D. R. Schwartz, “Temple or City,” 114– 127; I. Gafni, Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) 19 – 41; E. S. Gruen, Diaspora, 232– 254 (Chapter 8: “Diaspora and Homeland”).  Compare L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopli, 42, 88.  In Appendix 2.  On the Oniad-Hasmonean relations, see above, Chapter 12.  N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple in Hellenistic Judaism,” 155 – 179 and M. Tuval, “Doing without the Temple,” 151– 239. See also D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 5 – 23 [Hebrew].  See D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 5 – 23 [Hebrew]. I shall address the issue whether Onias’ Temple was a schismatic or rival temple in the conclusion of this study and in Appendix 3.

5 Conclusion

415

phus in BJ 7.431,⁷⁰ but rather as a necessity borne out of the circumstance that at the time when Onias founded his temple, Jerusalem and its shrine were devastated in the wake of Antiochus IV’s invasion and his anti-Jewish religious reforms. All that Onias wanted to do was to preserve the religion and the religious customs he was accustomed to from home. That notion emerges from his choice to name one of his settlements Leontopolis (the “City of the Lion [of Judah]”) and the LXX reading of Isa 19:18 the “City of Righteousness” (πόλις ἀσεδέκ) in Egypt, an expression that obviously alludes to Isa 1:26 that refers to Jerusalem as such.⁷¹ Finally, Joseph & Aseneth’s references to Heliopolis as the “City of Refuge,” have also been interpreted as a symbol for a New Jerusalem in Heliopolis and were part of what Bohak labels “Oniad Eschatology.”⁷² Once more, Onias sought not to rival Jerusalem, but to re-create it. By the same token, there are no grounds to believe that he shifted his loyalties (and those of his followers) to Jerusalem; Oniad Jews remained loyal to their own temple, much as did some Egyptian Jews – we should presume.

5 Conclusion The purpose of this investigation was to broaden our perspective on Diaspora Judaism in general, and on Egyptian Judaism in particular. The example of Onias’ Temple has been picked to demonstrate that a form of Judaism related to the priestly Judaism prevalent in Judaea existed in the Egyptian Diaspora too. It flourished next to other Judaisms in Egypt, for example a seemingly wide-spread Judaism based on prayers and synagogue worship as indicated by the many references to προσεύχαι (the Egyptian term for synagogue).⁷³ The main marker for the Oniad community’s uniqueness vis-à-vis other Jewish communities of the Diaspora is that its members felt comfortable enough to bring with them their concept of a holy place, its sacrificial cult, and its accompanying personnel (i. e. the priests). This becomes explainable when considering the historio-political circumstances at the time of the foundation of the Temple of Onias. We recall that the Oniad Temple was established at a time where the Jerusalem Temple

 Note too, in this context, Josephus’ remarks about the resemblance of Onias’ Temple and his military settlement (his πόλις) with Jerusalem: BJ 1.33; Ant. 13.72, 285; 20.236. In view of the above, we may indeed lend those remarks some credence.  R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 439 – 440.  J & A 15:7; 16:15; 17:6; 19:5 and G. Bohak, Joseph and Aseneth, 75 – 83. See also U. Fischer, Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung, 115 – 122.  JIGRE 9, 13, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 105(?), 117, 125, 126.

416

Chapter 14 Priests in Exile: The Oniad Community and Oniad Judaism

was defiled and desolate. For Onias this was both legitimization and reason enough to transfer the cult to some other place. A complementary example for such a phenomenon is the 6th-5th century BCE Jewish Temple at Elephantine, which was founded, so it appears, after the Babylonians destroyed Solomon’s Temple. It is interesting to note, however, that once the cult was reinstituted in Jerusalem by the Hasmoneans, Onias’ Temple was not abandoned. It continued to flourish beside its counterpart in Jerusalem for over two centuries (!); and likewise so did Onias’ community, which continued to develop its idiosyncratic form of Judaism. Thus, alongside the rather assimilated nature of the Oniad community that we first observed, we must also discern orthodoxy. An important feature also characteristic of Judaean Judaism was the Oniads’ emphasis on one’s priestly pedigree and the existence of a holy place. It is quite astonishing to observe both orientations being maintained coevally within the same community. The observations presented in this study reflect a very distinct and unique form of Judaism maintained by only one Jewish community in Egypt; a community of which the kernel was a group of Judaean exiles that brought to their new environment in the Diaspora their practices and beliefs, and their holy place, elements they were accustomed to in their home in Jerusalem. They maintained their form of sacrificial Judaism centered on a sanctuary with its accompanying priesthood and its emphasis on priestly pedigree, while simultaneously being exposed to a new, more universalist environment to which they eventually adapted over time – as evidenced by the funerary epitaphs from the Tell el-Yahoudieh cemetery and several Oniad works of Jewish-Hellenistic literature.

Concluding Oniad History We have now reached the end of our inquiry into Oniad history and I will provide here a concise reply to the questions laid out in the introduction to this book. I shall also address here, two remaining questions that are linked to the study of Onias’ Temple, namely the question of its importance and its acceptance. These key questions were: 1.) Who built Onias’ Temple? 2.) When was Onias’ Temple built? 3.) What were Onias’ objectives for building the temple? 4.) What was its exact relation to the Jerusalem Temple? In other words: Was the Temple of Onias a schismatic Temple? 5.) Was Onias’ Temple an important religious and cultural center or did it merely serve the need of its local mercenary community? 6.) How did Egyptian Diaspora Jewry respond to Onias’ Temple and what was its place within the Egyptian-Jewish Diaspora? With respect to nos. 1 and 2, I have shown that the builder of Onias’ Temple was Onias III, and not Onias IV, as is contended by the majority scholarly view of today. Josephus, who is our main source for Oniad history and especially for the temple’s foundation, made a mistake in the high priestly genealogy listed in his Antiquities, while splicing in deficient source material. This caused him to believe that there were more Oniases than there actually were, and as a result of this, he incorrectly ascribed the building of the Oniad Temple to an homonymous son of Onias, who never existed – or was perhaps a son of Menelaus. I have argued too that the view that Josephus used a second source on the Oniad Temple in his Antiquities should be rejected; he had only one source at his disposal on the temple that I have labelled the “Leontopolis Source.” This source provided him with the details about the foundation of the temple as well as some details regarding its location and appearance. According to the Tendenz of each of his major historical works, i. e. the Judaean War and the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus changed his portrayal of Onias and his temple. This accounts too for the fact that he split the “Leontopolis Source” for his accounts in the War and in the Antiquities. Thus, for instance, he provided information on the temple only in BJ, while entirely neglecting it in the Antiquities. On the other hand, in BJ we hear nothing about Onias’ correspondence with the royal Ptolemaic couple, but we hear all about it in Antiquities. In sum, I suggest that we should give preference to the information about the temple’s founder and the chronology of its building as preserved in Josephus’ https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-021

418

Concluding Oniad History

War account, rather than in the Antiquities account. It follows that Onias III escaped to Egypt from Jerusalem sometime in the years 168/167 BCE following Antiochus IV’s subjugation of Judaea and its capital Jerusalem. There is reason to believe that Onias first spent a year or two at the Ptolemaic court in Alexandria before being put in charge of a whole district, the nome of Heliopolis, which he supervised holding the rank of strategos. Onias’ Temple, thus, must have been build within a few years after Onias’ arrival in Egypt, while the Jerusalem sanctuary was still defiled (and before its cleansing by the Hasmoneans in 164 BCE). I have underlined that supplementary evidence – literary and papyrological (which is both contemporary and documentary) – support the hypothesis that Onias III built the Oniad Temple.¹ The alleged evidence from the Book of Daniel and 2 Maccabees, either alluding to or recording the death of Onias III, is implausible, as I have demonstrated. Turning to no. 3 and the question of Onias’ motives for the building of the temple, I have posited that two of the three motives provided by Josephus (Isaiah’s prophecy [19:18 – 19], Onias’ quest for eternal fame, and his scheme to rival Jerusalem) should be rejected. The only credible motive listed by Josephus is Isaiah’s prophecy, and the fact that we find it as a proof-text in the rabbinic foundation story of the Oniad Temple (B Men. 190b // Y Yoma 6,3 [43c-d]) seems to bolster this assumption. This furthermore indicates that the building of Onias’ Temple in light of Isaiah’s prophecy was a known ancient tradition. Isaiah’s prophecy and the symbolism concerning the “City of the Sun” (i. e. Heliopolis) associated with it, certainly gave Onias the impetus to build his temple precisely in the nome of Heliopolis (or in the chora of the city of Heliopolis, as I argue with Bohak). However, Isaiah’s prophecy seems not to have been Onias’ sole incentive for building his temple, but was more of a justification. Along with the absence of a proper sacrificial cult in Jerusalem, which certainly was Onias’ main concern, it had been Ptolemaic defense policy to rebuild and fortify former Egyptian shrines for use by foreign mercenaries – such as Onias and his men. I have suggested accordingly that Onias, driven by Isaiah’s prophecy and in view of the absence of the cult in Jerusalem, complied with the requirements of standard Ptolemaic defense policy and requested to rebuild and to fortify a former Egyptian shrine in the nome of Heliopolis. He found the dilapidated shrine of Bubastis in the chora of Heliopolis and petitioned to establish his garrison and his temple at this location. But, he requested not to dedicate his temple to an Egyptian deity, but to

 This emerges from CPJ 132, the testimony of Theodore of Mopsuestia (Commentary on Psalm 54[55]), and even from rabbinic lore (B Men. 190b // Y Yoma 6,3 [43c-d]).

Concluding Oniad History

419

YHWH. Hence, I have argued that Josephus’ ‘Epistolary Piece’ (Ant. 13.62– 73) essentially conveys historically reliable data that just need to be read in the right context. Concerning Onias’ foundation of a city next to his temple, I have suggested that Onias’ garrison at Heliopolis was named Leontopolis, alluding to Onias’ Jerusalemite heritage and the Temple of Jerusalem, which, as attested by the Rabbis, resembled a reclining lion.² Moreover, based on pertinent epigraphical and papyrological evidence, Onias’ community was organized as a politeuma. Was the Temple of Onias a schismatic temple? No. First of all, the term “schism” is usually defined as a separation from a church or a religious body.³ And despite the fact that Onias neither purposefully tried to suspend the high priesthood in Jerusalem, nor did he separate himself from his ancestral religion, a surprisingly large number of scholars indeed think that Onias’ Temple was schismatic. ⁴ Accusing Onias’ Temple of being schismatic implies too that Onias established a form of Judaism that ran contrary to the current norms of Judaism practiced in Jerusalem, namely one that was focused on the Temple and daily sacrifices.⁵ Yet, for all we know, we cannot accuse Onias of deviating

 M Middot 4:7.  See e. g. the entry “schism” in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary (11th ed.; Springfield: Merriam-Webster’s Inc., 2004) 1110.  See e.g E. Naville and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew, 19; H. Willrich, “Der historische Kern des III. Makkabäerbuches,” 258; A. Momigliano, “Un documento della spiritualità,” 172, who calls a member of Onias’ community at Tell el-Yahoudieh a “schismatic Jewess;” U. Kahrstedt, Syrische Territorien, 132– 135; A. Momigliano, Prime line di storia, 93 – 94; E. Bickerman, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief,” 2:154 (n. 60); J. A. Goldstein, I Maccabees (Anchor Bible 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976) 546 – 550; J. A. Goldstein, II Maccabees, 24– 26; S. J. D. Cohen, “Parallel Historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature,” 120; K. J. Rigsby, “A Jewish Asylum in GraecoRoman Egypt,” 134; L. Capponi, “Martyrs and Apostates,” 305.  This is what Sanders termed “Common Judaism.” E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief, 47– 54. One occasionally encounters the view that some sort of syncretistic form of Judaism was practiced at Onias’ Temple. So for instance L. H. Feldman, who concludes that Onias’ Temple was “a considerable deviation from orthodoxy.” Cf. L. H. Feldman, “The Orthodoxy of the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt,” 231 and see also recently, L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 61, 75, who refers to an alleged syncretistic solar piety at Onias’ Temple. In particular Josephus’ description of Onias’ Temple and its appurtenances in BJ 7.428 – 29 have been interpreted as indicating tendencies to solar piety. See on this issue R. Hayward, “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis,” 439 – 440. However, I have argued against the view of the sun-imagery as a syncretistic, unorthodox element in the worship at Onias’ Temple, but as a reference to the use of the 364-day solar-calendar in the worship at the temple. The reverence of the sun at Onias’ Temple thus, does not indicate syncretism, but a form of worship based on the ancient Zadokite form of priestly Judaism which we think to have existed in Jerusalem prior to the Hellenistic reforms introduced by Jason and the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt. See for instance, Sh. Talmon, “The

420

Concluding Oniad History

that form of Judaism either; on the contrary. For, both Josephus and the rabbinic stories on Onias and his temple/altar unanimously point to the fact that sacrifices were offered there and that the temple/altar was dedicated to YHWH. Hence, the erection of Onias’ Temple in Heliopolis should be seen as an attempt to preserve precisely that form of Judaism centered on a temple and the priesthood he was accustomed to from Jerusalem. This was so despite the Diaspora setting in which Onias found himself, which otherwise tended to spawn a form of Judaism not centered on a holy place, the holy seed, and sacrifices, but on prayer and more universalistic concepts. The alleged resemblance of Onias’ Temple to its Jerusalemite counterpart, as Josephus frequently corroborates, should be seen against the background of continuity and not as a fomentation of schism or rivalry as maintained by a majority of scholars.⁶ This brings me to the next question. Was Onias’ Temple a “rival” temple? Negative, again.⁷ Because of the fact that Onias’ Temple was active parallel to the Jerusalem Temple, and moreover, was not shut down even after the latter was re-consecrated in consequence of its defilement on the orders of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, we may imagine why modern scholars are led to assume that Onias’ Temple was a rival sanctuary. However, the idea that Onias established a rival sanctuary to Jerusalem is rooted in Josephus’ corresponding comment in BJ 7.431– 432 that bespeaks Onias’ intention to rival Jerusalem in revenge for his ousting. But rivalry with Jerusalem, as I have shown in Chapter 1, can hardly be spoken of. Josephus, here, in accordance

Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judean Desert,” 162– 199. J. C. VanderKam, “2 Macc. 6,7a and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” 52– 74. Next to the issue of an alleged solar-reverence at Onias’ Temple stands the accusation of a syncretistic sun-cult that involved the active participation of female priests in the worship of Onias’ Temple. The alleged evidence for that assumption is supplied by the Marin-inscription from Tell el-Yahoudieh (JIGRE 84) mentions a “priestess,” and from the rabbinical stories on the foundation of Onias’ Temple that contain the reference to the cross-dressing of the priestly protagonists of the stories. Cf. B.-Z. Luria, “Who is Ḥonio?” Beit HaMikrah 12 (1967): 69, 73, 80 – 81 [Hebrew]; H. Tchernowitz, “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” 229 [Hebrew], and P. Richardson and V. Heuchan, “Jewish Voluntary Associations,” 238. On the episode of Onias’ cross-dressing in the Talmudic stories, see D. Weisberg, “Clothes (un)Make the Man: bMenahot 109b,” 193 – 211. Also these claims are unfounded.  As also stressed by E. S. Gruen, “Origins and Objectives,” 62, who notes that the: “imitation of Jerusalem does not imply defiance or schism.” Regarding the resemblance of Onias’ Temple to the Jerusalem Temple see BJ 1.33; Ant. 12.388; 13.63, 67, 72; 20.236.  Contra W. Otto, Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers, 96, who calls Onias’ Temple a “Konkurrenztempel.” Compare also for instance W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 121; P. Schäfer, “From Alexandria to Jerusalem,” 138; J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 194; P. Richardson and V. Heuchan, “Jewish Voluntary Associations in Egypt,” 231; K. Rigsby, “A Jewish Asylum,” 134.

Concluding Oniad History

421

with one of his general themes in War, is at pains to portray Onias as a fomenter of stasis (internal strife), or in other words: rivalry. Therefore, the historicity of the motive of rivalry ascribed to Onias by Josephus is compromised by literary motives. Here, we once again note that Onias’ Temple was built at a time when its Jerusalem counterpart was no longer functioning. Is there a point in rivalling a temple that was inactive? It follows that Onias’ Temple was intended as a substitute rather than a “rival.”⁸ True, once Onias’ Temple was built and the Jerusalem Temple purified and re-inaugurated, the former was not closed or abandoned, and it continued to flourish even after the destruction of its Jerusalemite counterpart until it too was closed or destroyed a few years thereafter in 73/74 CE. It would strike us as unrealistic to assume that once the Jerusalem Temple was rededicated, the Oniads would hurry to shut down their sanctuary immediately. By the time that the Jerusalem Temple was cleansed, Onias’ Temple, we must assume, was an already full-fledged religious establishment. By analogy, let me adduce the example of the Elephantine Temple. The Elephantine Temple, which was built while the Jerusalem Temple still lay in ruins (in the 6th century BCE), was destroyed by a crowd of infuriated native Egyptians in ca. 411 BCE. Notably, the papyrological evidence from Elephantine attests the efforts of the temple’s (priestly) authorities to petition its rebuilding (see P. Cowley no. 30 [= TAD A4.7]),⁹ although by 411 BCE, the Jerusalem Temple had long been rebuilt. Of course, the historical and socio-political circumstances were far from identical in the fifth century BCE with those in the mid-second century BCE, and it thus seems methodologically unsound to compare apples to oranges, but this is not my intention here. Rather, what this example shall illustrate is the effort of holding on to a well-established sanctuary (in Egypt) that was not conceived as a rival religious center,¹⁰ in the face of the existence of a functioning shrine in Jerusalem. Thus, it would be difficult to grasp why Onias, or his descendants, would be willing to shut their temple down just because there suddenly was also one in Jerusalem again – both temples could (and did) co-exist quite comfortably. The notion that Onias’ Temple was a substitute, rather than a rival shrine, can be further substantiated by referring to an episode narrated by Josephus in BJ 7.416 – 421 that records the flight of numerous Jewish rebels during the

 See also M. Delcor, “Le temple d’Onias,” 202; A. Zivie, “Tell el-Yahoudieh,” 9. Gruen notes similarly that “The Jewish sanctuary in Egypt was a reinforcement, not a rival, of Jerusalem.” E. S. Gruen, “Origins and Objectives,” 70 and also K. and M. Lönnqvist, Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran, 274.  A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 108 – 119 (no. 30).  That is also the conviction of Cowley (Aramaic Papyri, xx).

422

Concluding Oniad History

First Judaean War against Rome (66 – 73/74 CE) to Onias’ Temple. We should consider that the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE rendered the Oniad Temple the only existing temple in the entire Jewish world, and we may imagine that it was for this reason, inter alia, that the Judaean refugees flocked to the Oniad Temple. In that capacity it was a legitimate substitute for its Jerusalemite counterpart, just as it has been in the 160s BCE around the time of its foundation. Its status as a substitute temple was maintained even after the rededication of the Jerusalemite Temple in 164 BCE. With respect to my fifth point, the question whether Onias’ Temple and community was a major religious and cultural center, my answer is in the affirmative. This was the purpose of the second part of this book, in which I have argued for an Oniad authorship of several Jewish Egyptian Hellenistic compositions, as others have done before me in some cases: the Third Book of the Sibylline Oracles, 3 Maccabees, Pseudo-Hecataeus, and Joseph & Aseneth. Hand in hand with this observation goes the assumption that intense literary productivity naturally points to a thriving cultural center. On a far broader scale, I try to make the case here against the wide-spread assumption that all Egyptian Jewish-Hellenistic literature was necessarily produced in Alexandria – the center of Egyptian Jewish cultural activity par excellence. True, much Jewish literature was indeed produced in Alexandria. But it is my intention to alter this view, not by denying the importance of Alexandria, but by underscoring that other, no less important, centers of Jewish culture existed in the Egyptian Diaspora, and that Onias’ Temple and community should be counted among them. In my perception, the outdated view that the Temple of Onias merely served its own mercenary community and was only of local import should be re-evaluated and rejected.¹¹ True, Onias’ Temple catered first and foremost to the Oniad community, but we can – and should – hardly speak of isolation! We recall that for the brief period from its building to the rededication of the Jerusalem Temple in 164 BCE, and then again in the few years after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple between 70 – 73/74 CE, Onias’ Temple was the only existing temple in the entire Jewish orbit. In these periods, we can hardly deem Onias’ Temple unimportant. ¹² When the Jewish rebels were fleeing from Judaea to Egypt during the First Judaean War against Rome, for instance, they obviously knew exactly where to

 Cf., first and foremost, V. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 280 – 281 and S. Safrai, Pilgrimage in the Days of the Second Temple, 63 [Hebrew].  Cf. J. Rives, “Flavian Religious Policy and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple,” in Flavius Josephus & Flavian Rome, ed. by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 153 – 154.

Concluding Oniad History

423

go and hide. I may add here, that during these two time windows, when the worship at the Jerusalem Temple had ceased for one reason or the other, one may surmise that nobody knew how long they would last. The existence of Onias’ Temple, thus, constituted a beacon of hope, and moreover, preserved the knowledge of temple practice. Further literary evidence suggests that Onias’ Temple and the Oniad mercenary community were known to non-Jewish Hellenistic writers, too.¹³ Finally, also the Mishnah (M Men. 13:10) attests to a Judaean familiarity with Onias’ Temple. Regardless whether or not people indeed took their Nazirite vows in Onias’ Temple and not in Jerusalem, or whether or not priests from Onias’ Temple were denied worship in the Jerusalem Temple, the halakhic discussion preserved there indicates extensive contact between Heliopolis and Jerusalem. Once more, one is left with the impression that Onias’ Temple was hardly an isolated, forgotten backwater run-of-the-mill sanctuary somewhere in the Egyptian chora. Nevertheless, roughly around the time of the Roman takeover of Egypt in 31/ 30 BCE (a period hardly discussed in this study), the Oniad community, and presumably its temple too, experienced a decline due to the changes introduced by the Romans in the administrative and military sectors. The obvious conclusion to be drawn from this is that Onias’ Temple and its community flourished until the Roman annexation of Egypt as a province, and then began to decline. But it once more became a center of attention with the influx of Jewish rebels and refugees during the First Judaean War against Rome in the 70s of the 1st century CE. Thus, in my view, it is unwise to assess the importance of Onias’ Temple in a static fashion, that is, either claiming that it was important or not. Rather, as I have attempted to demonstrate, Onias’ Temple was an important Jewish cultural and religious center from the time of its foundation until the Roman takeover of Egypt, when its importance waned for a period, only to flourish again later. By and large, Tcherikover’s et al. assessment that Onias’ Temple was an isolated backwater sanctuary should be rejected in the strongest terms. This brings me to my final point, point six, that asks about the place of Onias’ Temple and community within the Jewish-Egyptian Diaspora. Having just argued that Onias’ Temple and community was an important cultural and religious center in the Egyptian chora, raises the question how important it was for Egyptian Jewry? Did Egyptian Jews prefer to make a pilgrimage on the high holidays to Onias’ Temple or to the Jerusalem Temple, or did they pilgrim-

 Namely, perhaps a report by Nicolaus of Damascus used by Josephus in BJ 1.31– 33 and Strabo’s testimony that stands behind Josephus’ remarks in Ant. 14.117 and §131. See D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 7– 11 [Hebrew].

424

Concluding Oniad History

age at all? Did the Jews of Egypt pay the Temple tax to Onias’ and not to the Jerusalem Temple?¹⁴ We unfortunately do not know. Our sources on the Temple of Onias are conspicuously silent concerning these issues, save for some solitary notices in contemporary literature implying that Egyptian Jews took Nazirite vows in Onias’ Temple and directed the Temple tax to it as well.¹⁵ However, these references cannot be taken as proof and remain speculative. This prevents me from making general assertions concerning those issues based on literary evidence (excluding papyri). Things look a bit brighter, on the other hand, in the domain of papyrological evidence and onomastics. In addition to CPJ 132 (the “Onias Papyrus”), six more papyri (CPJ 86; 137; 157; 451; 453; P. Sorb. 2019) mention an Onias in different contexts, albeit divergent spellings of the name (CPJ 86), geographical location,¹⁶ and chronological periods¹⁷.¹⁸ What may be concluded from this dossier of papyri is mostly that we witness a rather ample attestation of the name Onias in Egypt, predominantly from the region of Lower Egypt – the larger area where Onias’ Temple was located. S. Honigmann has shown that certain names were popular and common only in specific Jewish-Egyptian communities; and those specific names were passed on exclusively in those communities.¹⁹ Hence, whether or not the Oniases mentioned in those papyri were affiliated with Onias’ community and its temple remains moot (e. g. it is attractive to assume so in case of “Onias the γραμματέως” mentioned in CPJ 137). But I wish to point out an entirely different phenomenon: commemoration. Again, while we cannot prove that the individuals mentioned in those five papyri were members the Oniad community, we can say that the onomastical behavior exhibited in these documents (i. e. the recurrence of the name Onias) implies that Onias, and everything he stood for (viz. his community, and his temple) seems to

 On this issue, see Appendix 2.  See M Men. 13:10 regarding the Nazirite vows; BJ 7.433 – 434 that mentions donations made to the Oniad Temple. Schwarz contended that, since Egypt is not mentioned among the countries/ regions enumerated by Josephus in Ant. 14.185 – 267 which contributed the Temple tax to the Jerusalem Temple, the Jews of Egypt probably paid the Temple tax to Onias’ Temple. See A. Schwarz, “Die Schatzkammer des Jerusalemer Tempels,” MGWJ 63 (1919): 235 (n. 3).  from the nomes of the Fayûm, Thebes, Alexandria, Oxyrhynchus, and Hermoupolis.  CPJ 157; 451, 453, notably are dated to the Roman period.  I have also discovered that another Onias is mentioned in an inscription from the acropolis of Kourion in Cyprus (CYP5), dated to the second to 1st century BCE. See D. Noy, A. Panayotov, and H. Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Syria and Cyprus (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 3:222 and Chapter 7 (there, pp. 198 – 199 [n. 2]).  See S. Honigman, “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt,” 135.

Concluding Oniad History

425

have been revered by Egyptian Jews.²⁰ This brings me back to the conclusion that Onias’ Temple was not only a known center of Judaism, as I have stressed here and elsewhere in this study, but it was also an important one.²¹ After all, the Temple of Onias existed for over two centuries and even outlasted the grandiose Temple of Jerusalem. It was certainly a factor to be reckoned with – in Jerusalem, as well as in Egypt.

 Tal Ilan has pointed to the same phenomenon with respect to Hasmonean names and their popularity in the Second Temple period. T. Ilan, “The Names of the Hasmoneans,” 238 – 41 [Hebrew].  See also D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 5 – 22 [Hebrew].

Appendicies

Appendix 1 A Genealogical Chart of the Oniad Priestly Dynasty

John (Ant. 11.302) | Jaddua – Manasseh (Ant. 11.302, 322) | Onias I

High priest of Mt. Gerizim Temple

| Simon I | Unnamed brother of Onias II (due to his infancy), or an Eleazar? (Ant. 12.43-44; 157-158) | Onias II (Ant. 12.43-44; 157-158; 224-225) | Simon II “the Just” (Ant. 12.224-225) | Onias III – Menelaus (brother-in-law) – Jason (Jesus) | ? Onias (IV) (Ant. 12. 237-239; 20.235-237) Onias III (Temple of Onias) | Ḥelkias – Ananias (Ant. 13.285, 287, 349-355)

(Temple of Jerusalem) | Jason (Jesus) | Menelaus | Alcimus (Jakeimos) | Intersacerdotium ?

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-022

Appendix 2 Did the Jews of Egypt Pay the Temple Tax to Onias’ Temple? Despite the fact that most Jews in antiquity, just as today, resided in the Diaspora, one usually encounters the view in modern scholarship that Diaspora Jews were loyal to the Judaean “homeland” and especially to the Jerusalem Temple.¹ This too, entails the assumption that Jews from all over the Diaspora consistently sent the annual half-Shekel contribution to the Temple in Jerusalem.² While there is certainly room to attenuate such generalizations, as others have

 See for instance Philo’s claim that Jerusalem is considered as the “Metropolis” not only for him, but also by many others. Philo, Leg. ad Gaium, 281. View also A. Kasher, “Jerusalem as ’Metropolis’ in Philo’s National Consciousness,” Cathedra 11 (1979): 45 – 56 [Hebrew] and see e. g. S. Safrai, “Relations Between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. by S. Safrai and M. Stern (2 vols.; CRINT I-1; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 1:186 – 187 and more recently L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 31– 33, 42. Cf. also M. Goodman, “Religious Reactions to 70: The Limitations of the Evidence,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple, ed. by D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 516, where he states that “not all will agree with my proposal that the Diaspora uprising of 115 – 117 and the Judean revolt of 132– 135 should both be understood within this context, in both cases directly relating to the frustrated desire of Jews to see their Temple rebuilt so that they could resume the worship that had been so precipitously brought to an end.” Italics are mine, M. P. Goodman’s statement makes explicit his conviction that Diaspora Jews were unconditionally loyal to Jerusalem and its Temple – to the extent that they would provoke a fatal uprising.  See e. g. 4QOrda (4Q159 1 2, ll. 6 – 7); BJ 7.218; Ant. 14.110; Mat 17:24– 27, M Shekalim 1:1, 3. See also Josephus’ story about the Babylonian Jews guarding a convoy transporting the Temple tax to Jerusalem in Ant. 18.312– 313. On the Jewish tax in general, see e. g. S. Safrai, “Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel,” 188 – 192. The origins of the custom of the levy of a half-Shekel for the contribution to “God,” as prescribed by the Bible in Exod 30:11– 16 (in particular v. 13), remain obscure. The first attestation of this custom, which may be deemed “historical”, appears in Neh 10:32– 34, where it is described that a one-third Shekel tax was instituted in order to aid in financing the maintenance of the Temple cult and its religious service. See also Philo Her. 186; De spec. leg. 1.77– 78. The maintenance of the daily sacrificial cult was a costly issue – not to mention the high costs during the period of the festivals. If the information we attain from the rabbinic sources are trustworthy, then funds were also needed to pay the salaries of the Temple personal, for example the judges who sat regularly in the Temple and the correctors of the sacred books (B Ketubot 105a). As the Jewish population increased with time, so did the potential resources for money. S. Safrai, “Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel,” 190 – 191. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-023

Appendix 2 Did the Jews of Egypt Pay the Temple Tax to Onias’ Temple?

431

convincingly done,³ several contemporary sources, mainly, Josephus and Philo, indeed give testimony to the fact that some Diaspora Jews paid the annual payment of the Temple tax.⁴ Although we are left in the dark as to when exactly Diaspora Jews began sending payments to the Temple, our sources imply that the custom was already well established in Hasmonean times.⁵

 Especially N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple in Hellenistic Judaism,” 155 – 179 and M. Tuval, “Doing without the Temple,” 151– 239. See also D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 5 – 23 [Hebrew]. Most Diasporan Jews have never even seen the Temple or participated in pilgrimages.  Ant. 14.110 – 113; Philo Leg. ad Gaium 155 – 156. See also E. S. Gruen, Diaspora, 244– 245.  It is furthermore beyond our means to assess whether Diasporan Jews paid their dues on a regular, annual basis, in spite of Philo’s claim to that they did pay regularly (De spec. leg. 1.77– 78; Leg. 156). Additional sources too, give testimony to the Jewish custom in the Diaspora to send monies to the Jerusalem Temple. In a well-known passage from a defense speech in favor of the former Roman governor of Asia Minor, a certain Flaccus, Rome’s most prominent rhetor, Cicero, referred to the issue of Jewish monies destined for Jerusalem. Flaccus was put on trial in Rome under the suspicion of misconduct during his term of office. Among the points of accusation was the charge that he had confiscated large amounts of gold collected by the local Jewish communities, which were destined for the Temple in Jerusalem. The matter aroused heavy protests on the side of the Jews, both in Asia Minor and in Rome (Cicero Pro Flacco, 28). See also E. Gruen, Diaspora, 244– 245, and in particular, J. M. Barclay, Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora, 268 – 269; P. Treblico, The Jewish Communities of Asia Minor (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991) 14– 16. In the wake of the confiscation of Jewish funds for the Jerusalem Temple, Jews from the Diaspora fought for their right to be able to continue to send money, as a number of imperial decrees issued by Julius Caesar and his successor, Augustus, demonstrate. If the decrees preserved by Josephus are indeed authentic, then they convey the sincerity with which the Jews battled for the privilege to send funds to Jerusalem (Ant. 14.185 – 267; 16.160 – 178). For the historicity of the documents see T. Rajak, “Was there a Charta for the Jews,” JRS 74 (1984): 107– 123 and M. Pucci-Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998); see also E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule, 124– 128. For Augustus’ involvement in the granting of Jewish privileges, see also Philo Leg. ad. Gaium 291, 312. Josephus refers to a related incident involving the Jews of Ionia that were deprived of their right to send monies to Jerusalem in Ant. 16.28, 45. The documents stress time and again the rights of the Jews of Asia Minor and Africa to collect monies for the Temple in order to send them as donations to Jerusalem. The cities mentioned there are Ephesus, Sardis, Miletus, Ancyra, the capital of Galatia, as well as Cyrene. See also S. Applebaum, Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene, 183 – 184 and P. Treblico, Jewish Communities of Asia Minor, 13 – 16. Josephus adds that the custom of the payment of the Temple tax was widespread all over the Jewish Diaspora of the Roman world and even outside of its boundaries (Ant. 14.110). In a note we have cited above already, Josephus relates in Ant. 18.312– 313 that the Babylonian Jews too, under the Parthian dominion and under great danger, sent monies to Jerusalem. Also Tacitus was familiar with this Jewish custom: “Nam pessimus quisque spretis religionibus patriis tributa et stipes illuc gerebant, unde auctae Iudaeorum res…(Tacitus Histories, 5.5.1).” Certainly, the funds from abroad added substantial wealth to the Temple.

432

Appendix 2 Did the Jews of Egypt Pay the Temple Tax to Onias’ Temple?

The sending of funds to the Jerusalem Temple gave a sense of participation in the worship at the Temple and a chance for the Jews of Diaspora to express their loyalty to it regardless of their geographical remoteness.⁶ While your “average” Diaspora Jew paid his half-Shekel tax, we are also familiar with cases in which prominent and wealthy Diaspora Jews sent costly gifts to the Temple.⁷ The fact that some Jews of the Diaspora expressed their loyalty to the Jerusalem Temple by performing pilgrimages and sending the half-Shekel tax gives rise to the question of whether other Egyptian Jews (or all of them) paid the half-Shekel tax to Onias’ Temple.⁸ Because of the dearth of sources this question is almost impossible to answer. Three clues, however, indicate an answer in the affirmative.⁹ These three clues are: (1) parallel evidence from the Jewish Temple at Elephantine (the Oniad Temple’s predecessor), namely detailed tax-lists attesting to the payment

 See E. S. Gruen, Diaspora, 245.  Ant. 18.82 relates that the female Roman aristocrat proselyte Fulvia was talked into donating “purple and gold” to the Jerusalem Temple by four Jewish miscreants, which later caused much trouble for the Jews of Rome. See also H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: JPS, 1960) 17– 18; E. M. Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 203 – 204; E. S. Gruen, Diaspora, 29 – 30. In BJ 5.201– 205, Josephus describes nine gates leading to the Temple that were richly covered with gold and silver and mentions that these were donated by Alexander the Alabarch (who is mentioned by Josephus in various other instances, see Ant. 18.159, 259; 20.100), Philo’s brother and father of Tiberius Alexander, the later Procurator of Egypt. On Nicanor and the Nicanor gate see M Middot 1:4; 2:3; M. Yoma 3:10; T Yoma 2:4; M Tamid 1:3; BJ 5.204– 205 and G. Dickson, “The Tomb of Nicanor of Alexandria,” PEFQS 35 (1903): 326 – 332; C. Clermont-Ganneau, “Archaeological and Epigraphic Notes on Palestine,” PEFQS 35 (1903): 125 – 131, but see P. Roussel, “Nicanor d’Alexandrie et la porte du temple de Jerusalem,” REG 37 (1924): 79 – 82 and J. Schwartz, “Once More on the Nicanor Gate,” HUCA 62 (1991): 245 – 283. See also L. I. Levine, Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: JPS, 2002) 237.  In the opinion of W. Ameling, the cemetery at Tell el-Yahoudieh could prove that Jews indeed flocked to Onias’ Temple in order to fulfil their duty of pilgrimage on the Temple festivals, see W. Ameling, “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis,” 120. Compare Safrai’s view in S. Safrai, Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple, 63, and 82– 83 (n. 199) [Hebrew]. This is also implied by Fraser, who conjectures that if Onias III indeed founded the Temple at Heliopolis, then Onias’ Temple may “originally have possessed more importance for the Jewish population of Egypt as a whole.” P. M. Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972) 2:162 (n. 302). See also E. Bammel, “Sadduzäer und Sadokiden,” ETL 55 (1979): 110, who even contends that some wealthy and noble Jerusalemites made the pilgrimage to Onias’ Temple.  Schwarz conjectured that, since Egypt is not mentioned among the countries enumerated by Josephus in Ant. 14.185 – 267 which exerted the Temple tax to the Jerusalem Temple, the Jews of Egypt consequently paid the Temple tax to Onias’ Temple. See A. Schwarz, “Die Schatzkammer des Jerusalemer Tempels,” MGWJ 63 (1919): 235 (n. 3). This is speculative, however.

Appendix 2 Did the Jews of Egypt Pay the Temple Tax to Onias’ Temple?

433

of the Temple tax by the local Jewish population to their temple;¹⁰ (2) two Greek inscriptions from Delos that bear testimony to the fact that Samaritans apparently sent sacred monies to their sanctuary on Mt. Gerizim;¹¹ (3) a notice by Josephus in BJ 7.433 – 434 that mentions that the Romans carried off “some of the donations” (τινα τῶν ἀναθημάτων) made to the temple.¹² The first two points are rather obvious. The papyrological evidence from Elephantine confirms that the Jews of the garrison paid the Temple tax not to the Jerusalem Temple, but to their own shrine, the Temple of Yaho. In analogy, therefore, it seems logical to assume that the Oniad Jews did likewise. The second point illustrates that another Second Temple group who maintained a sanctuary, the Samaritans, eagerly submitted annual payments to their temple, even from the Diaspora and this suggests too, that adherents of a certain temple paid the tax to that particular shrine; be that the Elephantine, Samaritan, or Oniad Temples. In the context of Josephus’ description of the “closure” of Onias’ Temple, he remarks in BJ 7.433 – 434 that the Romans carried off “some of the donations” (τινα τῶν ἀναθημάτων) made to the temple. While this text does not explicitly state that these “donations” were the monies collected from the annual Temple tax payments for the up-keep of the Oniad Temple, this thought is indeed an attractive suggestion. On the other hand, an alternative suggestion may be that the donations mentioned by Josephus are donations to the Oniad Temple by foreign rulers, of the kind foreign rulers made to the Jerusalem Temple, too;¹³ in our con-

 See for instance C 22 (TAD C3.15) in A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, 65.  The inscriptions are dated to the 2nd-1st century BCE. P. Brunneau, “Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne,” BCH 106 (1982): 465 – 504; see also A. Kasher, “Samaritans in Hellenistic Egypt,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press / Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 161 [Hebrew]; P. W. van der Horst, “Samaritans and Hellenism,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press / Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 189 [Hebrew].  While the word ἀναθημάτα usually denotes a “votive offering,” as it is rendered by Thackeray in his LCL translation, the note though makes more sense when we translate it as “donation.” For why would the Romans be satisfied by carrying off some sacrificial lambs and animals? If their interest was to make an end to the sacrificial cult, why not take all of the votive offerings? It thus seems that these “donations” were items of value, fiscal and symbolical, that would, if taken away, seriously affect the conduct of worship at the Temple. Therefore, these donations may indeed have been the monies for the maintenance of the cult, or expensive cultic objects used in it. Indeed, the term ἀναθημάτα can have a wide range of meanings, including the payment of the Temple tax. See A. Baumgarten, “Josephus on Essene Sacrifice,” 174– 175.  For the support of the daily sacrifices in the Persian period, see e. g. Ezra 6:8 – 10; 7:18 – 21; Ant. 11.16. This custom was also continued by the Ptolemies (2 Macc. 9:16 and Ant. 12.40 – 41), the Seleucids (2 Macc. 3:3 and Ant. 12.138 – 144) and the Romans (e. g. BJ 2.409 and Ant. 16.14).

434

Appendix 2 Did the Jews of Egypt Pay the Temple Tax to Onias’ Temple?

text, it is especially relevant to recall that Ptolemy VI Philometor is known to have visited, restored, and donated money and other valuable items to various (Egyptian) temples.¹⁴ Since he can be considered Onias’ patron, it is reasonable to assume that Philometor too made donations to Onias’ Temple. However, elsewhere (in BJ 7.430) Josephus relates that Philometor granted Onias the territory adjacent to his temple in order to generate enough revenues for the upkeep of his temple and the priests serving in it. It seems though, that these revenues were not sufficient and we may surmise that some form of additional income was required to make ends meet. Thus, in view of the additional evidence referred to in points (1) and (2), the donations referred to by Josephus in BJ 7.433 – 434, indeed seem to have been the accumulated monies collected from the half-Shekel tax (or some other tax) of the members of the Oniad community. The claim that the Jews of the Oniad community, as well as some of the neighboring villages and towns regularly made half-Shekel payments to Onias’ Temple is thus, although perforce speculative, a likely assumption.¹⁵

 Philometor visited, inter alia, Memphis which is close to the Oniad Temple and made some donations to the local Apis-shrine. See D. J. Thompson, Memphis under the Ptolemies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989) 233. On his visit, he may have included Onias’ settlement to his itinerary and likewise could have made a contribution to the Jewish God, as did other foreign rulers in Jerusalem. This “euergetism” was wide-spread in the ancient world and constitutes something that was expected from Hellenistic and Roman rulers. See G. Gardner, “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century B.C.E.,” JBL 126 (2007): 327– 329.  Contra L. Capponi, Il tempio di Leontopoli, 31– 33, 42, who is convinced that no Temple tax was collected for Onias’ Temple, since all of Egyptian Jewry, including those of Onias’ community, remained utterly loyal to the Jerusalem Temple. We may add that if a person was wealthy enough, he or she could have contributed both to the Oniad and to the Jerusalem Temple.

Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples The purpose of this appendix is to elucidate the phenomenon of Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem.¹ The intention here is not to provide one single exhaustive explanation for that phenomenon – which seems impossible. Rather, it is an attempt to explore four possible explanations. Onias’ Temple will not be the sole focus of this inquiry, but will be discussed next to its predecessor, the Elephantine Temple, the Samaritan Temple, and the Qumranic spiritual temple, the “Temple of Man”.²

I The War of Scriptures What was needed were two things: a legitimate high priest and scriptural support for the location of the sanctuary. ³

What all four cases have in common is their location outside of Jerusalem, which is, as noted, problematic by Deuteronomistic standards, since it appears to prohibit Jewish sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem.⁴ But is this really the case? For, all that the Bible actually says is that: You shall not worship the LORD your God in such ways. But you shall seek the place that the LORD your God will choose out of all your tribes as his habitation to put his name there. You shall go there, bringing there your burnt offerings and your sacrifices, your tithes and your donations, your votive gifts, your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and flocks (Deuteronomy 12:4– 6 [NRSV]).

 This inquiry focuses on the Hellenistic and Roman periods and does not include the many examples from the biblical period. See for instance M. Smith’s enumeration of Jewish shrines outside of Jerusalem, M. Smith, Palestinian Parties that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971) 69 – 71. Smith lists Haran, Elephantine, Babylonia, Lachish, Samaria, Gerizim, Tabor, Carmel, Hebron, Mamre, Deir ’Alla, Tell es-Sai’diyhe, Araq el-Emir, Leontopolis [sic].  Despite the fact that the Samaritans are not Jews simpliciter, I include them in this inquiry because of their Jewish background. They are, after all, a Jewish splinter group.  Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, 174.  Deut 12:4– 6, 13 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-024

436

Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples

The biblical text, in fact, says nothing about Jerusalem as the location of choice for the Temple – that conception, it seems, was developed later.⁵ Deuteronomy 12:4– 6 merely sanctions that one may built only a single sanctuary, wherever God tells us to. It seems that this vagueness created a problem that demanded clarification at a later point in time. The vagueness about God’s chosen location for His Temple, however, was good news for someone intending to build a temple somewhere else than Jerusalem, as for instance the Samaritans, who erected theirs on Mt. Gerizim. The Samaritans creatively capitalized on Deut 12’s vagueness by claiming that God had already and ultimately found his abode on Mt. Gerizim (Deut 27:4) and accordingly amended the above-cited verse from Deuteronomy (Deut 12:5) to “the place where the LORD has chosen.”⁶ Onias (and perhaps the members of the Elephantine community too) followed a different approach; since God will tell us where He wants us to build His Temple, as stated in Deut 12:5, and since God’s will is usually made known to us through his prophets, Onias made use of Isaiah’s prediction that one day an altar will be erected in Egypt (Isa 19:18 – 19). Thus, we cannot really accuse him of transgressing Deuteronomistic law.⁷ In fact, he did exactly what is prescribed by Deut 12:5 – 6 which was to build an altar at the place that God will choose, and according to Isaiah (Isa 19:18 – 19), God chose Egypt.⁸ Some scholars have maintained that the Book of Deuteronomy was not well known or not well implemented during the periods in which these Jewish temples were erected.⁹ That argument becomes difficult to maintain the more we proceed on the time-axis and come closer to the Hellenistic and Roman periods and the canonization of scripture. My argument is not that the Deutoronomistic prohibition was not known or disregarded on purpose, but on the contrary, that it was known and either not clear in reference to what location it refers to, and/or could not be implemented due to several politico-religious circumstances such as

 See for instance 1Kings 8:16 (and LXX 1Kings 8:16); 2Chron 6:5 – 6; 2Kings 23:27 and S. Schorch, “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on the Bible, History, and Linguistics, ed. by J. Zsengellér (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011) 31– 36.  See also S. Schorch, “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy,” 23 – 24, 28. Note that the MT of Deut 12:4 refers to Mt. Ebal, not Mt. Gerizim. See on this issue H. Eshel, “The Development of the Attribution of Sanctity to Mount Gerizim,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press / Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 192– 209 [Hebrew].  See similarly, E. S. Gruen, “The Origins and Objectives,” 60 – 61.  As noted, the same seems to be valid for the Elephantine Temple. See B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 119; and A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, xxi.  Cf. B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 13 and J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temples,” 175. J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1 – 39, 319.

Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples

437

the (temporary) defilement of the Jerusalem Temple, which constitutes another aspect to consider (see point 4). Earlier, I have stated that the vagueness of the centralization law in Deut 12 concerning the location of the chosen place became an important question only in the 2nd century BCE, under Hasmonean rule.¹⁰ Here, it suffices to add that the Elephantine Temple, the Samaritan Temple, and Onias’ Temple all were built prior to the Hasmonean ascension to power and could thus not be considered violating the Deuteronomistic law of centralization. Conversely, it seems that the existence of multiple Jewish sanctuaries in view of Deuteronomy’s 12 vagueness triggered the need for clarification of the centralization law and that the Hasmoneans were at the forefront of that movement as we shall discuss in the next point.

II Are Multiple Jewish Temples a Real or an Imagined Problem? Was the building of a Jewish temple outside of Jerusalem really a problem in the Second Temple period, or is it only a problem for us modern scholars, who are familiar with later Jewish traditions emphasizing the uniqueness of Jerusalem and its Temple? In other words, is our assessment of ancient Jewish history clouded by our knowledge that Hasmonean literature (in particular) wants us to believe that all Jews unequivocally accepted the concept of one-Temple-onecity?¹¹ If so, that would mean that our problem with the existence of multiple Jewish temples in light of Deut 12 would be entirely artificial. Tellingly, I already noted that the existence of multiple Jewish shrines only really seems to have become problematic in the later Hasmonean period. I noted too, that the Elephantine, Samaritan, and Oniad temples were all established prior to the Hasmonean takeover, or around the same time – as in case of the spiritual temple of the Qumran community. Thus, with the exception of the Elephantine Temple that

 See A. van der Kooij, “Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books and Hasmonean Politics,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. by J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge (BETL 163; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003) 26 – 38; S. Schorch, “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy,” 33 – 34. Schorch provides the example of the 2nd century BCE “Halakhic Letter” (4QMMT) from Qumran, that exhibits discussions about the halakhic status of Jerusalem as a city vis-à-vis the Temple, proceeding from certain textual tensions between the centralization formula in Deuteronomy 12 and in 1 Kings 8, since one reference speaks about a place of worship, while the other speaks about a city. Schorch correctly notes that 4QMMT solves the problem by declaring both the temple as well as the city of Jerusalem as chosen, holy places, but attributing to the temple a higher measure of sanctity than to the city and concludes that 4QMMT clearly shows that an increasing interest in the exegesis of the centralization law and the location of the chosen place was at stake.  On the one-Temple-one-city concept, see G. Bohak, “Theopolis,” 3 – 16.

438

Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples

was long destroyed by the time the Hasmoneans came to power, the existence of Onias’ and the Samaritan temples was a fait-accomplis for the Hasmoneans, who had to tolerate their existence. For Onias and his followers, the Deuteronomistic law of centralization was conditional and perhaps even perceived as temporary (akin to the perception of the Qumran community). Borne out of the necessity to preserve the religion of their homeland in view of the Antiochic religious persecutions, the Oniads, quite comfortably one may add, built a temple in Egypt. The apparent ease, or nonchalance, with which this project proceeded implies little restriction, the more so considering that the case of Onias’ Temple was not a rarity and a single event.¹² We have seen that the vagueness regarding the location for God’s temple did become an issue in the Hasmonean period. We should also bear in mind that the Hasmoneans, who came from a lower priestly class, first needed to establish themselves as Judaea’s new rulers.¹³ One method to achieve this goal was to proclaim themselves not only the saviors of Judaism and the Temple, but also the protectors of the Jews everywhere and the guardians of the Jewish law.¹⁴ It is intriguing to observe in this light that the Hasmonean conquests, which immediately followed their institution of power in Jerusalem, were justified in reference to Deutoronomistic law, which includes the law of centralization.¹⁵ Therefore, the emphasis on the law of centralization with Jerusalem at its center was part and parcel of Hasmonean policy and propaganda. Correspondingly, some scholars have demonstrated a gradually growing emphasis on Jerusalem and its Temple in contemporary Hasmonean Jewish literature.¹⁶

 It is notable that no further efforts to build Jewish temples elsewhere were attempted during the Roman period and thereafter. The other observation of note is that the Samaritan Diaspora too – for all we know – did not build sanctuaries in addition to Mt. Gerizim. This is the more striking, considering that the Samaritan Temple was destroyed quite early in comparison to the Jerusalem Temple (111 BCE). A. D. Crown, “The Samaritan Diaspora,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press / Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 171, 174 [Hebrew].  J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 157– 158; T. Rajak, “Hasmonean Kingship and the Invention of Tradition,” in The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 39 – 60.  J. Sievers, The Hasmoneans and their Supporters, 157– 158.  See in particular K. Trampedach, “Die Hasmonäer und das Problem der Theokratie,” in Die Bibel als politisches Argument, ed. by A. Pečar and K. Trampedach (Historische Zeitschrift Beiheft 43; München: Oldenbourg, 2007) 41– 48.  For instance, D. Mendels, The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature: Recourse to History in Second Century B.C. Claims to the Holy Land (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987) 1– 8, 121– 129.

Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples

439

That notion too helps to elucidate why the Hasmoneans set out to destroy the Samaritan Temple. The enforcement of Deuteronomistic law, including its law of centralization, as Hasmonean propaganda, militated against the bold claim of the Samaritans that Mt. Gerizim and not Jerusalem, was God’s chosen place for His abode. In their quest to purge the country of Gentiles and pagan shrines,¹⁷ the Hasmoneans under John Hyrcanus I, thus decided to put an end to the worship at Mt. Gerizim and to destroy the Samaritan Temple.¹⁸ All this is to say that the emphasis on the law of centralization seems only to have become an issue after the Hasmonean takeover. The Hasmoneans capitalized on the law to enforce their own claim to power in Jerusalem. Consequently, the existence of other Jewish sanctuaries became problematic. The dogma of the centrality of Jerusalem and its Temple began to gain popularity and seems to influence us moderns as well in our assessment on the existence of Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem.

III The Laws of the Country and a ‘Three-Days’ Journey from the Temple In the context of the phenomenon of multiple temples, let us briefly refer to A. Shemesh’s approach. He has examined the law of centralization (Deut 12) in light of rabbinic and Qumranic Halakha and has convincingly shown that for the Rabbis, as well as for the author(s) of the Temple Scroll,¹⁹ the law of centralization only applied within the borders of the Land of Israel.²⁰ Shemesh notes too, that Deut 12, in fact, does not say anything about sanctuaries outside the Land of Israel – perhaps because they were thought to be less of a threat.²¹ If we follow Shemesh’s assumption, then Onias’ Temple, much as its predecessor the Elephantine Temple, did not violate Deuteronomy’s law of centralization. The case of the Samaritan Temple, however, which was located within the borders of the Land of Israel, is different. Not only was its Jewishness disputed,²² but

 It seems that by the Hasmonean period, the Samaritans were not considered Jewish anymore and it follows that their temple too, correspondingly, was conceived of as pagan. See H. Eshel, “The Development of the Attribution of Sanctity to Mount Gerizim,” 208 [Hebrew]. Eshel contended that the cult on Mt. Gerizim was transformed by Hellenized Samaritans from the worship of YHWH into that of “Zeus Xenios” (see e. g. Ant. 12.258 – 264) and that it was therefore, that Hyrcanus I destroyed the temple.  Ant. 13.255 and Y. Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, 177– 179.  11QTa (11Q19) col. 52, 13 – 16.  A. Shemesh, “‘Three-Days’ Journey from the Temple’,” 126 – 138 and J. Blenkinsopp, Isaiah 1 – 39, 319.  A. Shemesh, “‘Three-Days’ Journey from the Temple’,” 129.  H. Eshel, “The Development of the Attribution of Sanctity to Mount Gerizim,” 208 [Hebrew].

440

Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples

in the perception of many Jews its existence indeed violated the Deuteronomistic prescription (Deut 12). Perhaps this aspect too, constituted another reason for its destruction by John Hyrcanus I, which quite nicely fits into the general Hasmonean policy of purging the Land of Israel of any idolatrous shrines and Gentiles, a policy which is in fact anchored in Deuteronomy (12:2– 3) as we have seen.²³

IV What to Do, When There is No Proper Cult in the Jerusalem Temple? We take note of the fact that the Temple of Onias, the Qumranic community and their self-perception of being a “Temple of Man,” and possibly the Elephantine Temple too,²⁴ were established in times when the Jerusalem Temple was either obsolete (i. e. blemished and defiled), destroyed, or unfit for service in the eyes of certain beholders (as in case of the Qumran community). It is the perception of the Jerusalem Temple being defiled or destroyed that paved the way for the foundation of substitute sanctuaries elsewhere including Onias’. The erection of sanctuaries outside of Jerusalem can be explained against the background of the necessity to cope with and to compensate for the loss of the Temple. In this respect, we should keep in mind that the defilement or destruction of the Temple was perceived as a major crisis which needed to be overcome.²⁵

 K. Trampedach, “Die Hasmonäer und das Problem der Theokratie,” 41– 48.  The foundation date of the Elephantine Temple remains a matter of dispute. The papyrological evidence furnishes that the temple flourished from the late 6th century BCE (the least), until its destruction in the year 411 BCE. Cowley argued that the Elephantine Temple was built in the wake of the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple after 587/6 BCE. A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, xx-xxi. Porten suggested to antedate the building of the Elephantine Temple to ca. 650 BCE, to be more precise, relying on the assumption that this move had political reasons. Namely, during the reign of Manasseh, king of Judah, who is said to have ruled for 55 years (2Kings 21:1) and had introduced many pagan elements into the worship at the Jerusalem Temple (2Kings 21:5 – 11, 23:4; 2Chron 33:1– 9). This circumstance not only provoked prophecies on the destruction of Jerusalem, but also outright bloodshed (2Kings 21:10 – 16). The tumultuous and volatile situation in Jerusalem caused many priests and prophets to flee to Egypt and according to Porten, these Jewish refugees joined the garrison at Elephantine and erected a temple dedicated to YHWH there. This was inspired by the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 19:18 – 19), who predicted the existence of an altar in Egypt and five cities that would speak the Canaanite language. View, B. Porten, Archives of Elephantine, 119. On the dating of the establishment of the Elephantine community see also J. J. Mélèze-Modrzejewski, The Jews of Egypt, 22– 26, who, for different reasons, opts for a late 7th century BCE dating too, but more precisely to the reign of Jehoiakim (609 – 598 BCE).  In his examination of the phenomenon of multiple Jewish temples, Frey concluded that all the Jewish temples he discussed (Elephantine, Onias’ Temple, and Mt. Gerizim) were founded because of political differences and not because of religious ones. Cf. J. Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple,” 180, 197– 198. True, elements of political nature were pivotal in bringing about

Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples

441

In this respect, we may ask how the Jews in the Diaspora, who may never have seen the Temple, coped with their remoteness from it.²⁶ Although the attitude towards the Temple of Diaspora Jews was diverse,²⁷ we should keep in mind that those Jews who wanted (or were rich enough) to participate in the Temple worship, had an opportunity to make a pilgrimage or to send gifts and/or money in form of the annual half-Shekel tax. Once more, I underline the fact that whoever wanted to participate in the Temple cult, could, even from afar; but of course, on the condition that the Temple still existed. But what if the Temple was obsolete and what about priests in the Diaspora? We know that most Jews of the Diaspora coped with the remoteness from the Temple by substituting the sacrificial cult with prayers and service in the synagogue. While we may imagine that this included Jewish priests too, we are also aware of the existence of Jewish temples in the Diaspora. The examples of Elephantine and Heliopolis help to explain that priestly Jews in the Diaspora made an effort to maintain the form of priestly Judaism they were accustomed to from Jerusalem. However, Jewish temples were not necessarily built whenever a group of priests came to live in the Diaspora. Rather those temples were built in response to a religious crisis – namely the loss of the Temple in Jerusalem. The case of Qumran takes up a special position, which illustrates that the loss of the Temple not always entailed its physical replacement; it could be spiritual too.²⁸ However, in contrast to the Elephantine and Oniad Temples, the Qumranites believed that the loss of the Temple was only temporarily. They would eventually return to Jerusalem and therefore, no efforts were made to build a substitute. the foundation of those temples, but we should keep in mind that religion and politics were hardly distinguishable from the political life during that time. In other words, religion and politics complemented one another, the one was intrinsic to the other. This means that although Frey predominantly focuses on political motives causing the separation from Jerusalem, we should not overly downplay the religious aspects of those processes. Thus, establishing a place of worship elsewhere – based on whatever political motives – also had grave religious repercussions that demanded changes and/or justification. This is why, for instance, Isaiah’s prophecy was of crucial importance for legitimizing the existence Onias’ Temple, and we may observe a similar effort in case of the Samaritan Temple on Mt. Gerizim (i. e. the Samaritan version of Deut 12:5 and 27:4). See H. Eshel, “The Development of the Attribution of Sanctity to Mount Gerizim,” 207 [Hebrew]. Isaiah’s prophecy may also have been used by the Elephantine Jews in order to legitimize the existence of their Temple. See B. Porten, Archives from Elephantine, 119. See also A. E. Cowley, Aramaic Papyri, xxi.  D. R. Schwartz, “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias,” 5 – 22 [Hebrew]; N. Hacham, “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple in Hellenistic Judaism,” 155 – 179; and M. Tuval, “Doing without the Temple,” 151– 239.  See the previous note.  See also 1Cor 3:16 – 17; 6:19.

442

Appendix 3 Some Reflections on the Phenomenon of Multiple Jewish Temples

In the perception of the Elephantine and Oniad communities, the Jerusalem Temple was lost forever and needed to be substituted. It seems that the establishment of Jewish Temples outside of Jerusalem was a priestly reaction to the loss of the Temple in Jerusalem and should not be understood as an act of rivalry or schism. Just as the Rabbis centuries later, so those priests attempted to save their religion in the face of potential oblivion. I conclude this brief inquiry with the insight that it is difficult to single out which of these four factors is the decisive one for explaining the phenomenon of multiple Jewish temples outside of Jerusalem. To my mind, there is no need to single out a specific one, since all these factors seem to be interrelated.²⁹ But I hope to have contributed a little in order to shed some more light on the phenomenon of the existence of Jewish temples next to, or instead of, the Temple of Jerusalem, such as that of Onias in Egypt.

 As for instance points 1 and 2, or 1 and 4.

Appendix 4 IJudO i BS19: A Russian Onias? In the context of the attestation of the name Onias in the Jewish Diaspora, we presently turn our attention to an inscription from Taman (modern-day Russia) discovered in March 1907 (IJudO i BS19). It is dated to the first half of the 1st century CE and reads as follows: Βοθύλι Ωνία, χαîρε “Bothylis son of Onias (?), farewell.”¹

What persuaded the editors to include this inscription in their corpus of Jewish inscriptions is the distinct Jewishness of the name “Onias.” The name Bothylis that appears next to that of Onias in the inscription, is the Graecized version of the Hebrew name Bethuel (‫)בתואל‬, a derivate of the biblical name of Abraham’s nephew.² Despite Bothylis’ Jewish name, the editors noted some depictions of human figures on the funeral stele, which indicates that he seems to have been a rather Hellenized Jew. Be that as it may, what is more important is that the inscription attests an “Onias” outside of an Egyptian/Ptolemaic context.³ Although we unfortunately know little more than the name of the deceased from the stele, we may surmise, based on the onomastic evidence concerning the name “Onias,” that Bothylis’ father, or he himself, emigrated from Egypt to the Black Sea region. He may have been a merchant, or perhaps he went there to serve as somebody’s mercenary; if his father was affiliated with the Oniad military community, as his name suggests, the latter option will be somewhat more plausible. Be that as it may, to date this remains the sole reference to an “Onias” in that region.

 On the inscription see D. Noy, A. Panayotov, and H. Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Eastern Europe, Vol. 1 (Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 101; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 302; T. Ilan, Lexicon of Jewish Names, 3:234– 235.  Gen 22:22– 23; LXX Gen 22:22– 23 (Βαθου[η]λ) and see Josephus (Βαθουηλος) Ant. 1.153, 248, 289.  The inscription CYP 5 from Cyprus. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-025

Bibliography I Ancient Texts, Sources, Inscriptions, and Papyri: Albeck, Ch., The Six Orders of the Mishnah: Order Kiddushin (6 vols.; Mossad Bialik: Jerusalem, 1958 – 1959) [Hebrew]. The Babylonian Talmud = Talmud Bavli (Vilna: Romm, 1880 – 1886). Böckh, A., Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum (4 vols.; Berlin: Preußische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1828 – 1877). Cowey, J. M. S., and K. Maresch, Urkunden des Politeuma der Juden von Herakleopolis (144/3 – 133/2 v. Chr.): Papyri aus den Sammlungen von Heidelberg, Köln, München und Wien (Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag, 2001). Di Bitonto, A., “Papiri documentari dell’Università Cattolica di Milano,” Aegyptus 54 (1974): 20 – 21. Frey, J.-G., Corpus Inscriptionum Judaicarum: Jewish Inscriptions from the Third Century B.C. to the Seventh Century A.D. (2 vols.; Città del Vaticano, Rome: Pontificio Instituto di Archeologia Christiana, 1936 – 1952). Geyer, P., Itinera Hierosolymitana saeculi IIII-VIII (Corpus Scriptorum Ecclasiasticorum Latinorum 39; Wien, Prag, and Leipzig: F. Tempsky and G. Freytag, 1898). Glorie, F., Hieronymus Stridonensis: Commentariorum in Danielem libri III (IV) (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina 75 A; Turnhout: Brepols, 1964). Helm, R., Eusebius Werke: Die Chronik des Hieronymus (7 vols.; Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der Ersten Jahrhunderte 47; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956). Horbury, W., and D. Noy, Jewish Inscriptions of Graeco-Roman Egypt (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). Koerte, A., “Kleinasiatische Sudien. V. Inschriften aus Bythynien,” Mittheilungen des Kaiserlich Deutschen Archaeologischen Instituts, Athenische Abt., Band 24 (Athen: Barth & Von Hirst, 1899) 398 – 450. Marcus, R., A. Wikgren, and L. H. Feldman (eds. and transl.) Josephus (13 vols., Loeb Classical Library [LCL], Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press, 1926 – 1965; reprinted 1997, 1998). Noy, D., A. Panayotov, and H. Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Syria and Cyprus (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Peremans, W., and E. Van’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica: I, L’administration civile et financière (Studia Hellenistica 6; Louvain: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lovanii, 1950). Peremans, W., and E. Van’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica: II, L’armée de terre et la police (Studia Hellenistica 8; Louvain: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lovanii, 1952). Peremans, W., and E. Van’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica: III, Le notariat, les tribunaux (Studia Hellenistica 11; Louvain: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lovanii, 1956). Peremans, W., and E. Van’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica: VI, La cour, les relations internationales et les possessions extérieures, la vie culturelle (Studia Hellenistica 17; Louvain: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lovanii, 1968). Peremans, W., and E. Van’t Dack, Prosopographia Ptolemaica: VIII, Addenda et Corrigenda aux volumes I (1950) et II (1952) (Studia Hellenistica 21; Louvain: Bibliotheca Universitatis Lovanii, 1975).

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-026

446

Bibliography

Porten, B., and A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (4 vols.; Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986 – 1999). Sachs, A. J., and H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (3 vols.; ADRT; Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988 – 1996). Schechter, S., Aboth de-Rabbi Nathan (Vienna: Georg Olms Verlag, 1887). Schoene, A., Eusebi Chronicorum Libri (2 vols.; Berlin: Weidmann, 1875). Schwabe, M., and B. Lifshitz, Beth She’arim: Report on the Excavations during 1936 – 40 (2 vols.; New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1973 – 94) [Vol. II: The Greek Inscriptions, 1974]. The Talmud Yerushalmi: According to Ms. Or. 4720 (Scal. 3) of the Leiden University Library with Restorations and Corrections (Jerusalem: The Academy of the Hebrew Language, 2001). Tcherikover, V., A. Fuks, and M. Stern, Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum (3 vols.; Cambridge and Jerusalem: Harvard University Press and Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1957 – 64). W. Whiston, The Genuine Works of Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Boston and Philadelphia: Thomson and Andrews / Johnson and Warner, 1809). Woodhead, A. G., Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum (Vol. 16; Leiden: Brill, 1959).

II Secondary Literature: Abel, F.-M., Les livres des Maccabées 2 (La Sainte Bible; Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1951). Adam, Sh., “Recent Discoveries in the Eastern Delta (Dec. 1950 – May 1955),” ASAE 55 (1958): 301 – 324. Adinolfi, M., “Elogia l’autore di 1 Macc. 6,43 – 46 il gesto di Eleazaro?” in Questioni bibliche di storia e storiografia, ed. by M. Adinolfi (Brescia: Paideia, 1969) 103 – 122. Albani, M., “Zur Rekonstruktion eines verdrängten Konzepts: Der 364-Tage-Kalender in der gegenwärtigen Forschung,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 79 – 125. Albert, K., Strabo als Quelle des Flavius Josephus (Aschaffenburg: Schnipersche Druckerei Kolbe, 1902). Alexander, P. S., “3 Maccabees, Hanukkah and Purim,” in Biblical Hebrews, Biblical Texts: Essays in Memory of Michael P. Weitzman, ed. by A. Rappaport-Albert and G. Greenberg (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 321 – 339. Allen, J. P., “Heliopolis,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, ed. by D. B. Redford (3 vols.; Oxford, New York, and Cairo: Oxford University Press and The American University in Cairo Press, 2001) 2:88 – 89. Alon, G., “The Burning of the Temple” in Jews, Judaism and the Classical World: Studies in Jewish History in the Times of the Second Temple and Talmud, ed. by G. Alon (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1977) 252 – 268. Ameling, W., “Die jüdische Gemeinde von Leontopolis nach den Inschriften,” in Die Septuaginta: Texte, Kontexte, Lebenswelten, ed. by M. Karrer, W. Kraus, and M. Meiser (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008) 117 – 133. Amir, Y. “‘θεοκρατία’ as a Concept of Political Philosophy: Josephus’ Presentation of Moses’ “Politeia”,” SCI 8 – 9 (1985 – 1988): 83 – 105.

II Secondary Literature:

447

Anderson, H., “3 Maccabees,” in Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 2:509 – 529. Applebaum, S., Jews and Greeks in Ancient Cyrene (Leiden: Brill, 1979). Aptowitzer, V., “Asenath, the Wife of Joseph: A Haggadic Literary-Historical Study,” HUCA 1 (1924): 239 – 306. Attridge, H. W., The Interpretation of Biblical History in Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae of Flavius Josephus (HDR 7; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976). Attridge, H. W., “Josephus and His Works,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period: Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Qumran Sectarian Writings, Philo, Josephus, ed. by M. E. Stone (CRINT, Section 2; Assen and Philadelphia: Van Gorcum and Fortress Press, 1984) 185 – 232. Attridge, H. W., and G. Hata, “Introduction,” in Eusebius, Christianity, and Judaism, ed. by W. Attridge and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1992) 27 – 49. Avni, G., and Z. Greenhut (eds.), The Alkadema Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley (IAA Reports 1; Jerusalem: Israeli Antiquities Authority, 1996). Baethgen, F., “Siebzehn Makkabäische Psalmen Nach Theodor Von Mopsuestia,” ZAW 6 (1886): 261 – 289. Baillet, M., J. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux, Discoveries in the Judean Desert: Les ’petites grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD III; 2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1962). Baines, J., and J. Málek, Atlas of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Phaidon, 1980). Balogh, C., The Stele of YHWH in Egypt: The Prophecies of Isaiah 18 – 20 concerning Egypt and Kush (OTS 60; Leiden: Brill, 2011). Bammel, E., “Sadduzäer und Sadokiden,” ETL 55 (1979): 107 – 115. Barag, D., “New Evidence on the Foreign Policy of John Hyrcanus I,” INJ 12 (1992 – 1993): 1 – 12. Barag, D., “The Coinage of Yehud and the Ptolemies,” INJ 13 (1994 – 1999): 27 – 38. Barclay, J. M. G., Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora: From Alexander to Trajan (323 BCE to 117 CE) (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Barclay, J. M. G., “Diaspora Judaism,” in Religious Diversity in the Graeco-Roman World: A Survey of Recent Scholarship, ed. by D. Cohn-Sherbok and J. M. Court (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001) 47 – 64. Barclay, J. M. G., Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Vol. 10: Against Apion (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Barnes, T. D., “Trajan and the Jews,” JJS 40 (1989): 145 – 162. Barkay, G., “A Coin of Alexander Jannaeus from Cyprus,” IEJ 27 (1977) 119 – 120. Bar-Kochva, B., Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Bar-Kochva, B., Pseudo-Hecataeus, ’On the Jews’: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Bar-Kochva, B., “The Settlement of the Sons of Onias in Egypt – Philological Remarks,” Zion 64 (1999): 220 – 229 [Hebrew]. Bar-Kochva, B., The Image of the Jews in Greek Literature: The Hellenistic Period (Los Angeles and London: University of California Press, 2010). Batiffol, P., “Le livre de la prière d’Asénath,” in Studia Patristica: Études d’ancienne littérature chrétienne 1 – 2 (2 vols.; Paris: Leroux, 1889 – 1890).

448

Bibliography

Bauckham, R., “Josephus’ Account of the Temple in Contra Apionem 2.102 – 109,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 327 – 347. Bauer, W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (transl. by W. F. Arndt and F. W. Gingrich; 2nd ed.; Chicago: The University Of Chicago Press, 1979). Baumgarten, A. I., “Josephus on Essene Sacrifice,” JJS 45 (1994): 169 – 183. Baumgarten, A. I., “Rabbinic Literature as a Source for the History of Jewish Sectarianism in the Second Temple Period,” DSD 2 (1995): 14 – 57. Baumgarten, A. I., “Crisis in the Scrollery: A Dying Consensus,” Judaism 44 (1995): 399 – 413. Baumgarten, A. I., The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (SupJSJ 55; Leiden: SBL, 1997). Baumgarten, A. I., “The Zadokite Priests at Qumran: A Reconsideration,” DSD 4 (1997): 137 – 156. Baumgarten, J. M., Studies in Qumran Law (Leiden: Brill, 1977). Baumgarten, J. M., “The Heavenly Tribunal and the Personification of Sedeq in Jewish Apocalyptic,” ANRW II.19.1 (1979): 219 – 239. Beall, T. S., Josephus’ Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls (Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 58; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988). Beckwith, R. T., “The Solar Calendar of Joseph and Asenath: A Suggestion,” JSJ 15 (1984): 90 – 111. Beek, M. A., “Relations entre Jérusalem et la diaspora égyptienne au 2e siècle avant J. C.,” OS 2 (1943): 119 – 143. Bengtson, H., Die Strategie in hellenistischer Zeit: Ein Beitrag zum antiken Staatsrecht, Band 3: Die Strategie im Ptolemäerreich (3 vols.; Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und antiken Rechtsgeschichte, Heft 36; München: C. H. Beck’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1952). Ben-Shahar, M., “The Prediction to Vespasian,” in Josephus and the Rabbis, ed. by T. Ilan and V. Noam (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2017) 2:604 – 664 [Hebrew]. Bentwich, N., The Life and Times of Josephus (Philadelphia: JPS, 1914). Bergman, M., “Past and Present in Midrashic Literature,” HAR 2 (1978): 45 – 59. Bernard, E., Inscriptions métriques de l’Égypte gréco-romaine (Annales littéraires de l’Université de Besançon 98; Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 1969). Berrin, Sh. L., The Pesher Nahum Scroll from Qumran: An Exegetical Study of 4Q169 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Betz, O., “The Death of Choni-Onias in the Light of the Temple Scroll from Qumran,” in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Schalit Memorial Volume, ed. by A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, and M. Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press/Ministry of Defense Press, 1980) 84 – 97 [Hebrew]. Bevan, E. R., The House of Seleucus (London: Edward Arnold, 1902). Bevan, E. R., The House of Ptolemy: A History of Egypt under the Ptolemaic Dynasty (London: Methuen Publishing, 1927). Bickerman, E. J., “Makkabäerbücher (I-III),” PWRE 19 (1928): 779 – 800.

II Secondary Literature:

449

Bickerman, E. J., Der Gott der Makkabäer: Untersuchungen über Sinn und Ursprung der makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Schocken Verlag, 1937). Bickerman, E. J., “’La Coelé-Syrie: notes de géographie historique,” RB 54 (1947): 256 – 268. Bickerman, E. J., Four Strange Books of the Bible: Jonah, Daniel, Koheleth, Esther (New York: Schocken Books, 1967). Bickerman, E. J., “A Jewish Festal Letter of 124 B.C.E. (2 Macc. 1:1 – 9),” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, ed. by E. J. Bickerman (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980) 2:408 – 431. (= E. J. Bickerman, “Ein jüdischer Festbrief vom Jahre 124 v. Chr. (II Macc. 1.1 – 9),” ZNTW 32 [1933] 233 – 254). Bickerman, E. J., “Héliodore au temple de Jérusalem,” in Studies in Jewish and Christian History, ed. by E. J. Bickerman (Leiden: Brill, 1980) 2:159 – 191. Bilde, P., Flavius Josephus between Jerusalem and Rome: His Life, his Works and their Importance (JSOT 2; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1988). Blenkinsopp, J., “Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus,” JJS 25 (1974): 239 – 262. Blenkinsopp, J., Isaiah 1 – 39: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 19; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Bloch, H., Die Quellen des Josephus in seiner Archäologie (Leipzig: Teubner, 1879). Bohak, G., Joseph and Aseneth and the Temple in Heliopolis (PhD dissertation; Princeton: Princeton University, 1994). Bohak, G., “Aseneth’s Honeycomb and Onias’ Temple: The Key to “Joseph and Aseneth,” in Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 11 (Division A; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1994) 163 – 170. Bohak, G., “CPJ III, 250: The Egyptian Reaction to Onias’ Temple,” JSJ 36 (1995): 32 – 41. Bohak, G., Joseph and Aseneth and the Jewish Temple in Heliopolis (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 10; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996). Bohak, G., “From Fiction to History: Contextualizing Joseph and Aseneth,” in Society of Biblical Literature 1996 Seminar Papers, ed. by D. J. Lull, et al. (SBLSP 35, Supplement VII; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1996) 273 – 284. Bohak, G., “Good Jews, Bad Jews and Non-Jews in Greek Papyri and Inscriptions,” in Akten des 21. Internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin 13 – 19. 8. 1995, ed. by B. Kramer, W. Luppe and H. Maehler (Archiv für Papyrusforschung und verwandte Gebiete 3,1; Stuttgart/ Leipzig: Teubner, 1997) 105 – 112. Bohak, G., “Theopolis: A Single-Temple Policy and its Singular Ramifications,” JJS 50 (1999): 3 – 16. Bohak, G., Ancient Jewish Magic: A History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008). Bolyki, J., “Egypt as the Setting for ‘Joseph and Aseneth’: Accidental or Deliberate?” in The Wisdom of Egypt; Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. by A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 81 – 96. Bouché-Leclerque, A., Histoire des Lagides (4 vols.; Paris: Leroux, 1907). Boyarin, D., Carnal Israel: Reading Sex in Talmudic Culture (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995). Boyarin, D., A Radical Jew: Paul and the Politics of Identity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1997). Brand, Y., “On the Episode of Onias’ Temple,” Yavneh 1 (1939): 78 – 84 [Hebrew].

450

Bibliography

Braverman, J., Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel: A Study of Comparative Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the Hebrew Bible (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1978). Bremmer, J. N., “Spartans and Jews: Abrahamic Cousins?” in Abraham, the Nations, and the Hagarites; Jewish, Christian, and Islamic Perspectives on Kinship with Abraham, ed. by M. Goodman, G. H. van Kooten, and J. T. A.G. M. van Ruiten (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 47 – 59. Brighton, M. A., The Sicarii in Josephus’ Judean War: Rhetorical Analysis and Historical Observations (SBL Early Judaism and Its Literature 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 2009). Bringmann, K., Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judäa: Eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (175 – 163 v. Chr.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1983). Brooke, G. J., “Miqdash Adam, Eden, and the Qumran Community,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel/Community without Temple: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 285 – 301. Brooks, E. W., Joseph and Asenath: The Confession and Prayer of Asenath Daughter of Pentephres the Priest (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918). Brooten, B. J., Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Brown Judaic Studies 36; Chico: Scholars Press, 1982). Broshi, M., “The Credibility of Josephus,” JJS 33 (1982): 379 – 384. Broshi, M., “The Archaeology of Qumran – A Reconsideration,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls; Forty Years of Research, ed. by D. Diamant and U. Rappaport (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 113 – 115. Brugsch-Bey, E., “On et Onion,” RecTrav 8 (1886): 1 – 9. Brunneau, P., “Les Israélites de Délos et la juiverie délienne,” BCH 106 (1982): 465 – 504. Brutti, M., The Development of the High Priesthood during the pre-Hasmonean Period: History, Ideology, Theology (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Büchler, A., “Les sources de Flavius Josèphe dans le Antiquités (XII,5-XIII,1),” REJ 32 (1896): 179 – 199. Büchler, A.,”Das Sendschreiben der Jerusalemer an die Juden in Ägypten in II Makkabäerbuch 1,11 – 2,18,” MGWJ 31 (1897): 481 – 500, 539 – 554. Büchler, A., Die Tobiaden und die Oniaden im 2. Makkabäerbuch und in der verwandten jüdisch-hellenistischen Litteratur: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Juden von 220 – 160 und zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Litteratur (Wien: Verlag der Israelitisch-Theoligischen Lehranstalt, 1899). Bunge, J. G., Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabäerbuch: Quellenkritische, literarische chronologische, und historische Untersuchungen zum 2. Makkabäerbuch als Quelle syrischpalästinensischer Geschichte im 2. Jh. v. Chr. (Ph.D. Dissertation; Bonn: Rheinische-Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1971). Bunge, J. G., “Zur Geschichte und Chronologie des Untergangs der Oniaden und des Aufstiegs der Hasmonäer,” JSJ 6 (1975): 1 – 46. Burchard, Chr., Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth: Überlieferung – Ortsbestimmung (WUNT 8; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1965). Burchard, Chr., “Zum Text von ‘Joseph and Aseneth’,” JSJ 1 (1970): 3 – 34.

II Secondary Literature:

451

Burchard, Chr., “Joseph et Aséneth: Questions actuelles,” in La littérature juive entre Tenach et Mischna: Quelques problèmes, ed. by W. C. van Unnik (Recherches biblique 9; Leiden: Brill, 1974) 84 – 96. Burchard, Chr., “Joseph and Aseneth,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth (2 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985) 2:177 – 247. Burchard, Chr., “The Importance of Joseph and Aseneth for the Study of the New Testament: A General Survey and Fresh Look at the Lord’s Supper,” NTS 33 (1987): 102 – 134. Burchard, Chr., “Ein vorläufiger griechischer Text von Joseph und Aseneth,” in Chr. Burchard, Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph & Aseneth (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 161 – 209. Burchard, Chr., Gesammelte Studien zu Joseph & Aseneth (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Burchard, Chr., “Küssen in ‘Joseph und Aseneth’,” JSJ 36 (2005): 316 – 323. Burgmann, H., “Das umstrittene Intersacerdotium in Jerusalem, 159 – 152 v. Chr.,” JSJ 11 (1980): 135 – 176. Burkhart, C., “Juden und Spartaner,” Hermes 95 (1967): 317 – 324. Busch, P., Das Testament Salomos: Die älteste christliche Dämonologie, kommentiert und in deutscher Erstüberarbeitung (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2006). Campbell, B., “Dating the Siege of Masada,” ZPE 73 (1988): 156 – 158. Cancik, H., “Theokratie und Priesterherrschaft: Die mosaische Verfassung bei Flavius Josephus, C. Apionem 2,157 – 198,” in Religionstheorie und politische Theologie: Theokratie, ed. by J. Taubes (München: Wilhelm Fink Verlag, 1987) 65 – 77. Capponi, L., Augustan Egypt: The Creation of a Roman Province (New York / London: Routledge, 2005). Capponi, L., “Ecateo di Abdera e la prima “katoikia” di Giudei in Egitto (Giuseppe, “Contro Apione” I 186 – 9),” MG 10 (2005): 233 – 240. Capponi, L., Il tempio di Leontopoli in Egitto: Identità politica e religiosa dei Giudei di Onia (c. 150 a.C.–73d.C.) (Pubblicazioni della Facoltà di lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Pavia, Dipartimento di scienze sell’antichità 118; Pisa: ETS, 2007). Capponi, L., “Martyrs and Apostates: 3 Maccabees and the Temple of Leontopolis,” Henoch 29 (2007): 288 – 306. Cartledge, P., and A. Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities (London: Routledge, 2002). Castelli, S., “On Josephus’ Reception in Medieval Syriac Literature.” Paper given on February 11th 2011 at the Düsseldorf conference on the subject: “Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur in ihrem interkulturellen Kontext.” Charlesworth, J. H., “Ḥoni,” in Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D. N. Freedman (6 vols.; Garden City: Doubleday, 1992) 3:282. Charlesworth, J. H., The Pesharim and Qumran History: Chaos or Consensus? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Chesnutt, R. D., From Death to Life: Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth (JSPsup 16; Sheffield: Sheffield University Press, 1995). Chesnutt, R. D., “‘Joseph and Aseneth’: Food as an Identity Marker,” in The Historical Jesus in Context, ed. by A.-J. Levine, D. C. Allison Jr., and J. D. Crossan (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2006) 357 – 365. Chauveau, M., Egypt in the Age of Cleopatra: History and Society under the Ptolemies (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2000).

452

Bibliography

Chyutin, M., Tendentious Hagiographies: Jewish Propagandist Fiction BCE (London: T & T Clark, 2011). Clermont-Ganneau, C., “Archaeological and Epigraphic Notes on Palestine,” PEFQS 35 (1903): 125 – 131. Cohen, S. J. D., Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian (Columbia Studies in the Classical Tradition 8; Leiden: Brill, 1979). Cohen, S. J. D., “Alexander the Great and Jaddua the High Priest according to Josephus,” AJS Review 7 – 8 (1983): 41 – 68. Cohen, S. J. D., “Parallel Historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature,” in Proceedings the Ninth World Congress Jewish Studies (Division B; Vol. I: The History of the Jewish People From the Second Temple Period Until the Middle Ages; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 7 – 14. Cohen, S. J. D., The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999). Cohen, G. M., “The ‘Antiochenes in Jerusalem’ – Again,” in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honor of Ben Zion Wacholder, ed. by J. C. Reeves and J. Kampen (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994) 243 – 259. Cohen, G. M., The Hellenistic Settlements in Syria, The Red Sea Basin, and North Africa (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2006). Collins, J. J., The Jewish Sibylline Oracles of Egyptian Judaism (SBL Dissertation Series 13; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1974). Collins, J. J., “The Provenance of the Third Sibylline Oracle,” BIJS 2 (1974): 1 – 18. Collins, J. J., Daniel with and Introduction to Apocalyptic Literature (FOTL XX; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1984). Collins, J. J., “The Origins of the Qumran Community: A Review of the Evidence,” in To Touch the Text; Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, ed. by M. P. Horgan and P. J. Kobelski (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 159 – 178. Collins, J. J., Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1994). Collins, J. J., The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to Jewish Apocalyptic Literature (2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998). Collins, J. J., Between Athens and Jerusalem: Jewish Identity in the Hellenistic Diaspora (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000). Collins, J. J., “Joseph and Aseneth: Jewish or Christian?” JSP 14 (2005): 97 – 112. Collomp, P., “Der Platz des Josephus in der Technik der hellenistischen Geschichtsschreibung,” in Zur Josephus-Forschung, ed. by A. Schalit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973) 278 – 293. Cotton, H. M., “The Date of the Fall of Masada: The Evidence of the Masada Papyri,” ZPE 78 (1989): 157 – 162. Cotton, H. M., and W. Eck, “Josephus’ Roman Audience: Josephus and the Roman Elites,” in Flavius Josephus & Flavian Rome, ed. by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 37 – 52. Cotton, H., and M. Wörrle, “Seleucus IV to Heliodorus – A New Dossier of Royal Correspondence from Israel,” ZPE 159 (2007): 191 – 205. Cowey, J. M. S., “Das ägyptische Judentum in hellenistischer Zeit: neue Erkenntnisse aus jüngst veröffentlichten Papyri,” in Im Brennpunkt – die Septuaginta; Studien zur

II Secondary Literature:

453

Entstehung und Bedeutung der Griechischen Bibel, ed. by S. Kreuzer and J. P. Lesch (3 vols.; Stuttgart: Verlag W. Kohlhammer, 2004) 2:24 – 43. Cowley, A. E., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2005 [repr.]). Cross, F. M., “The Early History of the Qumran Community,” in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. by D. N. Freedman and J. C. Greenfield (Garden City: Doubleday, 1969) 70 – 89. Cross, F. M., “A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration,” JBL 94 (1975): 4 – 18. Crown, A. D., “The Samaritan Diaspora,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi Press / Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 166 – 183 [Hebrew]. Crönert, W., “Oraculum Sibyllinum Fragmentum Osloense,” SO 6 (1928): 57 – 59. Dacy, M., “Is James the Just the Teacher of Righteousness,” AJJS 12 (1998): 6 – 24. Dancy, J. C., A Commentary on I Maccabees (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1954). Davies, P. R., “If the Lord’s Anointed had Lived,” BI 8 (2000): 151 – 160. Davoli, P., “Settlements – Distribution, Structure, Architecture: Graeco-Roman Period,” in A Companion to Ancient Egypt, ed. by A. B. Lloyd (2 vols.; Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010) 1:350 – 369. De Lange, N. R. M., Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in Third-Century Palestine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976). Delcor, M., “Un roman d’amour d’origine thérapeute: Le Livre de Joseph et Asénath,” BLE 63 (1962): 3 – 27. Delcor, M., “Le temple d’Onias en Égypte,” RB 75 (1968): 188 – 205. Delcor, M., “The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Hellenistic Period,” in Cambridge History of Judaism, ed. by W. D. Davis and L. H. Finkelstein (4 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 2: 409 – 503. Delling, G., “Einwirkungen der Sprache der Septuaginta in ’Joseph und Aseneth’,” JSJ 9 (1978): 29 – 56. von Destinon, J., Die Quellen des Flavius Josephus in der Jüd. Arch. Buch XII-XVII – Jüd. Krieg Buch I (Kiel: Lipsius, 1882). DeVaux, R., Archaeology and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973). Devresse, R., “Le Commentaire de Theodore de Mopsueste sur les Psaumes,” RB 37 (1928): 340 – 366. Devresse, R., Essai sur Théodre de Mopsueste (Studi e testi 141; Vatican City: Bibliotheca Apostolica Vaticana, 1948). Diamond, F. H., “Hecataeus of Abdera and the Mosaic Constitution,” in Panhellenica: Essays in Ancient History and Historiography in Honour of Truesdell S. Brown, ed. by S. M. Burstein and L. A. Okin (Lawrence: Coronado, 1980) 77 – 95. Dickson, G., “The Tomb of Nicanor of Alexandria,” PEFQS 35 (1903): 326 – 332. Dietze, G., “Temples and Soldiers in Southern Ptolemaic Egypt: Some Epigraphic Evidence,” in Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World: Proceedings of the International Colloquium, Bertinoro 19 – 24 July 1997, ed. by L. Mooren (Studia Hellenistica 36; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 77 – 89. Dihle, A., “Zur Hellenistischen Ethnographie,” in Grecs et barbares: Six exposés et discussions, ed. by H. Schwabl (et al.) (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité classique 8; Vandoeuvres-Genève: Fondation Hardt, 1962) 205 – 239.

454

Bibliography

Dimant, D., “4QFlorilegium and the Idea of the Community as Temple,” in Hellenica et Judaica: Hommage à Valentin Nikoprowtzky ‫ז”ל‬, ed. by A. Caqout, M. Hadas-Lebel, and J. Riaud (Leuven and Paris: Peeters, 1986) 165 – 189. Ditommaso, L., The Dead Sea New Jerusalem Text: Contents and Context (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005). Doran, R., Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees (The Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 12; Washington, D.C.: The Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981). Douglas, M. C., “The Teacher Hymn Hypothesis Revisited: New Data for an Old Crux,” DSD 6 (1999): 239 – 266. Douglas, R. C., “Liminality and Conversion in Joseph and Aseneth,” JSP 3 (1988): 31 – 42. Downey, G., A History of Antioch in Syria: From Seleucus to the Arab Conquest (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961). Duchesne, L., “Rezension von Batiffol: Priere d’Aseneth,” BC 10 (1889): 461 – 466. Drews, R., “Diodorus and his Sources,” AJP 83 (1962): 383 – 392. Driver, G. R., The Judaean Scrolls: The Problem and a Solution (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1965). Droge, A. J., “Josephus between Greeks and Barbarians,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 115 – 142. du Buisson, R. du Mesnil, “Comte rendu sommaire d’une mission à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” BIFAO 29 (1929): 155 – 178. du Buisson, R. du Mesnil “Le temple d’Onias el le camp d’Hyksôs à Tell el-Yahoudiyé,” BIFAO 35 (1935): 59 – 71. de Ricci, S., “Palaeography – Greek and Latin Inscriptions,” Jewish Encyclopaedia IX (1905): 471 – 475. Eckhardt, B., “Die jüdischen Gesandtschaften an Pompeius (63 v. Chr.) bei Diodor und Josephus,” Klio 92 (2010): 388 – 410. Edgar, C. C., “More Tomb-Stones from Tell el Yahoudieh,” ASAE 22 (1922): 7 – 16. Ego, B., “The Hellenistic Crisis as Reflected by the Animal Apocalypse: Aetiological and Eschatological Aspects,” in Judaism and Crisis: Crisis as a Catalyst in Jewish Cultural History, ed. by A. Lange, K. F. D. Römheld, and M. Weigold (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) 75 – 87. Elior, R., The Three Temples: On the Emergence of Jewish Mysticism (Oxford and Portland: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2004). Emmet, C. W., “The Third Book of Maccabees,” in Apocrypha and Pseudepigraphica, ed. by R. H. Charles (2 vols.; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1913) 1:155 – 173. Endres, J. C., Biblical Interpretation in the Book of Jubilees (Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series 18; Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1987). Eshel, H., “The Development of the Attribution of Sanctity to Mount Gerizim,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press / Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 192 – 209 [Hebrew]. Eshel, H., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2004) [Hebrew]. Eshel, H., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008). Ewald, H. G. A., Geschichte des Volkes Israel3 (7 vols.; Göttingen: Dieterich, 1864 – 1868).

II Secondary Literature:

455

Feldman, L. H., “The Orthodoxy of the Jews in Hellenistic Egypt,” JSoS 22 (1960): 212 – 237. Feldman, L. H., “Flavius Josephus revisited: the Man, his Writings, and his Significance,” in ANRW 21.2 (1984) 763 – 862. Feldman, L. H., “Prophets and Prophecy in Josephus,” JTS 41 (1990): 386 – 422. Feldman, L. H., Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993). Feldman, L. H., “Josephus’ Portrayal of the Hasmoneans Compared with 1 Maccabees,” in Josephus & the History of Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 41 – 68. Feldman, L. H., and J. R. Levison, Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek (Leiden: Brill, 1996). Finkelstein, L., Pharisaism in the Making: Selected Essays (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1972) = L. Finkelstein, “Pre-Maccabean Documents in the Passover Haggadah,” HTR 35 (1942): 291 – 332. Fikhman, I. F., “L’état des travaux au ‘Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum IV’,” in Akten des 21. internationalen Papyrologenkongresses, Berlin, 13.-19. 8. 1995, ed. by B. Kramer (et al.) (ABF Beiheft 3; Stuttgart and Leipzig: Teubner, 1997) 290 – 297. Fischer-Bovet, Ch.. “Army and Egyptian Temple Building under the Ptolemies,” (2007): 1 – 20 in: http://www.princeton.edu/~pswpc/pdfs/fischer-bovet/ 100702 .pdf. Fischer, U., Eschatologie und Jenseitserwartung im hellenistischen Diasporajudentum (BZNW 44; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1978). Fox, R. G., Urban Anthropology: Cities in their Cultural Settings (Prentice-Hall: Englewood Cliffs, 1977). Fraade, S. D., “To Whom It May Concern: 4QMMT and Its Addressee(s),” RQ 19 (2000): 507 – 526. Frankfurter, D., “Lest Egypt’s Cities be Deserted: Religion and Ideology in the Egyptian Response to the Jewish Revolt (116 – 117 CE),” JJS 43 (1992): 203 – 220. Fraser, P. M., Ptolemaic Alexandria (3 vols; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). Freedman, D. N., and J. C. Geoghegan, “Another Stab at the Wicked Priest,” in The Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls; the Second Princeton Symposium on Judaism and Christian Origins: Vol. II.: The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Qumran Community, ed. by J. H. Charlesworth (3 vols.; Waco: Baylor University Press, 2006) 2:17 – 24. Frey, J., “Temple and Rival Temple – The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substiuierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kultes im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 171 – 203. Friedman, D. N. (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dictionary (6 vols.; Yale University Press, 1992). Friedman, Sh., “Historical Aggadah in the Babylonian Talmud,” in Saul Lieberman Memorial Volume, ed. by Sh. Friedman (New York and Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1993) 1 – 46 [Hebrew]. Fuchs, L., Die Juden Ägyptens in ptolemäischer und römischer Zeit (Wien: M. Rath Verlag, 1924). Fuks, A., “The Jewish Revolt in Egypt (A.D. 115 – 117) in Light of the Papyri,” Aegyptus 33 (1953): 131 – 158. Fuks, A., “Aspects of the Jewish Revolt in AD 115 – 117,” JRS 51 (1961): 98 – 104.

456

Bibliography

Fuks, G., “Josephus’ Tobiads Again: A Cautionary Note,” JJS 52 (2001): 354 – 356. Gabba, E., Iscrizioni greche e latine per lo studio della Bibbia, no. XI, (Sintesi dell’Oriente e della Bibbia; Monografie dirette da Giovanni Rinaldi, 3; Torino: Marietti, 1958). Gafni, I., “Josephus and 1 Maccabees,” in Josephus, the Bible and History, ed. by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Leiden: Brill, 1989) 116 – 131. Gafni, I., Land, Center and Diaspora: Jewish Constructs in Late Antiquity (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1997). Gager, J. G., “Pseudo-Hecataeus Again,” ZNTW 60 (1969): 130 – 139. Gager, J. G., Moses in Greco-Roman Paganism (SBL Monograph Series 16; Atlanta: SBL 1989). García Martínez, F., “Priestly Functions in a Community without Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Temple/Community Without Temple, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 303 – 322. Gardner, A. E., “III Maccabees – A Reflection on the Maccabean Crisis,” in Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 9 (Division B, 1; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1986) 1 – 6. Gardner, G., “Jewish Leadership and Hellenistic Civic Benefaction in the Second Century B.C.E.,” JBL 126 (2007): 327 – 343. Gärtner, B., The Temple and the Community in Qumran and the New Testament: A Comparative Study in the Temple Symbolism of the Qumran Texts and the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005). Geller, M. J., “Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisee Rift,” JJS 30 (1979): 202 – 211. Gera, D., Judaea and Mediterranean Politics 219 to 161 BCE (Leiden: Brill, 1998). Gera, D., “On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads (Josephus, “Antiquities” 12, 156 – 222, 228 – 236),” in Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays, ed. by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi; Israel Exploration Society, 1990) 21 – 38. Gera, D., “Olympiodorus, Heliodorus and the Temples of Koilê Syria and Phoinikê,” ZPE 167 (2009): 125 – 155. Gera, D., “Onias III and the Legitimacy of Judas Maccabaeus,” in XIV Congress of the IOSCS, Helsinki, 2010, ed. by M. K. H. Peters (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2010) 105 – 126. Gerber, Chr., Ein Bild des Judentums für Nichtjuden von Flavius Josephus: Untersuchungen zu seiner Schrift Contra Apionem (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Ginsberg, M. S., “Sparta and Judaea,” CP 29 (1934): 117 – 122. Glessmer, U., “Explizite Aussagen über kalendarische Konflikte im Jubliäenbuch: Jub 6,22 – 32.33 – 28,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 127 – 164. Glucker, Y., and Z. Rubin, “Incorrect Textual Corrections,” in A Collection of Papers and Studies in Torah and Jewish Studies in Memory of Rabbi Moshe Chaim Halevi Katzenellenbogen z“l, ed. by Rabbi Y. E. Halevi Movshovitz (Sinai 126 – 127; Jerusalem: HaRav Kuk Press, 2001) 354 – 365 [Hebrew]. Gmirkin, R. E., Berossus and Genesis, Manetho and Exodus. Hellenistic Histories and the Date of the Pentateuch (New York / London: T & T Clark, 2006). Goldstein, J. A., “The Tale of the Tobiads,” in Christianity, Judaism, and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at Sixty, ed. by J. Neusner (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 3:85 – 123.

II Secondary Literature:

457

Goldstein, J. A., I Maccabees (Anchor Bible 41; New York: Doubleday, 1976). Goldstein, J. A., II Maccabees (Anchor Bible 42; Garden City: Doubleday, 1983). Goldstein-Cohen, N., “The Theological Stratum of the Martha b. Boethus Tradition: An Explication of the Text in Gittin 56a,” HTR 69 (1976): 187 – 195. Goodblatt, D., “Towards the Rehabilitation of Talmudic History,” in History of Judaism: The Next Ten Years, ed. by B. M. Bokser (Brown Judaic Studies 21; Chico: Scholars Press, 1981) 31 – 44. Goodblatt, D., The Monarchic Principle (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Goodman, M., “Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period,” in The Oxford Handbook of Jewish Studies, ed. by M. Goodman, J. Cohen, and D. Sorkin (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 36 – 52. Goodman, M., “Trajan and the Origins of Roman Hostility to the Jews,” Past and Present 182 (2004): 3 – 29. Goodman, M., “Religious Reactions to 70: The Limitations of the Evidence,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple, ed. by D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 509 – 516. Gorre, G., Les relations du clergé égyptien et des Lagides d’après les sources privées (Studia Hellenistica 45; Leuven Peeters, 2008). Gottlieb, F., “Why the Figure of Ḥoni the Circle-Drawer in Jewish Legend Resembles that of Moshe our Teacher,” EJ 15 (1981): 25 – 29. Grabbe, L. L., Judaism from Cyrus to Hadrian (2 vols.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992). Grabbe, L. L., “Hecataeus of Abdera and the Jewish Law: The Question of Authenticity,” in Berührungspunkte: Studien zur Sozial- und Religionsgeschichte Israels und seiner Umwelt: Festschrift für Rainer Albertz zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, ed. by I. Kottsieper, R. Schmitt, and J. Wöhrle (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2008) 613 – 626. Grabbe, L. L., A History of the Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple Period (4 vols.; London and New York: T & T Clark, 2008). Graetz, H., “Das Korbfest der Erstlinge bei Philo,” MGWJ 26 (1877): 433 – 461. Graetz, H., Volkstümliche Geschichte der Juden 2 (3 vols.; Leipzig: Verlag Oskar Reiner, 1914). Gray, G. B., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Isaiah I-XXXIX (2 vols.; The International Critical Commentary; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912). Green, W. S., “Palestinian Holy Men: Charismatic Leadership and Rabbinic Tradition,” ANRW 2.19.2 (Berlin, 1979): 628 – 647. Gruen, E. S., “The Origins and Objectives of Onias’ Temple,” SCI 16 (1997): 47 – 70. Gruen, E. S., Heritage and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). Gruen, E. S., “The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story,” JH 12 (1998): 93 – 122. Gruen, E. S., “The Third Sibyllene Oracle,” in Jews in a Greaeco-Roman World, ed. by M. Goodman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998) 15 – 36. Gruen, E. S., Diaspora: Jews amidst Greeks and Romans (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2002). Gruen, E. S., “Hellenistic Judaism,” in Cultures of the Jews: Vol. 1: Mediterranean Origins, ed. by D. Biale (3 vols.; New York: Schocken, 2002) 77 – 132. Gronewald, M., (et al.), Kölner Papyri, Vol. 12 (Papyrologica Coloniensia VII.12; Paderborn, München, Wien, and Zürich: Verlag Ferdinand Schöningh, 2010).

458

Bibliography

Gronewald, M., (et al.),”P. Macquarie, inv. 586 (1), ein neues Fragment zu P.Köln XII 467: Sibyllinische Orakel,” ZPE 177 (2011): 57 – 62. Gschnitzer, F., “Politarches,” PWRE Suppl. 13 (1973): 483 – 500. Gussmann, O., “Die Bedeutung der hohepriesterlisten Genealogie und Sukzession nach Josephus A 20:224 – 251,” in Internationales Josephus-Kolloquium Dortmund 2002: Arbeiten aus dem Institutum Judaisum Delitzschianum, ed. by J. U. Kalms and F. Siegert (Münsteraner Judaistische Studien 14; Münster/Hamburg/London: Lit Verlag, 2003) 119 – 131. Guttman, Y., The Beginnings of Jewish-Hellenistic Literature: Judaism and Hellenism Before the Hasmonean Period (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1958 – 63) [Hebrew]. Habicht, Chr., 2. Makkabäerbuch, in Jüdische Schriften aus hellenistisch-römischer Zeit, ed. by H. Lichtenberger (JSHRZ; 6 vols.; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976). Hacham, N., 3 Maccabees: Literature, History, and Ideology (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2002) [Hebrew]. Hacham, N., “Exile and Self-Identity in the Qumran Sect and in Hellenistic Judaism,” in New Perspectives on Old Texts: Proceedings of the Tenth International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated Literature, 9 – 11 January, 2005, ed. by E. G. Chazon, B. Halpern-Amaru, in collaboration with R. A. Clements (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 3 – 21. Hacham, N., “Sanctity and the Attitude towards the Temple in Hellenistic Judaism,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple, ed. by D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 155 – 179. Hacham, N., “”Joseph and Aseneth”: Loyalty, Traitors, Antiquity and Diasporan Identity,” JSP 22 (2012): 53 – 67. Hacham, N., “The High Priesthood and Onias’ Temple: The Historical Meaning of a Rabbinic Story,” Zion 78 (2013): 439 – 469 [Hebrew]. Hacham, N., “The Anti-Judaism of the Alexandrian Court and the Oniad’s Creative Surge: What Can We Know about the Oniads’ Literature?” in La mémoire des persecutions: autour des livres des Maccabées, ed. by M.-F. Baslez and O. Munnich (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2014) 107 – 119. (= N. Hacham, “Oniad Literature: On the Cultural Influence of the Oniad Settlement,” in Between Babylonia and the Land of Israel: Studies in Honor of Isaiah M. Gafni, ed. by G. Herman, M. Ben-Shahar and A. Oppenheimer [Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 2016] 131 – 146 [Hebrew]). Hadas, M., “Aristeas and III Maccabees,” HTR 42 (1949): 175 – 184. Hadas, M., The Third and Fourth Books of Maccabees (New York: Harper, 1953). Halperin, D. J., The Faces of the Chariot: Early Jewish Responses to Ezekiel’s Vision (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988). Harlow, M., and R. Lawrence, Growing Up and Growing Old in Ancient Rome: A Life Course Approach (New York and London: Routledge, 2002). Hata, G., “Imagining Some Dark Periods in Josephus’ Life,” in Josephus & the History of Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 309 – 328. Hata, G., “Where is the Temple Site of Onias IV in Egypt?” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 177 – 191. Hayward, R., “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration,” JJS 33 (1982): 429 – 443.

II Secondary Literature:

459

Heinemann, I., “Wer veranlaßte den Glaubenszwang der Makkabäerzeit?” MGWJ 82 (1938): 145 – 172. Heinen, H., “Bóethus, fondateur de poleis en Égypte Ptolémaïque,” in Politics, Administration and Society in the Hellenistic and Roman World: Proceedings of the International Colloqium, Bertinero 19 – 24 July 1997, ed. by L. Mooren (Studia Hellenistica 36; Leuven: Peeters, 2000) 123 – 154. Helm, I., “Cult Centralization as a Device of Cult Control?” SJOT 13 (2008): 298 – 309. Hempel, Ch., “The Sons of Aaron in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Flores Florentino; Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez, ed. by A. Hilhorst, É. Puech, and E. Tigchelaar (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 207 – 224. Hengel, M., “Proseuche und Synagoge: Jüdische Gemeinde, Gotteshaus und Gottesdienst in der Diaspora und in Palästina,” in Tradition und Glaube: das frühe Christentum in seiner Umwelt: Festgabe für Karl Georg Kuhn zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by G. Jeremias (et al.) (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971) 157 – 184. Hengel, M., Juden, Griechen und Barbaren: Aspekte der Hellenisierung des Judentums in vorchristlicher Zeit (Bibel-Studien 76; Stuttgart: KBW Verlag, 1976). Hengel, M., Judentum und Hellenismus 3 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988). Hengel, M., “Messianische Hoffnungen und politischer ‘Radikalsimus’ in der jüdisch-hellenistischen Diaspora: Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdischen Aufstandes unter Trajan 115 – 117 n. Chr.,” in Apocalypticism in the Ancient Mediterranean World and the Near East; Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala August 12 – 17, 1979, ed. by D. Hellholm (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 655 – 683. Hempel, C., “Do the Scrolls Suggest a Rivalry between the Sons of Aaron and the Sons of Zadok and if so Was it Mutual?” RQ 24 (2009): 135 – 153. Herr, M. D., “The Conception of History among the Sages,” in Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 6 (3 vols.; Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1977) 3:129 – 142 [Hebrew]. Herzfeld, L., Geschichte des Volkes Israel: Von der Zerstörung des ersten Tempels bis zur Einsetzung des Makabäers Schimon zum Hohen Priester und Fürsten (Leipzig: Oskar Reiner, 1869 – 70). Hezser, C., “Joseph and Aseneth in the Context of Ancient Greek Erotic Novels,” FJB 24 (1997): 1 – 40. Hezser, C., Jewish Literacy in Roman Palestine (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001). Hibbard, T., “Isaiah 19:18: A Textual Variant In Light of the Temple of Onias,” in Concerning the Nations; Essays on the Oracles Against the Nations in Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel, ed. by E. K. Holt, H. Chul Paul Kim and A. Mein (London: Bloomsbury, 2015) 32 – 52. Hill, R. C., Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on Psalms 1 – 81 (Atlanta: SBL, 2006). Himmelfarb, M., “Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees,” Poetics Today 19 (1998): 19 – 40. Hirsch, S. A., “The Temple of Onias,” in Jews’ College Jubilee Volume, ed. by S. J. Solomon and F. Emanuel (London: Luzac & Co., 1906) 39 – 80. Hirschfeld, Y., Qumran in Context: Reassessing the Archaeological Evidence (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004). Holladay, C. R., Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors, Vol. I: Historians (Chico: Scholars Press, 1983).

460

Bibliography

Hollander, W. den, Josephus, the Emperors, and the City of Rome: From Hostage to Historian (Leiden: Brill, 2014). Holtz, T., “Christliche Interpolationen in ‘Joseph und Aseneth’,” NTS 14 (1968): 482 – 497. Hölbl, G., Geschichte des Ptolemäerreiches: Politik, Ideologie und religiöse Kultur von Alexander dem Großen bis zur römischen Eroberung (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 2004). Hölscher, G., Die Quellen des Josephus für die Zeit vom Exil bis zum jüdischen Kriege (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904). Hölscher, G.,”Flavius Josephus,” PWRE 9, 2 (1916): 1934 – 2000. Hölscher, G., Die Hohenpriesterliste bei Josephus und die evangelische Chronologie (Sitzungsberichte der Heidelberger Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-historische Klasse; Bericht 3; Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag Carl Winter, 1939/40). Honigman, S., “The Birth of a Diaspora: The Emergence of a Jewish Self-Definition in Ptolemaic Egypt in the Light of Onomastics,” in Diasporas in Antiquity, ed. by S. J. D. Cohen and E. S. Frerichs (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993) 93 – 127. Honigman, S., “The Jewish Politeuma at Heracleopolis,” SCI 21 (2002): 251 – 266. Honigman, S., “Politeumata and Ethnicity in Ptolemaic and Roman Egypt,” AS 33 (2003): 61 – 102. Honigman, S., “Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt: Diverging Responses to a Varying Socio-Cultural Environment,” in Jewish Identities in Antiquity: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern, ed. by L. I. Levine and D. R. Schwartz (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 117 – 135. Honigman, S., Tales of High Priests and Taxes: The Books of the Maccabees and the Judean Rebellion against Antiochus IV (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2014). Horbury, W., “The Beginnings of the Jewish Revolt under Trajan,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion; Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H. Cancik and P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 1:283 – 304. Horsley, G. H. R., “Politarchs,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D. N. Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 5:384 – 389. Horsley, G. H. R., “Towards a new Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum?” JSQ 2 (1995): 77 – 101. Hubbard, M., “Honey for Aseneth: Interpreting a Religious Symbol,” JSP 16 (1997): 97 – 110. Humphrey, E. M., The Ladies and the Cities: Transformation and Apocalyptic Identity in Joseph and Aseneth, 4 Ezra, The Apocalypse and the Shepherd of Hermes (JSPsup 17; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995). Humphrey, E. M., Joseph and Aseneth (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000). Hunt, A., Missing Priests: The Zadokites in Tradition and History (New York and London: T & T Clark, 2006). Ilan, T., “The Names of the Hasmoneans during the Second Temple Period,” Eretz Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies: M. Avi-Yonah Memorial Volume, ed. by D. Barag, G. Foerster, and A. Negev (vol. 19; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1987) 238 – 241 [Hebrew]. Ilan, T., “New Ossuary Inscriptions from Jerusalem,” SCI 11 (1991/92): 149 – 159. Ilan, T., “The Alkadema Tombs,” in The Alkadema Tombs: Three Burial Caves in the Kidron Valley, ed. by G. Avni and Z. Greenhut (IAA Reports 1; Jerusalem: Israeli Antiquities Authority, 1996) 57 – 62.

II Secondary Literature:

461

Ilan, T., Lexicon of Jewish Names in Late Antiquity: Part I, Palestine 330 BCE-200 CE (4 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002). Ilan, T., “The New Jewish Inscriptions from Hierapolis and the Question of Jewish Diaspora Cemeteries,” SCI 25 (2006): 71 – 86. Ilan, T., A Lexicon of Jewish Names in Antiquity: Part III: The Western Diaspora 330 BCE-650 CE (4 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Ilan, T., “’Kever Israel:’ Since When Do Jews Bury Their Dead Separately and What Did They Do Beforehand?” in Halakhah in Light of Epigraphy, ed. by A. I. Baumgarten, H. Eshel, R. Katzoff, and Sh. Tzoref (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011) 241 – 254. Ilan, T., “The House of Onias,” in Josephus and the Rabbis, ed. by T. Ilan and V. Noam (2 vols.; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2017) 197 – 230 [Hebrew]. Irshai, O., “The Role of the Priesthood in the Jewish Community in Late Antiquity,” in Jüdische Gemeinden und ihr christlicher Kontext in kulturräumlich vergleichender Betrachtung, von der Spätantike bis zum 18. Jahrhundert, ed. by Ch. Cluse, A. Haverkamp, and I. Yuval (Hannover: Hahn, 2003) 75 – 85. Isaac, B. H., The Invention of Racism in Classical Antiquity (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2004). Jacoby, F., “Hekataios von Abdera,” PWRE 7 (1912): 2750 – 2769. Jaeger, W. W., Diokles von Karystos: Die griechische Medizin und die Schule des Aristoteles (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1938). Jastrow, M., A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature (London: Luzac & Co., 1903). Jaubert, A., “Le calendrier des Jubilés et de la secte de Qumrân: Ses origines bibliques,” VT 3 (1953): 250 – 264. Jaubert, A., “Le calendrier des Jubilés et les jours liturgiques de la semaine,” VT 7 (1957): 35 – 61. Johnson, S. R., Historical Fictions and Hellenistic Jewish Identity: Third Maccabees in its Cultural Context (Berkeley: University Press of California, 2004). Kahrstedt, U., Syrische Territorien in hellenistischer Zeit (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1926). Kalmin, R., “Jewish Sources of the Second Temple Period in Rabbinic Compilations of Late Antiquity,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. by P. Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002) 17 – 53. Kalmin, R., Jewish Babylonia between Persia and Roman Palestine (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006). Kaplan, J., “‘I, Justus, lie here:’ The Discovery of Beth Shearim,” BA 40 (1977): 167 – 172. Kasher, A., “First Jewish Military Units in Ptolemaic Egypt,” JSJ 9 (1978): 57 – 67. Kasher, A., “Jerusalem as ‘Metropolis’ in Philo’s National Consciousness,” Cathedra 11 (1979): 45 – 56 [Hebrew]. Kasher, A., The Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: The Struggle for Equal Rights (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985). Kasher, A., “Synagogues as ‘Houses of Prayer’ and ‘Holy Places’ in the Jewish Communities of Hellenistic Egypt,” in Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery, ed. by D. Urman and P. V. M. Flesher (Leiden: Brill, 1995) 205 – 220. Kasher, A., “Polemic and Apologetic Methods of Writing in Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the

462

Bibliography

Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 143 – 186. Kasher, A., Flavius Josephus: Against Apion: Translation from the Original and Commentary (2 vols; Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center, 1996) [Hebrew]. Kasher, A., “Hecataeus of Abdera on Mosollamus the Jewish Mounted Archer (“Contra Apionem”, I, 200 – 204),” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by H. Cancik, H. Lichtenberger, and P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 1:147 – 158. Kasher, A., “Samaritans in Hellenistic Egypt,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press / Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 153 – 165 [Hebrew]. Kasher, A., “Further Revised Thoughts on Josephus’ Report of Alexander’s Campaign to Palestine (Ant. 11.304 – 347),” in Judah between East and West; the Transition from Persian to Greek Rule (ca. 400 – 200 BCE), ed. by L. L. Grabbe and O. Lipschits (London: T & T Clark, 2011) 131 – 157. Katzoff, R., “Jonathan and Late Sparta,” AJP 106 (1985): 485 – 489. Kaufman, D. J., “The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Oniad High Priesthood,” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 51 – 63. Kaufman, D. J., From Tennes to Leontopolis: A Political and Literary-Historical Study of the High Priesthood in Hellenistic Palestine (350 – 159 BCE),” Qumran Chronicle 7 (1997): 117 – 122. Kee, H. C., “The Socio-Cultural Setting of Joseph and Aseneth,” NTS 29 (1983): 394 – 413. Keil, V., “Onias III. – Märtyrer Oder Tempelgründer?” ZAW 97 (1985): 221 – 232. K. Kessler, “Koile-Syrien,” in Der Neue Pauly. Enzyklopädie der Antike, Vol. 6, ed. H. Cancik and H. Schneider (Stuttgart/Weimar: Metzler, 1999) cols., 630 – 631. Kilpatrick, G. D., “Living Issues in Biblical Scholarship: The Last Supper,” ET 64 (1952 – 53): 4 – 8. Kim, K., Theology and Identity of the Egyptian Jewish Diaspora in Septuagint of Isaiah (Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Oxford, 2009). Kingsley Barrett, Ch., “Paulus als Missionar und Theologe,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. by A. v. Schlatter, M. Hengel, and U. Heckel (WUNT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991) 1 – 15. Knohl, I., The Sanctuary of Silence: The Priestly Torah and the Holiness School (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007). Knoblet, J., Herod the Great (Lanham: University Press of America, 2005). Koch, K., Das Buch Daniel (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1980). Kohler, K., “Asenath, Life and Confession, Prayer of,” Jewish Encyclopaedia II (1902): 172 – 176. Kokkinos, N., “Second Thoughts on the Date and Identity of the Teacher of Righteousness,” SJC 2 (2004): 7 – 15. W. Kornfeld, “Jüdisch-aramäische Grabinschriften aus Edfu,” AÖAW 110 (1973): 123 – 137. Kraeling, C. H., “The Jewish Community at Antioch,” JBL 51 (1932): 130 – 160. Kraemer, R. S., When Aseneth Met Joseph: A Late Antique Tale of the Biblical Patriarch and His Egyptian Wife, Reconsidered (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998). Krause, A. R., “Diaspora Synagogues, Leontopolis, and the Other Jewish Temples of Egypt in the Histories of Josephus,” JAH 4 (2016): 88 – 112.

II Secondary Literature:

463

Krauss, S., “Leontopolis,” Jewish Encyclopedia XIII (New York: Funk and Wagnalls, 1906): 7 – 8. Krieger, K.-S., Geschichtsschreibung als Apologetik bei Flavius Josephus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994). Kugler R. A., “A Note on 1QS 9:14: The Sons of Righteousness or the Sons of Zadok?” DSD 3 (1996): 315 – 320. Kushnir-Stein, A., “Josephus’ Description of Paneion,” SCI 26 (2007): 87 – 90. Labendz, J. R., “The Temple of Onias in Tannaitic Literature,” (Unpublished Manuscript, 2003): 1 – 10. Landau, T., Out-Heroding Herod: Josephus, Rhetoric and the Herod Narratives (Leiden: Brill, 2006). Lange, A., “2 Maccabees 2:13 – 15: Library or Canon?” in The Books of the Maccabees: History, Theology, Ideology: Papers of the Second International Conference on the Deuteronomical Books, Pápa, Hungary, 9 – 11 June, 2005, ed. by G. G. Xeravits and J. Zsengellér (JSJSup 118; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 155 – 167. Laqueur, R., Der jüdische Historiker Flavius Josephus: Ein biographischer Versuch auf neuer quellenkritischer Grundlage (Gießen: Münchow’sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1920). Last, R., “Onias IV and the άδέσποτος ίερός: Placing “Antiquities” 13.62 – 73 into the Context of Ptolemaic Land Tenure,” JSJ 41 (2010): 494 – 516. Launey, M., Recherches sur les armées hellénistiques (BEFAR 169; 2 vols.; Paris: E. de Boccard, 1949 – 50). Leon, H. J., The Jews of Ancient Rome (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960). Leoni, T., “‘Against Caesar’s Wishes:’ Flavius Josephus as a Source for the Burning of the Temple,” JJS 58 (2007): 39 – 51. Leonhardt-Balzer, J., “Jewish Worship and Universal Identity in Philo of Alexandria,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World, ed. by J. Frey, D. R. Schwartz, and S. Gripentrog (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 29 – 53. Lesquier, J., Les Institutions militaries de l’Égypte sous les Lagides (Paris: Leroux, 1911). Levick, B., Vespasian (London: Routledge, 1999). Levine, L. I., “Josephus’ Description of the Jerusalem Temple: ”War”, “Antiquities”, and Other Sources,” in Josephus & the History of Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 233 – 246. Levine, L. I., Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998). Levine, L. I., The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000). Levine, L. I., Jerusalem: Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period (538 B.C.E. – 70 C.E.) (Philadelphia: JPS, 2002). Levinskaya, I. A., “A Jewish or Gentile Prayer House? The meaning of ‘Proseuche’,” TB 41 (1990): 154 – 155. Levison, J. R., and J. R. Wagner, “The Character and Context of Josephus’ Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 1 – 48. Lewy, H., “Hekataios von Abdera Περί Ιουδαίων,” ZNTW 31 (1932): 117 – 132.

464

Bibliography

Licht, Y., The Rule Scroll – A Scroll from the Wilderness of Judaea – 1QS, 1Qsa, 1QSb: Text, Introduction and Commentary (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1965) [Hebrew]. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G., Antioch: City and Imperial Administration in the Later Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972). Lietzmann, D., “Jüdisch-griechische Inschriften aus Tell el Yahudieh,” ZNTW 22 (1923): 280 – 286. Liver, J., “The ‘Sons of Zadok the Priest’ in the Dead Sea Sect,” RQ 6 (1967): 3 – 30. Lönnqvist, M. and K., Archaeology of the Hidden Qumran: A New Paradigm (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 2002). Luria, B.-Z., “Who is Ḥonio?” Beit HaMikrah 12 (1967): 65 – 81 [Hebrew]. Lewis, H. T., “Tel-el-Yahoudeh,” TSBA 7 (1882): 177 – 192. Magen, Y., Mount Gerizim Excavations. Volume II: A Temple City (JSP 8; Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority, 2008). Maier, J., “Grundlage und Anwendung des Verbots der Rückkehr nach Ägypten,” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum: Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (BZNW 97; Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 225 – 244. Maier, J., “Der Lehrer der Gerechtigkeit,” in Interesse am Judentum; die Franz-Delitzsch-Vorlesungen 1989 – 2008, ed. by J. C. de Vos and F. Siegert (Münster: LIT, 2008) 72 – 103. Magness, J., The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002). Main, E., Les Sadducéens et l’Origine des Partis Juif de la Période du Second Temple (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 2004). Málek, J., The Cat in Ancient Egypt (London: The British Museum Press, 1993). Massebieau, L., “Reseña de la edición de Batiffol,” ABT 11 (1889): 161 – 172. Mason, S., Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees (Leiden: Brill, 1991). Mason, S., “Philosophiai: Greco-Roman, Judean, and Christian,” in Voluntary Associations in the Ancient Mediterranean World, ed. by J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson (London: Routledge, 1996) 31 – 58. Mason, S., “Introduction,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. by S. Mason (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 11 – 18. Mason, S., “‘Should Any Wish to Enquire Further’ (Ant. 1.25): The Aim and Audience of Josephus’s Judean Antiquities/Life,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. by S. Mason (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 64 – 103. Mason, S., “Introduction to the Judean Antiquities,” in L.H. Feldman, Flavius Josephus: Judean Antiquities 1 – 4, Translation and Commentary, Vol. III, ed. S. Mason. (BJP 3; Leiden: Brill, 2000) ix-xxxvi. Mason, S., Life of Josephus: Translation and Commentary (Leiden: Brill, 2001). Mason, S., “Contradiction or Counterpoint? Josephus and Historical Method,” RRJ 6 (2003): 145 – 188. Mason, S., “Essenes and Lurking Spartans in Josephus’ “Judean War”: From Story to History,” in Making History: Josephus and Historical Method, ed. by Z. Rodgers (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 219 – 261.

II Secondary Literature:

465

Mason, S., “Structures and Aims of Josephus’ Judaean War,” in Early Christianity in Context: Studies in Religion, Culture, and Literature, ed. by E.-M. Becker and A. Klostegaard Petersen (Numen Supplement Series; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 1 – 35. Mayer, E., Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine: Dokumente einer jüdischen Gemeinde aus der Perserzeit und das älteste erhaltene Buch der Weisheitsliteratur (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1912). McEleney, N. J., “Conversion Circumcision and the Law,” NTS (1974): 319 – 341. Meeks, W. A., and R. L. Wilken, Jews and Christians in Antioch in the First Four Centuries of the Common Era (SBL 13; Missoula, 1978). Mélèze-Modrzejewski, J., The Jews of Egypt: From Ramses II to Emperor Hadrian (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997). Mendels, D., “Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish ‹patrios politeia› of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3),” ZAW 95 (1983): 96 – 110. Mendels, D., The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature: Recourse to History in Second Century B.C. Claims to the Holy Land (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1987). Metso, S., The Textual Development of the Qumran Community Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1997). Meyer, Ed., Ursprung und Anfänge des Christentums: Die Entwicklung des Judentums und Jesus von Nazaret (3 vols.; Stuttgart und Berlin: J. G. Gotta’sche Buchhandlung Nachfolger, 1921). Mildenberg, L., “Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of Judaea,” in Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson, ed. by O. Mørkholm and N. M. Waggoner (Wetteren: NR, 1979) 183 – 196. Milik, J. T., (with M. Black), The Books of Enoch: Aramaic Fragments of Qumran Cave 4 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976). Mittag, P. F., Antiochus IV Epiphanes: Eine politische Biographie (Klio. Beiträge zur Alten Geschichte Beiheft 11; Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2006). Moehring, H. R., “Joseph Ben Matthia and Flavius Josephus: the Jewish Prophet and Roman Historian,” ANRW 2.21.2 (1984): 864 – 944. Momigliano, A., Prime line di storia della tradizione maccabaica (Roma: Società Editore del Foro Italiano, 1930). Momigliano, A., “Un documento della spiritualità dei Guidei Leontopolitani,” Aegyptus 12 (1932): 171 – 172. Momigliano, A., “Flavius Josephus and Alexanders’ Visit to Jerusalem,” Athenaeum 67 (1979): 442 – 448. Montgomery, J. A., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Daniel (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1927). Moore, C. A., Judith: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Bible 40; Garden City: Doubleday, 1985). Mor, M., “The Samaritans in the Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period,” in The Samaritans, ed. by A. D. Crown (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 1 – 18. Mørkholm, O., Antiochus IV of Syria (Classica et Mediaevalia Dissertationes VIII; Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1966). Motzo, B. R., Saggi di storia e letteratura Guideo-Ellenistica (Florence: Felice Le Monnier Editore, 1924). Moyer, I. S., “Court, Chora, and Culture in Late Ptolemaic Egypt,” AJP 132 (2011): 15 – 44. Murphy-O’Connor, J., “The Essenes in Palestine,” BA 40 (1977): 100 – 124.

466

Bibliography

Murphy-O’Connor, J., “Judah the Essene and the Teacher of Righteousness,” RQ 10 (1981): 579 – 586. Murray O., and M. Stern, “Hecataeus of Abdera and Theophrastus on Jews and Egyptians,” JEA 59 (1973): 159 – 168. Murray, O., “Aristeas and Ptolemaic Kingship,” JTS 18 (1967): 337 – 371. Müller, K. E., Geschichte der antiken Ethnographie und ethnologischen Theoriebildung: Von den Anfängen bis auf die byzantinischen Historiographen (2 vols.; Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1972 – 1980). Naville, H. E., and F. Griffith, The Mound of the Jew and the City of Onias (London: Egypt Exploration Fund, 1890). Naville, H. E., Bubastis (1887 – 1889) (London: Egypt Exploration Society, 1891). Netzer, E., The Architecture of Herod the Great, The Great Builder (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006). Neusner, J., Beyond Historicism, after Structuralism: Story as History in Ancient Judaism (The 1980 Harry Spindel Memorial Lecture, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, Oct. 5, 1980; Portland: Anthoensen Press, 1980). Newman, J. H., “Priestly Prophets at Qumran: Summoning Sinai through the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice,” in The Significance of Sinai: Traditions about Sinai and Divine Revelation in Judaism and Christianity, ed. by G. J. Brooke, H. Najman, and L. T. Stuckenbruck (Leiden: Brill, 2008) 29 – 72. Nickelsburg, G. W. E., and J. C. VanderKam, 1 Enoch: A New Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004). Nickelsburg, G. W. E., Jewish Literature between the Bible and the Mishnah: A Historical and Literary Introduction (2nd ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005). Niese, B., Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen Staaten seit der Schlacht bei Chaeronea (3 vols.; Gotha: Friedrich Andreas Perthes A.G., 1893 – 1903). Niese, B., Kritik der beiden Makkabäerbücher: Nebst Beiträgen zur Geschichte der makkabäischen Erhebung (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1900). Nolland, J., “Uncircumcised Proselytes?” JSJ 12 (1981): 173 – 194. Noy, D., “The Jewish Communities of Leontopolis and Venosa,” in Studies in Early Jewish Epigraphy, ed. by J. W. van Henten and P. W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 162 – 182. Noy, D., A. Panayotov, and H. Bloedhorn, Inscriptiones Judaicae Orientis: Syria and Cyprus (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004). Otto, W., Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers: Ein Beitrag zur Politik und zum Staatsrecht des Hellenismus (ABAW N. F. 11; München: Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1934). Park, J. S., Conceptions of Afterlife in Jewish Inscriptions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000). Parker, V. L., “Historische Studien zu den Hohen Priestern der frühen Makkabäerzeit,” ZDPV 124 (2008): 143 – 170. Paul, A., “Le troisième livres de Macchabées,” ANRW II.20.1 (1987): 298 – 336. Parente, F., “The Third Book of Maccabees as Ideological Document and Historical Source,” Enoch 10 (1988): 143 – 182. Parente, F., “Onias III’s Death and the Founding of the Temple of Leontopolis,” in Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period: Essays in Memory of Morton Smith, ed. by F. Parente and J. Sievers (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 69 – 98.

II Secondary Literature:

467

Parente, F., “Le témoignage de Theodore de Mopsueste sur le mort d’Onias III et la fondation du temple de Leontopolis,” REJ 154 (1995): 429 – 436. Patrich, J., “The pre-Herodian Temple II: The Building Project of Simeon the Just on the Temple Mount,” RB 118 (2011): 558 – 574. Patrich, J., “583 BCE – 70 CE: The Temple (“Beyt ha-Miqdash”) and its Mount,” in Where Heaven and Earth Meet: Jerusalem’s Sacred Esplanade, ed. by O. Grabar and B. Z. Kedar (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2009) 36 – 71; 387 – 390. Pearce, S., “Jerusalem as ‘Mother-City’ in the writings of Philo of Alexandria,” in Negotiating Diaspora: Jewish Strategies in the Roman Empire, ed. by J. M. G. Barclay (London and New York: T. & T. Clark, 2004) 19 – 37. Pelletier, A., Flavius Josèphe adapteur de la lettre d’Aristée: Une reaction atticisante conre la Koinè (Études et Commentaire XLV; Paris: Klincksieck, 1962). Penn, M., “Identity Transformation and Authorial Identification in Joseph and Aseneth,” JSP 13 (2002): 171 – 183. Peterson, H., “Real and Alleged Literary Projects of Josephus,” AJP 79 (1958): 259 – 274. Petrie, W. M. F., Hyksos and Israelite Cities (London: School of Archealogy, 1906). Petrie, W. M. F., Egyptian Architecture (London: Brititish School of Archaeology in Egypt and Quaritch, 1938). Perdrizet, M. P., “Un fondation du temps de Ptolémée Épiphane, le temple du dieu lion à Léontopolis,” CRAI 66 (1922): 320 – 323. Pervo, R. I., “Joseph and Aseneth and the Greek Novel,” in Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Paper Series 1976, ed. by G. MacRae (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1976) 171 – 181. Philonenko, M., “Initiation et mystère dans Joseph et Aséneth,” in Initiation: Contributions to the Theme of the Study-Conference of the International Association for the History of Religions held at Strasburg, September 17th to 22nd 1964, ed. by C. J. Bleeker (SHR 10; Leiden: Brill, 1965) 147 – 153. Philonenko, M., Joseph et Aséneth: Introduction, texte critique, traduction et notes (Studia Post-Biblica 13; Leiden: Brill, 1968). Philonenko, M., “Joseph and Aseneth,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica 10 (26 vols.; Jerusalem and New York: Keter Publishing House and Macmillan Company, 1971 – 1972): 223 – 224. Pinch, G., Egyptian Mythology: A Guide to the Gods, Goddesses, and Traditions of Ancient Egypt (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Piotrkowski, M. M., “Re-evaluating 3 Maccabees: An Oniad Composition?” in Jüdisch-hellenistische Literatur in ihrem interkulturellen Kontext, ed. by M. Hirschberger (Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang, 2012) 117 – 142. Piotrkowski, M. M., “Josephus on Hasmonean Kingship,” in Antimonarchische Diskurse – Antimonarchic Discourse in Antiquity, ed. by H. Börm (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015) 249 – 267. Porten, B., Archives from Elephantine: The Life of an Ancient Jewish Military Colony (Berkeley/ Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1968). Portier-Young, A. E., “Sweet Mercy Metropolis: Interpreting Aseneth’s Honeycomb,” JSP 14 (2005): 133 – 157. Price, J. J., “The Jewish Diaspora of the Graeco-Roman Period,” SCI 13 (1994): 169 – 186. Pulikottil, P., Transmission of Biblical Texts at Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa (JSP Sup. 34; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001).

468

Bibliography

Pucci ben Zeev, M., “The Reliability of Josephus Flavius: The Case of Hecataeus’ and Manetho’s Accounts of Jews and Judaism: Fifteen Years of Contemporary Research (1974 – 1990),” JSJ 24 (1993): 215 – 234. Pucci ben Zeev, M., Jewish Rights in the Roman World (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998). Pucci ben Zeev, M., Diaspora Judaism in Turmoil: Ancient Sources and Modern Insights (Interdisciplinary Studies in Ancient Culture and Religion 6; Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2005). Puech, É., “Le grand prêtre Simon (III) fils d’Onias III, le Maître de Justice?” in Antikes Judentum und frühes Christentum. Festschrift für Hartmut Stegemann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by B. Kollmann, W. Reinbold, and A. Steudel (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1999) 137 – 158. Pummer, R., The Samaritans in Flavius Josephus (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009). Qimron, E., and J. Strugnell, Qumran Cave 4, V: Miqṣat Ma’as’e Ha-Torah (DJD X; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994). Quaegebeur, J., “Le culte de Boubastis – Bastet en Egypte gréco-romaine,” in Les divins chats d’Égypte: Un air subtil, un dangereux parfum, ed. by L. Delvaux and E. Warmenbol (Lettres Orientales Series 3; Leuven: Peeters, 1991) 117 – 127. Rainbow, P. A., “The Last Oniad and the Teacher of Righteousness,” JJS 48 (1997): 30 – 52. Rajak, T., “Moses in Ethiopia: Legend and Literature,” JJS 29 (1978): 111 – 122. Rajak, T., “Was there a Charta for the Jews,” JRS 74 (1984): 107 – 123. Rajak, T., “The ‘Against Apion’ and the Continuities in Josephus’s Political Thought,” in Understanding Josephus: Seven Perspectives, ed. by S. Mason (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 222 – 246. Rajak, T., “Hasmonean Kingship and the Invention of Tradition,” in The Jewish Dialogue with Greece and Rome: Studies in Cultural and Social Interaction (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 39 – 60. Rajak, T., Josephus: The Historian and his Society (2nd ed.; London: Duckworth, 2002). Rajak, T., “Josephus in the Diaspora,” in Flavius Josephus & Flavian Rome, ed. by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 79 – 97. Rappaport, U., “Les Iduméens en Egypte,” RP 43 (1969): 73 – 82. Rappaport, U., “The Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period,” Zion 55 (1990): 373 – 396 [Hebrew]. Rappaport, U., The First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2004) [Hebrew]. Rappaport, U., “3 Maccabees and the Jews of Egypt,” JQR 99 (2009): 551 – 557. Rappaport, U., “Did Heliodoros Try to Rob the Treasures of the Jerusalem Temple? Date and Probability of the Story of II Maccabees, 3,” REJ 170 (2011): 3 – 19. Rasp, H., “Flavius Josephus und die jüdischen Religionsparteien,” ZNTW 23 (1924): 27 – 47. Redford, D. B., “Heliopolis,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. by D. N. Freedman (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992) 3:122 – 123. Redmount, C. A., and R. F. Friedman, “Tales of a Delta Site: The 1995 Field Season at Tell El-Muqdam,” JARCE 34 (1997): 57 – 83. Reifenberg, A., Ancient Jewish Coins (Jerusalem: Rubin Mass, 1947). Reinach, Th., “Un préfet juif il y a deux mille ans,” REJ 40 (1900): 50 – 54. Rengstorff, K.-H., A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (4 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1973 – 1979).

II Secondary Literature:

469

Reynolds, J., and R. Tannenbaum, Jews and Godfearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary (Cambridge Philological Society Supp. Vol. 12; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987). Richardson, P., Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans (Columbia: University of South Carolina, 1996). Richardson, P. and Heuchan, V., “Jewish Voluntary Associations in Egypt and the Roles of Women,” in Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World, ed. by J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson (London: Routledge, 1996) 226 – 251. Riessler, P., “Joseph und Asenath: Eine altjüdische Erzählung,” TQ 103 (1922): 1 – 22, 145 – 183. Rigsby, K. J., Asylia: Territorial Inviolability in the Hellenistic World (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996). Rigsby, K. J., “A Jewish Asylum in Graeco-Roman Egypt,” in Das Antike Asyl, ed. by M. Dreher (Köln and Wien: Böhlau Verlag, 2003) 127 – 141. Rives, J., “Flavian Religious Policy and the Destruction of the Jerusalem Temple,” in Flavius Josephus & Flavian Rome, ed. by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 145 – 166. Roller, D. W., The Building Program of Herod the Great (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998). Rooke, D. W., Zadok’s Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel (Oxford Theological Monographs; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000). Rösel, M., “Der Brief des Aristeas an Philokrates, der Tempel in Leontopolis und die Bedeutung der Religionsgeschichte Israels in hellenistischer Zeit,” in “Sieben Augen auf einem Stein” (Sach 3,9) – Studien zur Literatur des Zweiten Tempels: Festschrift für Ina Willi-Plein zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. by F. Hartenstein and M. Pietsch (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 2007) 327 – 344. Roussel, P., “Nicanor d’Alexandrie et la porte du temple de Jerusalem,” REG 37 (1924): 79 – 82. Rowley, H. H., “The Teacher of Righteousness and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” BJRL 40 (1957): 114 – 146. Runnalls, D., “Moses’ Ethiopian Campaign,” JSJ 14 (1983): 135 – 156. Rutledge, S. H., “The Roman Destruction of Sacred Sites,” Historia 56 (2007): 179 – 195. Safrai, S., Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (Tel Aviv: Am HaSefer, 1965) [Hebrew]. Safrai, S., “Relations Between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. by S. Safrai and M. Stern (2 vols.; CRINT I-1; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 183 – 215. Safrai, Z., “The King’s Mountain: A Riddle without a Solution,” Teva VeAretz 22 (1980): 204 – 205 [Hebrew]. Safrai, Z., “The King’s Mountain: Still a Riddle,” Meḥkerei Yehudah VeShomron 19 (2010): (2010): 69 – 82 [Hebrew]. Sanders, E. P., Judaism: Practice & Belief 63BCE-66 CE (London and Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992). Sänger, D., Antikes Judentum und die Mysterien: Religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Joseph und Aseneth (WUNT 5; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980).

470

Bibliography

Sänger, D., “Erwägungen zur historischen Einordnung und zur Datierung von ‘Joseph und Aseneth’,” ZNTW 76 (1985): 86 – 106. Sänger, P., “Considerations on the Administrative Organization of the Jewish Military Colony in Leontopolis: A Case of Generosity and Calculation,” in Expulsion and Diaspora Formation: Religious and Ethnic Identities in Flux from Antiquity to the Seventeenth Century, ed. by J. Tolan (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015) 171 – 194. Schalit, A., “Κοίλε Συρία from mid-Fourth Century to the Beginning of the Third Century BC,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 1 (1954): 64 – 77. Schalit, A., Namenswörterbuch zu Flavius Josephus: A Complete Concordance to Flavius Josephus (ed. by K. H. Rengstorf; Suppl. 1; Leiden: Brill, 1968). Schalit, A., “Die Erhebung Vespasians nach Josephus, Talmud und Midrasch: Zur Geschichte einer messianischen Prophetie,” ANRW 2.2 (1975): 208 – 327. Schalit, A., König Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk (2nd ed.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2001). Schäfer, P., “Die Geschichtsauffassung des rabbinischen Judentums,” JSJ 6 (1975): 167 – 188. Schäfer, P.,”Die Flucht Johanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem und die Gründung des ’Lehrhauses’ in Jabne,” ANRW 19.2 (1979): 43 – 101. Schäfer, P., Der Bar-Kokhba Aufstand (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981). Schäfer, P., “‘From Jerusalem the Great to Alexandria the Small:’ The Relationship between Palestine and Egypt in the Graeco-Roman Period,” in The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture, ed. by P. Schäfer (3 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 1:129 – 140. Schäublin, C., Untersuchungen zu Methode und Herkunft der antiochenischen Exegese (Theophaneia 23; Köln/Bonn: P. Hanstein, 1974). Schiffman, L. H., “Pharisaic and Sadducean Halakhah in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Case of “Tevul Yom,” DSD 1 (1994): 285 – 299. Schiffman, L. H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls (New York/London: Doubleday, 1995). Schiffman, L. H., “Community without Temple: The Qumran Community’s Withdrawal from the Jerusalem Temple,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel: Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kultes im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. by B. Ego, A. Lange, and P. Pilhofer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999) 267 – 284. Schlatter, A., Wie sprach Josephus von Gott? (Beiträge zur Förderung christlicher Theologie, 1. Heft, 14. Jahrgang; Gütersloh: ‘Der Rufer’ Evangelischer Verlag, 1910). Schmidt, F., How the Temple Thinks: Identity and Social Cohesion in Ancient Judaism (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). Schorch, S., “The Samaritan Version of Deuteronomy and the Origin of Deuteronomy,” in Samaria, Samarians, Samaritans: Studies on the Bible, History, and Linguistics, ed. by J. Zsengellér (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2011) 23 – 37. Schreckenberg, H., “The Works of Josephus and the Early Christian Church,” in Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity, ed. by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1987) 315 – 324. Schremer, A., “The Name of the Boethusians: A Reconsideration of Suggested Explanations and Another One,” JJS 48 (1997): 290 – 299. Schröder, B., Die ‘väterlichen Gesetze’: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996).

II Secondary Literature:

471

Schubart, W., “Alexandrinische Urkunden aus der Zeit des Augustus,” APF 5 (1913): 35 – 131. Schunck, K.-D., Die Quellen des I. und II. Makkabäerbuches (Halle a. d. Saale: Niemeyer, 1954). Schüller, S., “Some Problems Connected with the Supposed Common Ancestry of Jews and Spartan and their Relations During the Last Three Centuries B.C.,” JSS 1 (1956): 257 – 268. Schürer, E., Geschichte des Jüdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi (3 vols.; 3rd and 4th ed; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1901 – 1911). Schürer, E., The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (Revised and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, M. Goodman; 4 vols.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1973 – 1987). Schwartz, D. R., “The Priests in Ep. Arist. 310,” JBL 97 (1978): 567 – 571. Schwartz, D. R., “”KATA TOYTON TON KAIPON:” Josephus’ Source on Agrippa II,” JQR 72 (1982): 241 – 268. Schwartz, D. R., “Josephus and Nicolaus on the Pharisees,” JSJ 14 (1983): 157 – 171. Schwartz, D. R., “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community,” SCI 7 (1983 – 1984): 30 – 52. Schwartz, D. R., “Philo’s Priestly Descent,” in Nourished with Peace: Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel, ed. by F. E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert, and B. L. Mack (Chico: Scholars Press, 1984) 155 – 171. Schwartz, D. R., Agrippa I: The Last King of Judaea (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990). Schwartz, D. R., “On Some Papyri and Josephus’ Sources and Chronology for the Persian Period,” JSJ 21 (1990): 186 – 189. Schwartz, D. R., “On Pharisaic opposition to the Hasmonean Monarchy,” in Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity, ed. by D. R. Schwartz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992) 44 – 56. Schwartz, D. R., “Law and Truth: On Qumran-Sadducean and Rabbinic Views of Law,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls; Forty Years of Research, ed. by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport (Leiden: Brill, 1992) 229 – 240. Schwartz, D. R., “Hasidim in 1 Maccabees 2:42?” SCI 13 (1994): 7 – 18. Schwartz, D. R., “Review: B. Schröder, Die ‘väterlichen Gesetze’: Flavius Josephus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer (1996),” SCI 17 (1998): 248 – 252. Schwartz, D. R., “Temple or City: What Did Hellenistic Jews See in Jerusalem?” in The Centrality of Jerusalem, ed. by M. Poorthuis and Ch. Safrai (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1996) 114 – 127. Schwartz, D. R., “The Jews of Egypt between the Temple of Onias, the Temple of Jerusalem, and Heaven,” Zion 62 (1996/97): 5 – 23 [Hebrew]. Schwartz, D. R., “Cassius’ Chronology and Josephus’ Vagueness,” SCI 16 (1997): 102 – 112. Schwartz, D. R., “On something Biblical in 2 Macc.,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by M. E. Stone and E. G. Chazon (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 223 – 232. Schwartz, D. R., “Josephus’ Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?” in Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, ed. by M. Goodman (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998) 47 – 61. Schwartz, D. R.,”From the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period,” in Jüdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-römischer Zeit: Wege der

472

Bibliography

Forschung – vom alten zum neuen Schürer, ed. by A. Oppenheimer (München: R. Oldenbourg, 1999) 29 – 40. Schwartz, D. R., “More on Strabon’s Datum on ‘The Land of Onias’ (Ant. 14.117) – Text Emendation vs. Semantic Expansion,” Zion 64 (1999): 230 – 234 [Hebrew]. Schwartz, D. R., “Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem,” in Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by D. Goodblatt, A. Pinnick, and D. R. Schwartz (Leiden: Brill, 2001) 45 – 56. Schwartz, D. R., “Once Again on Tobiad Chronology: Should We Let a Stated Anomaly Be Anomalous? A Response to Gideon Fuks,” JJS 53 (2002): 146 – 151. Schwartz, D. R., “Diodorus Siculus 40.3 – Hecataeus or Pseudo-Hecataeus?” in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land in the Days of the Second Temple, the Mishnah and the Temple: A Collection of Articles, ed. by M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, and D. R. Schwartz (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003) 181 – 197. Schwartz, D. R., 2 Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2004) [Hebrew]. Schwartz, D. R., “Herodians and Ioudaioi in Flavian Rome,” in Flavius Josephus & Flavian Rome, ed. by J. Edmondson, S. Mason, and J. Rives (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005) 63 – 78. Schwartz, D. R., “Doing like Jews or Becoming a Jew? Josephus on Women Converts to Judaism,” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World: Jüdische Identität in der griechisch-römischen Welt, ed. J. Frey, S. Gripentrog, and D. R. Schwartz. (Leiden: Brill, 2007) 93 – 109. Schwartz, D. R., Flavius Josephus: The Life of Joseph (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2007) [Hebrew]. Schwartz, D. R., 2 Maccabees (Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature; Berlin: Walter De Gruyter, 2008). Schwartz, D. R., “Josephus on Herod’s Uncles,” in Israel’s Land: Papers Presented to Israel Shatzman on his Jubilee, ed. by J. Geiger, H. M. Cotton, and G. D. Stiebel (Ra’anana: The Open University / Israel Exploration Society, 2009) 39 – 52. Schwartz, D. R., “Yannai and Pella, Josephus and Circumcision,” DSD 18 (2011): 339 – 359. Schwartz, D. R., “Josephus, Catullus, Divine Providence and the Date of the Judaean War,” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 331 – 352. Schwartz, D. R., Reading the First Century: On Reading Josephus and Studying Jewish History of the First Century (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Schwartz, D. R., “Ends Meet: Qumran and Paul on Circumcision,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls and Pauline Literature, ed. by J.-S. Rey (Leiden: Brill, 2014) 295 – 307. Schwartz, D. R., and Weiss, Z., (eds.), Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple (Leiden: Brill, 2012). Schwartz, E., “Diodorus,” PWRE 5 (1903 – 1905): 663 – 704. Schwartz, J., “Once More on the Nicanor Gate,” HUCA 62 (1991): 245 – 283. Schwartz, S., “The Composition and Publication of Josephus’ ‘Bellum Judaicum’ Book 7,” HTR 79 (1986): 373 – 386. Schwarz, A., “Die Schatzkammer des Jerusalemer Tempels,” MGWJ 63 (1919): 227 – 252. Schwemer, A. M., “Der jüdische Aufstand in der Diaspora unter Trajan (115 – 117 n. Chr.),” BN 148 (2011): 85 – 100.

II Secondary Literature:

473

Scolnic, B. E., Chronology and Papponymy: A List of the Judean High Priests of the Persian Period (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999). Seeligman, I. L., The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948). Segal, M. Z., The Complete Book of Ben-Sira (4th ed.; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1997) [Hebrew]. Sellers, O. R., and W. F. Albright, “The First Campaign of Excavations at Beth Zur,” BASOR 43 (1931): 2 – 13. Sellers, O. R., The Citadel of Beth Zur: A Preliminary Report of the First Excavation Conducted by the Presbyterian Theological Seminary, Chicago, and the American School of Oriental Research, Jerusalem, in 1931 at Khirbat et Tubeiqa (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1933). Sevenster, J. N., Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Century Jewish Christians Have Known? (Leiden: Brill, 1968). Shachar, Y., “The King’s Mountain – A Solution to an Enigma,” Zion 55 (2000): 275 – 306 [Hebrew]. Shachar, Y., “Josephus the Stage Manager at the Service of Josephus the Dramatist: Masada as Test Case,” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 353 – 379. Shemesh, A., “’Three-Days’ Journey from the Temple:’ The Use of this Expression in the Temple Scroll,” DSD 6 (1999): 126 – 138. Siegert, F., “Gottesfürchtige und Sympathisanten,” JSJ 4 (1973): 109 – 164. Siegert, F., J. Dochhorn, and M. Vogel, Flavius Josephus: Über die Ursprünglichkeit des Judentums (Contra Apoinem) (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 6; 2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008). Sievers, J., The Hasmoneans and their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus I (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990). Sijpesteijn, P. J., “Mithridates’ March from Pergamum to Alexandria,” Latomus 24 (1965): 122 – 127. Smallwood, E. M., The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations (Leiden: Brill 1976). Smith, M., “Palestinian Judaism in the First Century,” in Israel: Its Role in Civilization, ed. by M. Davis (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America/Harper & Brothers, 1956) 67 – 81. Smith, M., Palestinian Parties that Shaped the Old Testament (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971). Smith, M., “Helios in Palestine,” EI 16 (1982): 199 – 214. Smith, M. E., “The Earliest Cities,” in Urban Life: Readings in the Anthropology of the City, ed. by G. Gmelch, R. V. Kemper, and W. P. Zenner (4th ed.; Prospecer Heights: Waveland Press, 2010) 3 – 19. Spilsbury, P., “Contra Apionem and Antiquitates Judaicae Points of Contact,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character and Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 348 – 368. Standhartinger, A., Das Frauenbild im Judentum der hellenistischen Zeit: Ein Beitrag anhand von Joseph und Aseneth (AGJU 26; Leiden: Brill, 1995).

474

Bibliography

Steckoll, S. H., “The Qumran Sect in Relation to the Temple of Leontopolis,” RQ 6 (1967): 55 – 69. Stegemann, H., Die Entstehung der Qumrangemeinde (Ph.D. Dissertation; Bonn: Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms Universität, 1971). Stern, M., The Great Families of the Second Jewish Commonwealth (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation; Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1959) [Hebrew]. Stern, M., “The Death of Onias III,” Zion 25 (1960): 1 – 16 = M. Stern, in Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (ed. by M. Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991) 35 – 50 [Hebrew]. Stern, M., The Documents of the Maccabean Revolt: Translation, Commentary, and Introductions (Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1965) [Hebrew]. Stern, M., “The Diaspora in the Hellenistic-Roman World,” in The Jewish People in the First Century, ed. by S. Safrai and M. Stern (CRINT I-1; 2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974) 561 – 630. Stern, M., Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: The Israeli Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974). Stern, M., “A New Ruling Class in the Days of Herod,” in King Herod and his Age, ed. by M. Naor (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1985) 89 – 99 [Hebrew]. Stern, M., “The Hasmoneans and their Relation to Ptolemaic Egypt at the Backdrop of the International Politics in the Second and First Centuries BCE,” Zion 50 (1985): 81 – 106 [Hebrew]. Stern, M., “The Date of the Composition of the Jewish War,” in Studies in Jewish History, (ed. by M. Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991) 402 – 407 [Hebrew]. Stern, M., “Nicolaus of Damascus as a Source for the History of Israel in the Times of Herodian Dynasty and the Hasmonean Dynasty,” in Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (ed. by M. Amit, I. Gafni, and M. D. Herr; Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 1991) 445 – 464 [Hebrew]. Stone, M. E., “The Concept of the Messiah in IV Ezra,” in Religions in Antiquity: Essays in Memory of Erwin Ramsdell Goodenough, ed. by J. Neusner (Studies in the History of Religions 14; Leiden: Brill, 1968) 295 – 312. Strack, M. L., “Inschriften aus ptolemäischer Zeit,” APF 2 (1903): 537 – 561. Stuckenbruck, L. T., “’Reading the Present’ in the Animal Apocalypse (1 Enoch 85 – 90),” in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations, ed. by K. De Troyer and A. Lange (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 91 – 102. Stuckenbruck, L. T., “Messianic Ideas in the Apocalyptic and Related Literature of Early Judaism,” in The Messiah in the Old and New Testaments, ed. by S. E. Porter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 90 – 113. Sukenik, E. L., “Paralipomena Palaestinensia,” JPOS 14 (1934): 178 – 184. Szántó, Zs., “The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Demotic Piece of Evidence,” in Miscellanea Historiae Antiquitatis: Proceedings of the First Croatian-Hungarian PhD Conference on Ancient History, ed. by Gy. Németh and D. Bajnok (Budapest and Debrecen: Kódex Könyvgyártó Kft., 2014) 79 – 88. Tal, A., “Samaritan Literature,” in The Samaritans, ed. by J. D. Crown (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1989) 413 – 467.

II Secondary Literature:

475

Talmon, Sh., “The Calendar Reckoning of the Sect from the Judean Desert,” in Aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. by C. Rabin and Y. Yadin (Scripta Hierosolymitana 4; Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1958) 162 – 199. Talmon, Sh., “Biblical Traditions on Samaritan History,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press/Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 7 – 27 [Hebrew]. Taylor, J. E., “A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias,” JSJ 29 (1998): 297 – 321. Tcherikover, V., “Prolegomena,” in Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, ed. by V. Tcherikover, A. Fuks, and M. Stern (3 vols.; Cambridge and Jerusalem: Harvard University Press and Magnes Press, Hebrew University, 1957 – 1964) 1:1 – 111. Tcherikover, V., Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (New York: JPS, 1959). Tcherikover, V., “The Third Book of Maccabees as a Historical Source of Augustus’ Time,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 7 (1961): 1 – 26. Tcherikover, V., The Jews in Egypt in the Hellenistic-Roman Age in the Light of the Papyri (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1963) [Hebrew]. Tchernowitz, H., “The Pairs and Onias’ Temple,” in Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume (New York: The American Academy of Research, 1945) 232 – 247 [Hebrew]. Tiller, P. A., A Commentary on the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (SBL, Early Judaism and its Literature 4; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1993). Teichler, J. L., “Jesus in the Habakkuk Scroll,” JJS 3 (1952): 53 – 55. Thackeray, H. St. J., Josephus: the Man and the Historian (New York: Jewish Institute of Religion Press, 1929). Theissen, G., “Judentum und Christentum bei Paulus; Sozialgeschichtliche Überlegung zu einem beginnenden Schisma,” in Paulus und das antike Judentum, ed. by A. v. Schlatter, M. Hengel, and U. Heckel (WUNT 58; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1991) 331 – 359. Thiering, B. E., Redating the Teacher of Righteousness (Australian and New Zealand Studies in Theology and Religion 1; Sydney: Theological Explorations, 1979). Thiers, Chr., “Civils et militaires dans le temple: Occupation illicite et expulsion,” BIFAO 95 (1995): 493 – 516. Thiessen, M., Contesting Conversion: Genealogy, Circumcision, & Identity in Ancient Judaism & Christianity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Thoma, C., “The High Priesthood in the Judgement of Josephus,” in Josephus the Bible, and History, ed. by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989) 196 – 215. Thompson, D. J., Memphis under the Ptolemies (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989). Tov, E., The Textual Criticism of the Bible: An Introduction (Jerusalem: Mossad Bialik, 1989) [Hebrew]. Tov, E., Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008). Trachtenberg, J., (Foreword by M. Idel), Jewish Magic and Superstition: A Study in Folk Religion (repr.; Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2004). Trampedach, K., “Die Hasmonäer und das Problem der Theokratie,” in Die Bibel als politisches Argument, ed. by A. Pečar and K. Trampedach (Historische Zeitschrift Beiheft 43; München: Oldenbourg, 2007) 37 – 65. Treblico, P. R., Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (SNTSMS 69; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991).

476

Bibliography

Troiani, L., “Sulla tradizione del tempio di Leontopoli,” MG 13 (2008): 131 – 134. Tromp, J., “The Formation of the Third Book of Maccabees,” Henoch 17 (1995): 311 – 328. Tropper, A., Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (Leiden: Brill, 2013). Troxel, R. L., LXX-Isaiah as Translation and Interpretation: The Strategies of the Translator of the Septuagint of Isaiah (SupJSJ 124; Leiden: Brill 2008). Tuval, M., “A Jewish Priest in Rome,” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 397 – 411. Tuval, M., “Doing without the Temple: Paradigms in Judaic Literature of the Diaspora,” in Was 70 CE a Watershed in Jewish History? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple, ed. by D. R. Schwartz and Z. Weiss (Leiden: Brill, 2012) 151 – 239. Tuval, M., From Jerusalem Priest to Roman Jew (WUNT 2.357; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Türdinger, K., Studien zur Geschichte der griechisch-römischen Ethnographie (Basel: E. Birkhäuser, 1918). Uebel, F., Die Kleruchen Ägyptens unter den ersten sechs Ptolemäern (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1968). Ulfgard, H., “The Teacher of Righteousness, the History of the Qumran Community, and our Understanding of the Jesus Movement: Texts, Theories and Trajectories,” in Qumran between the Old and New Testaments, ed. by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 310 – 346. Urbach, E. E., “Halakha and History,” in Jews, Greeks, and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity; Essays in Honor of William D. Davies, ed. by R. Hamerton-Kelly and R. Scroggs (Leiden: Brill, 1976) 112 – 128. Van’t Dack, E., (et al.), The Judean-Syrian-Egyptian Conflict of 103 – 101 B.C.E.: A Multilingual Dossier Concerning a ‘War of Sceptres’ (Collectanea Hellenistica I; Brussel: Koninklijke Academie voor Wetenschappen, Letteren en Schone Kunsten van Belgie, Comite Klassieke Studies, 1989). van der Horst, P. W., “Schriftgebruik bij drie vroege joods-hellenistische Historici: Demetrius, Artapanus, Eupolemus,” ACEBT 6 (1985): 144 – 161. van der Horst, P. W., Ancient Jewish Epitaphs: An Introductory Survey of a Millennium of Jewish Funerary Epigraphy (300 BCE–700 CE) (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1991). van der Horst, P. W., “Jewish Metrical Epitaphs,” in Early Christian Poetry: A Collection of Essays, ed. by J. den Boeft and A. Hilhorst (Leiden: Brill, 1993) 1 – 14. van der Horst, P. W., “Samaritans and Hellenism,” in The Samaritans, ed. by E. Stern and H. Eshel (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press / Israel Antiquities Authority, 2002) 184 – 191 [Hebrew]. van der Horst, P. W., “Jewish Funerary Inscriptions: Most are in Greek,” BAR 18 (1992): 46 – 57. van der Horst, P. W., “The Jews of Cyprus,” in Jews and Christians in Their Graeco-Roman Context, ed. by P. W. van der Horst (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck 2006) 28 – 36. VanderKam, J. C., “2 Macc. 6,7 A and Calendrical Change in Jerusalem,” JSJ 12 (1981): 52 – 74. VanderKam, J. C., The Dead Sea Scrolls Today (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1994). VanderKam, J. C., “Simon the Just: Simon I or Simon II?” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of

II Secondary Literature:

477

Jacob Milgrom, ed. by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1995) 303 – 318. VanderKam, J. C., “The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees,” in Studies in the Book of Jubilees, ed. by M. Albani, J. Frey, and A. Lange (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997) 3 – 24. VanderKam, J. C., Calendars in the Dead Sea Scrolls: Measuring Time (London/New York: Routledge, 1998). VanderKam, J. C., The Book of Jubliees (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). VanderKam, J. C., From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004). VanderKam J. C., and P. W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls: Their Significance for Understanding the Bible, Judaism, Jesus, and Christianity (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 2002). van der Kooij, A., “’The Servant of the Lord:’ A Particular Group of Jews in Egypt according to the Old Greek of Isaiah: Some Comments on LXX Isa 49,1 – 6 and Related Passages,” in Studies in the Book of Isaiah: Festschrift Willem A. M. Beuken, ed. by J. van Ruiten and M. Vervenne (BETL 132; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1997) 383 – 396. van der Kooij, A., “Canonization of Ancient Hebrew Books and Hasmonean Politics,” in The Biblical Canons, ed. by J.-M. Auwers and H. J. de Jonge (BETL 163; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2003) 26 – 38. van der Meer, M. N., “Visions from Memphis and Leontopolis: The Phenomenon of the Vision Reports in the Greek Isaiah in the Light of Contemporary Accounts from Hellenistic Egypt,” in Isaiah in Context; Studies in Honour of Arie van der Kooij on the Occasion of His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, ed. by M. N. van der Meer (et al.) (Leiden: Brill, 2010) 281 – 316. van Henten J. W., and R. Abusch, “The Depiction of the Jews as Typhonians and Josephus’ Strategy of Refutation in Contra Apionem,” in Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in its Character & Context with a Latin Concordance to the Portion Missing in Greek, ed. by L. H. Feldman and J. R. Levinson (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 271 – 309. van Henten, J. W., The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 & 4 Maccabees (Leiden: Brill, 1997). van Henten, J. W., “2 Maccabees as a History of Liberation,” in Jews and Gentiles in the Holy Land, ed. by M. Mor, A. Oppenheimer, J. Pastor, and D. R. Schwartz (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi Press, 2003) 63 – 86. van Henten, J. W., “Cleopatra in Josephus: From Herod’s Rival to the Wise Ruler’s Opposite,” in Wisdom of Egypt. Jewish, Early Christian, and Gnostic Essays in Honour of Gerard P. Luttikhuizen, ed. by. A. Hilhorst and G. H. van Kooten (Leiden: Brill, 2005) 115 – 134. van Henten, J. W., “Judas the Maccabee’s Dream (2 Macc. 15:11 – 16) and the Egyptian King’s Sickle Sword,” Zutot 4 (2007): 8 – 15. van Henten, J. W., “Rebellion under Herod the Great and Archelaus: Prominent Motifs and Narrative Function,” in The Jewish Revolt against Rome: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, ed. by M. Popović (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 241 – 270. van Henten, J. W., “Constructing Herod as a Tyrant: Assessing Josephus’ Parallel Passages,” in Flavius Josephus; Interpretation and History, ed. by J. Pastor, P. Stern, and M. Mor (Leiden: Brill, 2011) 193 – 216. Vilk, R., “Onias’ Asylum in Daphne,” Sinai 108 (1991): 285 – 287 [Hebrew]. Villalba i Varneda, Pere, The Historical Method of Flavius Josephus (Leiden: Brill, 1986).

478

Bibliography

Veïsse, A.-E., Les “révoltes égyptiennes”: Recherches sur les troubles intérieurs en Égypte du règne de Ptolémée III à la conquête romaine (Stud. Hell. 41; Leuven: Peeters, 2004). Vermes, G., “The Leadership of the Qumran Community: Sons of Zadok – Priests – Congregation,” in Geschichte – Tradition – Reflexion; Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. by P. Schäfer (3vols.; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996) 1:375 – 384. Vermes, G., The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (Revised Ed.; London: Penguin, 2004). Vogel, M., “Einführung,” in Joseph und Aseneth, ed. by E. Reinmuth (SAPERE 15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 3 – 32. Wacholder, B.-Z., Nicolaus of Damascus (University of California Publications in History, 75; Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1962). Wacholder, B.-Z., Eupolemus: A Study of Judeao-Greek Literature (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974). Wacholder, B.-Z., “The Letter from Judah Maccabee to Aristobulus: Is 2 Maccabees 1:10b-2:18 Authentic?” HUCA 49 (1978) 89 – 133. Wacholder, B.-Z., The Dawn of Qumran: The Sectarian Torah and The Teacher of Righteousness (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1983). Wacholder, B.-Z., “Josephus and Nicolaus of Damascus,” in Josephus, the Bible, and History, ed. by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989) 147 – 172. Wacholder, B.-Z., “Historiography of Qumran: The Sons of Zadok and Their Enemies,” in Qumran Between the Old and New Testaments, ed. by F. H. Cryer and T. L. Thompson (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1998) 347 – 377. Walter, N., “Pseudo-Hecataios I und II,” in Fragmente jüdisch-hellensitischer Historiker (JSHRZ 1/2; Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 1976) 144 – 153. Walton, F. R., “The Messenger of God in Hecataeus of Abdera,” HTR 48 (1955): 255 – 257. Wasserstein, A., “Notes on the Temple of Onias at Leontopolis,” ICS 18 (1993): 119 – 129. Weber, W., Josephus und Vespasian: Untersuchungen zu dem Jüdischen Krieg des Flavius Josephus (Berlin: Verlag von W. Kohlhammer, 1921). Weinfeld, M., The Organizational Pattern and Penal Code of the Qumran Sect: A Comparison with Guilds and Religious Associations of the Hellenistic-Roman Period (Novum Testament et Orbis Antiquus 2; Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 1986). Weisberg, D., “Clothes (un)Make the Man: bMenahot 109b,” in Introduction to Seder Qodashim: A Feminist Commentary on the Babylonian Talmud V, ed. by T. Ilan, M. Brockhaus, and T. Hidde (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 193 – 211. Wellhausen, J., Über den geschichtlichen Wert des zweiten Makkabäerbuchs im Verhältnis zum ersten (Aus d. Nachrichten d. K. Gesellschaft d. Wissenschaften zu Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, Heft 2; Göttingen, 1905). Wellhausen, J., Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte (6th ed.; Berlin: Georg Reimer, 1907). Werman, C., “The Sons of Zadok,” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years after Their Discovery; Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 1997, ed. by L. H. Schiffman, E. Tov, and J. C. VanderKam (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society; Israel Museum, 2000) 623 – 630. Werman, C., “God’s House: Temple or Universe,” in Philo und das Neue Testament; wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen; I. Internationales Symposium zum Corpus Judaeo-Hellenisticum, Mai 2003, Eisenach/Jena, ed. by R. Deines and K.-W. Niebuhr (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2004) 309 – 320. West, S., “Joseph and Aseneth: A neglected Romance,” CQR 24 (1974): 70 – 81.

II Secondary Literature:

479

Wesseling, K.-G., “Theodor von Mopsuestia,” in Biographisch-Bibliographisches Kirchenlexikon (BBKL), ed. F. W. Bautz and T. Bautz (14 vols.; Hamm / Herzberg: Bautz, 1996) 11:885 – 909. White, R. T., “The House of Peleg in the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays on Jewish and Christian Literature and History, ed. by P. R. Davies and R. T. White (JSOTSS 100; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990) 67 – 98. Wilcken, U., Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit (2 vols.; Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1922 – 1927). Wilkinson, R. H., The Complete Egyptian Temples (Cairo: The American University Press, 2000). Williams, D. S., “3 Maccabees: A Defense of Diaspora Judaism?” JSP 13 (1995): 17 – 29. Williamson, H. G. M., “The Historical Value of Josephus’ Jewish Antiquities XI.297 – 301,” JTS 28 (1977): 49 – 66. Willrich, H., Juden und Griechen vor der makkabäischen Erhebung (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1895). Willrich, H., “Der Chelkiasstein: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Juden in Ägypten,” APF 1 (1901): 48 – 56. Willrich, H., “Der historische Kern des III. Makkabäerbuches,” Hermes 39 (1904): 244 – 258. Willrich, H., “Berührungen zwischen Josephus und Jason von Kyrene,” in Zur Josephus-Forschung, ed. by A. Schalit (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1973) 115 – 138. Wills, L. M., The Jew in the Court of the Foreign King: Ancient Jewish Court Legends (Harvard Theological Studies 26; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990). Wills, L. M., The Jewish Novel in the Ancient World (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995). Wills, L. M., Ancient Jewish Novels: An Anthology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). Wise, M. O., “The Teacher of Righteousness and the High Priest of the Intersacerdotium: Two Approaches,” RQ 14 (1990): 589 – 602. Wise, M. O., “The Eschatological Vision of the Temple Scroll,” JNES 49 (1990): 155 – 172. Wise, M. O., The First Messiah (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 1999). Wise, M. O., “Dating the Teacher of Righteousness and the Floruit of his Movement,” JBL 122 (2003): 53 – 87. Wise, M. O., “4Q425 and the High Priesthood of Judas Maccabaeus,” DSD 12 (2005): 313 – 362. Yadin, Y., Die Tempelrolle: Die verborgene Thora vom Toten Meer (München and Hamburg: A. Knaus, 1985). Yankelevitch, R., “The King’s Mountain – Herodion,” Cathedra 20 (1981): 23 – 28 [Hebrew]. Yankelevitch, R., “Neḥunion Aḥiah – On the Question of his Identity in the Story of Ḥananyah, the Nephew of Rabbi Yehoshua,” Milet 2 (1984): 137 – 141 [Hebrew]. Yankelevitch, R., “The Temple of Onias: Law and Reality,” in Jews and Judaism in the Second Temple, Mishna and Talmud Period: Studies in Honour of Shmuel Safrai, ed. by I. Gafni, A. Oppenheimer, and M. Stern (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1993) 107 – 115 [Hebrew]. Yoyotte, J., “Sites et cultes de Basse-Egypte: les deux Léontopolis,” Annuaire – Ecole pratique des hautes études. Section des sciences religieuses 97 (1988 – 89): 669 – 683. Zambelli, M., “La composizione del secundo libro dei Maccabei e la nuova cronologia di Antioco IV Epifane,” Miscellenea Greca e Romano 1 (1965): 195 – 299.

480

Bibliography

Zangenberg, J. K., “Joseph und Aseneths Ägypten. Oder: Von der Domestikation einer gefährlichen Kultur,” in Joseph und Aseneth, ed. by E. Reinmuth (SAPERE 15; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 159 – 186. Zeitlin, S., “Review of V. Tcherikover, The Jews of Egypt in the Hellenistic Roman Age in Light of the Papyri (in Hebrew) Jerusalem, 1945,” JQR 37 (1946 – 47): 89 – 93. Zeuner, F. E., “Notes on Qumrân,” PEQ 92 (1960): 28 – 30. Zimmernann, Chr., Die Namen des Vaters: Studien zu ausgewählten neutestamentlichen Gottesbezeichnungen vor ihrem frühjüdischen und paganen Sprachhorizont (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Zivie, A., “Tell El-Yahoudieh,” Nahar Misraim 2 (1981): 5 – 16.

General Index Aaronite 62, 82, 355 acculturation 173 f., 405, 407, 409 f. administration/administrative 2 f., 119, 188, 195, 197, 200 f., 205, 214, 236, 254, 259, 280, 284, 340 f., 361 f., 403, 405, 407, 423 afterlife 174, 256 f., 259 Against Apion => see Contra Apionem Aggadic 152, 162 altar 1, 16, 35, 42, 68, 73, 138, 142 – 144, 147 f., 151 f., 154 f., 159 f., 264, 331, 333, 336, 344, 369, 386, 390 f., 420, 436, 440 Alexandrian – authorship 237 – civil war 242, 258, 338, 356 – 358 – community (Jewish) 187, 195, 412 – Jews/Jewry 22, 54, 70, 183, 209, 240 f., 246, 249, 252, 254 – 256, 263, 356 f., 412, 414 – Jewish) literature 54, 209 f., 213, 230, 237, 240, 422 – origin 55 f. – readership 241, 255 – war 360 f. Amoraim 143, 145 f., 153, 160 ancestral law/customs/religion 61, 71, 75, 77, 244, 419 astrology 298 Animal Apocalypse 133 f. animal worship 72, 221 f., 408 f. angel(s)/angelic 113, 116, 128, 246, 299 anti-Jewish (Judaism) 29, 119, 251 f., 269, 295, 298, 308, 337, 354, 405, 415 anti-Oniad (miso-Oniad) 37, 54 – 56, 73 f., 122, 161, 205, 285, 344 „Antiochians in Jerusalem“ 349 Antiochic persecutions 10, 33, 47, 66, 78 f., 103 f., 119, 129, 227 f., 276, 337, 351, 387, 415, 420, 438 Antiochus’ invasion of Judaea 34, 41, 66 f., 79, 103, 106, 119, 129, 132, 221, 277, 282, 327 – 329, 336 f., 415, 418

Antiochus’ invasion of Egypt 2, 225, 227 f., 234, 329, 336 – 338, 343 „anointed one“ 129 f., 132 Anubis 191 Apis 434 apocalypse/apocalyptic 128, 131, 133, 219 f., 293 Apollo 114 – Apollo-Qos 341 apology/apologetic 29, 32, 209, 213, 238, 252 f., 262, 313, 355, 363 apostate/apostasy 237, 251, 307 – 309, Arabic 170 Aramaic 65, 99 f., 143, 145, 155, 172, 190, 212, 397, 400, 405 archaeology 5, 12 – 16, 21, 163 – 168, 189, 332 f., 346, 349, 367 – 369, 390, 408 architecture 167, 317, 342, 388 archon/archontes 184 – 188, 197 aristocrat/aristocracy (upper class) 1, 27, 31, 66, 74 f., 214, 432 Armenian 97, 296 army=>see military arourae (measure) 264, 273 assimilation/assimilatory 172 – 174, 179, 191, 287, 321, 405, 410 f., 416 Assyrian(s) 282, 291 asylum (shelter) 18, 21, 113 f., 120 f., 278 Atum-Re 297, 304 f., 388 Babylonian 12, 23, 97, 135 – 137, 143, 145 f., 149 f., 152 f., 155, 157, 160 f., 250, 369, 371, 379, 416, 430 f., bamah 15, 139, 344 baraita/baraitot 125, 135 f., 141, 144 f., 147, 149 – 162, 289 Bar-Kokhba (revolt) 98, 430 Battle of Actium 225, 229, 360 f. Battle of Gaza266, 276 Bavli 23, 135, 140, 142, 144 – 150, 152 – 155, 161 Bellum Judaicum => see The Judaean War

482

General Index

Bible/biblical 23, 78, 87, 93, 97, 116 f., 128, 130, 139, 153, 166, 176, 183, 190, 209, 219, 231, 239, 263 f., 278, 282, 291, 297 f., 301 – 303, 311 – 313, 315, 317 – 319, 322, 330, 333, 335, 353, 374, 384, 389, 396, 400, 411, 430, 435 f., 443 – law 76, 126, 139, 212, 263, 400, 436, 438 f. – interpretation 190, 333 – 336, 384, 395, 400, 415 Bilgah (priestly house of) 97 Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) 84, 91 f., 154, 250, 353, 389 Boethusians 345 Book of Daniel 13, 128 – 133, 219, 226 – 228, 312, 379 f., 387, 418 Book of Deuteronomy 436 Book of Dreams (1 Enoch) 133 Book of Esther 214, 239, 251, 256, 307, 310, 312, 353, 407 Book of Isaiah (Septuagint translation) 3, 16, 22, 210, 333, 335 f., 348, 364, 381, 386, 396, 403 f., 415 Book of Jubilees 233, 311, 387 Book of Judith 213, 312 Book of Tobit 312 brick(s) 164, 166 f. Bubastis-of-the-fields/Bastet/Bast 35, 164, 166, 256, 282, 291, 305, 343 f., 346 f., 409, 418 burial practices/customs 171, 173, 178 f., 286 – 288, 409 Byzantine 18, 142 Camp of the Jews 362 Canaanite 2, 160, 349, 440 cat(s) 164 calendar 311, 384, 386 – 389, 396, 402 – 403 catacombs 171, 174, 192 cemetery (Tell el-Yahoudieh) 5, 12, 18, 21, 64, 163 f., 169 – 197, 212, 232, 247, 257 – 259, 287 f., 321, 351, 353, 399, 405 – 408, 412 f., 416, 420, 432 centralization law 34, 63, 105, 399, 435 – 442

chora 164, 212, 244, 248 f., 253, 295, 315, 338, 345, 349, 363, 418, 423 Christian(s)/Christianity 126 – 128, 130, 181, 195, 217, 223, 294 f., 300, 303, 318 chronology/chronological 27, 33, 56 f., 70, 84, 91, 95, 101 f., 111 f., 162, 198, 200 f., 203, 213, 220, 226, 229, 238 f., 242, 258, 262, 264, 268, 270, 272 f., 277, 284, 287, 326 f., 357 f., 363, 371, 378 – 380, 402, 417, 424 circumcision 223, 319 – 321 city/-ies (polis) 41 f., 67, 76, 79, 114, 116, 127, 129, 142, 160, 167, 181, 183 f., 186, 188, 209, 221, 237, 245, 253, 274 f., 297 f., 300, 326, 329, 334, 338, 344 – 350, 357, 364, 386, 395, 407 f., 415, 418 f., 437 – „City of Destruction“ 160 f., 333 – 335, – „City of the Lion (of Judah)“ 348, 415 – City of Onias 181, 298, 347 – „City of Refuge“ 299 f., 311, 415 – „City of Righteousness“ (polis asedek) 16, 334 f., 348, 381, 386, 396, 402 f., 415 – „City of the Sun“ 160 f., 312, 333 – 335, 364, 369, 389, 402, 418 – „City of the Zadok“ 381, 386, 396, 402 civil unrest (see also stasis) 2, 43, 45, 104, 342 f. civil war 111 f., 129, 202, 241 f., 249, 258, 288, 310, 326 – 328, 355 – 358, 361, 413 coins 199, 279 f., 283, 373 combatants 2, 179, 206, 252, 271, 310, 314, 409 commentarius (see also Roman Source) 49, 360 commemoration 6, 175, 179 – 181, 195, 198, 204, 239 f., 242, 255, 258, 258 f., 388, 413, 424 community/communities (Jewish) 3, 9, 21, 127, 169, 171 f., 175, 177 – 179, 183, 186 – 189, 195 – 198, 210, 212, 240, 350 f., 363, 385, 395, 398 f., 403 – 405, 411 f., 415 f., 424, 431, 436, 440, 442 – Alexandria 187 f., 195, 240, 412 – Diaspora 178, 183, 385, 395, 405, 411 f., 415

General Index

– Egyptian-Jewish 21, 169, 172, 177, 183, 186 – 188, 195, 198, 210, 212, 240, 350 f., 363, 404, 411 f., 416, 424 – Elephantine 212, 330, 398, 403, 411, 436, 440, 442 – Heracleopolitan 178, 183, 186, 189 – Jewish-Christian 195 – Oniad => Onias’ community – Qumran community => Qumran – Samaritan 403 f. court 109, 186, 201, 214, 230, 242, 254, 259, 285, 312 – 315, 345, 354 f., 370, 418 – protocol 213 f., 254, 259, 313 – gossip 214, 250, 254, 259 – intrigues 254, 313 – life at 213 f., 313 constitution (Jewish) (see also politeia) 61 f., 71, 265, 267, 269, 270 f., 283 f., 288, 291, 355 Contra Apionem 29, 32, 202, 237 – 239, 252 – 254, 262, 355 conversion/convert(s) 220 – 223, 230, 294 f., 299, 305, 308, 311, 316, 318 – 322, 348, 410 f. cremation 179 cult/cultic 7, 10, 34, 63 f., 74 f., 77, 79, 104 f., 117, 138 – 140, 151 f., 157, 164, 166, 190 – 193, 212, 214, 220, 223 f., 231, 234, 244, 264, 267 – 271, 274 f., 282, 285, 289 – 291, 295, 297, 305 f., 315 – 317, 332, 341, 344, 347, 368 f., 382, 384 – 392, 396, 399, 401 f., 412, 414 – 416, 418, 420, 430, 433, 439, 440 f. culture/cultural 1, 3, 7 – 9, 12 f., 135 f., 174, 179, 183, 190, 196, 210 f., 230, 261 f., 287 f., 321, 347, 353, 363, 404 f., 412 f., 417, 422 f. customs 1, 19, 29, 34 f., 94, 100, 150, 152, 158, 175, 179, 196, 220, 232 f., 244, 263, 267, 277, 286 f., 306, 312, 370, 375 – 378, 402, 405, 409, 415, 430 f., 433 Cuthean(s) 89 damnatio memoriae 59, 374, 377 Day of Atonement 141, 150, 319, 373, 388 Day of Eleusis 103, 327, 337

483

defense/defensive 243, 245, 259, 339 – 342, 344, 361, 418, 431 demography/demographic 178, 189, 201, 265, 347, 351, 359 Demotic 167 Deuteronomistic 6, 34, 63, 105, 126, 278, 333, 414, 435 – 440 Dead Sea Scrolls 17, 368, 372 f. Diaspora 6 – 10, 13, 16, 20, 22, 31, 34, 54 – 56, 65 f., 72, 75 f., 116, 123, 153, 162, 171, 173 f., 176, 178, 180, 183, 185, 189, 191 – 193, 209 – 211, 213, 222, 224, 233, 237, 241 – 245, 247, 251, 272, 275 f., 279, 283 – 285, 289 f., 290 f., 295, 298, 307, 313, 315, 322, 331 f., 336, 341, 352 – 355, 364, 368 f., 385, 393 – 398, 401, 404 f., 408, 410 – 417, 420, 422 f., 430 – 433, 438, 441, 443 – revolt 295, 364, 430 dioiketes 199 dissent 69, 72, 77 f., 106, 217, 387 Doric 180 Ebraios 172 f. Egyptian 2 f., 14, 21, 29, 119, 162, 166, 177, 179, 191 f., 194, 196, 200, 204, 212, 221, 225, 234, 244, 259, 261, 264, 286 f., 288, 295, 297 f., 305, 329, 335 f., 363, 376 – 378, 414 f., 423, 443 – background/provenance/origin 6, 9, 13, 177, 211 f., 214, 217, 226, 234, 264, 268, 272, 306, 322, 341, 388 – deities 293, 303 – 305, 341, 346, 409, 418 – Diaspora 8, 13, 16, 20, 22, 34, 162, 189, 233, 237, 247, 275 f., 284 f., 289 – 291, 313, 315, 322, 336, 352 f., 394, 397, 404, 408, 412 – 415, 417, 422 f. – Jews/Jewry 3, 6 – 8, 13 f., 16, 20 – 22, 69, 72, 162, 171 – 179, 183, 185, 188 f., 198 f., 201, 209 – 211, 213 f., 222 f., 225, 229 f., 233 f., 237, 241 – 244, 246 f., 249, 259, 263 – 265, 269, 275, 277 f., 281, 284 f., 291, 331, 336, 341, 351 f., 355 – 357, 360, 363 f., 397, 400, 404, 406 – 408, 412 – 417, 422 – 425, 431 – 434 – (native) 19, 72, 117, 119, 164, 167, 177, 179, 190 f., 200, 204 f., 209, 221 f., 224 f.,

484

General Index

261 f., 268 f., 282, 284, 286 – 288, 291, 293, 295, 297 f., 303 – 307, 309, 313, 321 f., 338, 340 f., 343, 369, 402, 404 f., 408 f., 421 – temple(s) 164, 167, 191, 209, 282, 305, 340 – 343, 346, 408, 418, 434 Elephantine Temple 6, 9, 193, 330, 398, 401, 403, 414, 416, 421, 432 f., 435 – 437, 439 – 441 „end of days“ (eschaton) 10, 224, 379 f., 382, 384 f., 392, 394 – 396 2 Enoch 211 epigraphy (inscriptions) 5 f., 12 f., 18, 21, 23, 64, 97, 164, 167,169 – 197, 203 f., 212, 247, 255, 257 – 259, 287 f., 321, 325, 343 – 345, 349 – 351, 353, 358, 378, 399 f., 405 – 413, 416, 419 f., 432 f., 443 ‘Epistolary Piece’ 54 – 58, 105, 342 – 344, 346, 419 epitomizer (2 Maccabees) 110 f., 118 – 123, 125, 241 f. Essenes 7, 233, 268, 295, 388, 391 eschatologic(al) 222, 224, 227, 300, 348, 380, 385, 392, 415 ethnarch 188 ethnic/ethnicities 2, 173, 183, 187, 320, 340 f., 404 ethnicon 172 f., 320, 406 ethnography/ethnographic 263, 270, 274 f., 287, 291, 406 exile 6 f., 10, 13, 68, 75, 97, 192, 220, 234, 250, 276 – 279, 326, 329, 332, 368 f., 371, 379, 384 f., 392 f., 396 f., 399, 416 Exodus 224, 264, 269 Ezekiel the Tragedian (Exagoge) 211 f. fame (eternal) 4, 33 f., 38, 78, 331, 418 family tree 70, 83, 93, 97, 375 f. Feast of Tabernacles (Sukkoth) 311, 373, 412 female priests 152, 189 – 193, 247, 400, 420 festival(s) 50, 239 – 243, 255 f., 258 f., 311, 373, 412, 430, 432 First Judaean War 27 f., 37, 66 f., 172, 361, 422 f. foreign/foreigner(s) 2, 63, 98, 111, 146, 158, 171, 179, 196, 221, 244, 269, 271, 279, 282, 287, 312, 314 f., 322, 329, 331 –

333, 340 f., 343 f., 351, 361, 399, 404, 418, 433 f. fortress(es) 2, 33, 205, 253, 256, 275, 329 f., 341, 344, 350, 362 founding legend 2, 12, 54, 56, 65, 78, 105, 160, 196, 335, 418 fraction(s) 326, 328, 383 fratricidal (struggle/war) 32, 39, 63, 151, 154 – 159, 338 f. funerary epitaphs 5, 12, 163 f., 167, 169 – 197, 212, 232, 247, 257 – 259, 287 f., 321, 350 f., 353, 399, 405 – 408, 411 – 413, 416, 420, 443 Gentile(s) 31, 55, 62, 64, 171, 173, 179, 183 f., 222, 252, 266, 287, 294, 306 – 308, 310, 316, 319, 321, 354, 410, 439 f. Gemara 137, 152 geography/geographical 6, 10, 38, 56, 70, 142, 145 f., 180, 191, 193, 198, 202, 204, 244, 247, 265, 274 f., 363, 393 f., 424, 432 girdle (zilzul) 142 f., 151 godfearers (theoseboi ) 320, 410 golden sword 116 f. Greek(s) 1 – 4, 41 – 44, 47, 59, 61, 65, 87 f., 92, 97, 99, 115 f., 155, 171 – 180, 183 – 184, 196, 202, 210 – 212, 214 f., 217, 221 – 225, 227, 230 f., 236, 245, 257, 262, 268 f., 271, 274 f., 283 f., 287 f., 290 f., 293 f., 296, 298, 303, 312, 334 f., 338, 341 f., 353, 373, 378, 389, 391, 397, 402, 404 – 408, 411 f., 433 Graecized 59, 443 Graeco-Egyptian 29, 179, 196, 204, 225, 287 f., 298 Graeco-Roman 55, 173, 258, 268, 288, 298, 406 Graeco-Jewish 272 Greek Additions to Daniel 236 Greek Esther 214, 236, 290, 303, 310, 312, 353 Hades 174, 179, 196, 232 f., 250, 256 – 259, 288, 406

General Index

Halakha/halakhic 5, 72, 139, 142, 152, 157, 162, 263, 290, 320, 343, 384, 386, 390, 423, 437, 439 Hasidim 352 Hasmonean(s) 8, 38, 42 f., 48, 52, 54, 58 – 62, 64, 70, 74, 93 f., 101, 117 f., 121 – 123, 130, 136, 151, 154, 176 f., 199, 230, 232, 242 f., 249 f., 259, 261 f., 264 – 266, 270, 272 f., 277 f., 285 f., 288 – 291, 303, 335, 351 – 355, 360, 368 f., 372 f., 377, 379, 384, 387, 389, 396, 402, 414, 416, 418, 425, 431, 437 – 440 Hasmonean period 52, 58, 64, 101, 264 – 266, 270, 272 f., 277, 285, 288, 437 – 439 Hasmonean-Oniad relations 8, 54, 109, 117 f., 176 f., 232, 243, 249, 286, 335, 351 – 355, 414 Hebrew 15 – 18, 23, 44, 59, 65, 87, 92, 97, 99 f., 128, 140 f., 143 f., 155, 160, 172, 177, 183, 190, 195, 212, 246, 282, 294, 335, 353, 397, 405, 411, 443 Hekhalot literature 300 Heliodorus affair 109, 111, 113, 115, 211, 243, 246, 325 Helios 293, 318 Hellenes 224 Hellenism 1, 116, 174, 337, 405 Hellenized/Hellenization 1, 17, 41, 47, 119, 151 f., 175, 177, 179, 196, 254, 269, 337, 349, 387, 406, 409, 411, 439, 443 Hellenistic 3, 7 – 9, 12 f., 19, 31, 51 – 53, 55, 111, 116, 119, 128, 151 f., 163, 166, 172, 174, 179, 184, 190 f., 207, 209 – 214, 226 f., 230, 233, 236 f., 251, 257, 261, 264 – 266, 269 f., 271 f., 280 f., 283, 287 f., 291, 293, 295 f., 298, 302, 306 f., 312, 320 – 322, 327 f., 348, 350, 400, 403, 406, 408, 411 f., 416, 419, 422 f., 434 – 436 Hellenistic period 3, 8, 12 f., 31, 51 – 53, 128, 163, 166, 226, 228, 233, 264 – 266, 270, 280, 283, 287, 298, 328, 400, 435 f. Herodian 52, 64, 73, 265 high priest/high priesthood 1 f., 4, 6, 9 f., 15, 19, 21, 33 f., 36 – 38, 41 – 48, 55, 57 – 65, 71, 80 – 98, 100 – 102, 104, 106,

485

109 f., 112, 114 – 118, 129 f., 132, 134, 141, 143 f., 147 – 149, 151, 153 – 159, 161 f., 177 f., 180, 182, 200 f., 205, 211, 224, 233, 244, 246 f., 249 f., 259, 265 – 267, 269 f., 274, 277 – 283, 285, 288 f., 291, 306, 315, 317 – 319, 326 – 328, 331 f., 336, 341, 345, 351 f., 354, 358, 367 f., 370 – 377, 379 f., 382, 384, 389, 395, 400, 409, 417, 419, 429, 435 hippodrome 237, 239, 241, 244 – 246, 248, 252 f., 256, 258 f., 356 f. historiography 32, 119, 131, 238 holy place 7, 9, 75 f., 186, 192 f., 197, 223, 244, 247 f., 275, 315, 317, 369, 394, 397 – 399, 403, 415 f., 420, 437 holy seed 7, 9, 197, 397 f., 420 homeland 120 f., 232, 234, 245, 249, 348, 351, 414, 430, 438 Homer/Homeric 224 Honeycomb Scene 297, 299 – 301, 304, 308, 315, 317, 319 House of Adiabene 223 House of Boethus 65, 98, 345 House of Exile 392 House of Onias (Beth Ḥonio) 14, 40, 45, 62, 64 f., 86, 100, 138, 140 f., 152, 155, 336 House of Peleg 367 House of the Sun 334 Hyksos 163 identity (Jewish) 174, 180, 245, 285, 322, 363, 370 ideology 76, 172, 177, 381, 383 – 386, 389, 393, 396 idols/idolatry/idolatrous 138, 140 f., 143 f., 148 f., 152, 157 f., 160, 220 – 223, 230, 303, 305 f., 320, 322, 408 f., 440 Idumean(s) 2, 97, 341 infant/infancy 82, 88, 94 – 96, 101, 106, 201, 375 f., 429 Intersacerdotium 9, 372 f., 377, 429 intermarriage 89, 308, 321 f., 409 – 411 Ioudaois 68, (98), 172 f., 320, 378, 406 Isaiah’s prophecy 2 f., 16 f., 35 f., 52 f., 68, 78 f., 104 f., 148 f., 153, 158, 160 f., 196, 240, 282 f., 331, 333 – 336, 348 f., 364, 386, 399, 403 f., 415, 418, 436, 440 f.

486

General Index

Ishmaelite(s) 315 Isis 191, 412 Jerusalem Temple 1 – 3, 6, 8 – 10, 20, 23, 33 – 35, 38, 41, 43, 48, 51 f., 54, 59, 64, 66 – 68, 70 – 73, 75 – 78, 89, 93, 103 – 106, 109 f., 116 – 118, 121, 123, 129, 137 – 140, 142, 144 f., 150 – 153, 155, 158 f., 165, 177, 191 – 193, 201, 209, 212, 214, 217, 220, 222 – 224, 228, 230 – 232, 234, 241 – 247, 249, 255, 259, 264, 266 – 271, 274 f., 277, 279 f., 282, 285 f., 291, 307, 315 – 318, 325, 327 – 332, 336 f., 348, 351, 363, 369, 371, 373, 375, 382, 384 – 387, 389, 391 – 398, 400 – 402, 413 – 417, 419 – 425, 429 – 442 – defiled / desecration 2, 10, 66 f., 103 f., 106, 129, 220, 228, 232, 234, 242, 245, 277, 329, 337, 387, 393, 396, 402, 416, 418, 420, 437, 440 – destruction 67, 76, 129, 220, 330, 363, 371, 416, 421 f., 440 – future („ideal“ Temple) 230, 232, 384 f., 392, 396 – Holy of Holies 244 f., 318 – Temple Mount 52 – polluted 351, 384, 392, 395 – purification and rededication 33, 43, 59, 117, 201, 228, 234, 241 – 243, 282, 291, 369, 392, 394, 421 f. Jewish-Hellenistic Literature 3, 7, 9, 13, 19, 22, 55, 111, 116, 174, 209 – 214, 230, 236 f., 251, 257, 281, 283, 293, 295 f., 298, 302, 306 f., 312, 320, 322, 403, 409, 412, 416, 422 Jewish law(s) 22, 29, 34 f., 41, 47, 55, 61, 63, 70 – 73, 75 – 78, 100, 105, 115, 126, 139, 158, 212, 223, 232, 242, 244, 251, 263, 268, 271, 284, 320 f., 387, 392 f., 399, 400, 402, 410, 436 – 439 Jewish rebels 37, 50, 67, 98, 363, 421 – 423 Jewish Antiquities 4, 28 f., 32 f., 36 – 39, 44, 50, 53, 56 – 58, 61, 64, 66, 69 – 72, 74 – 78, 80, 82 f., 89, 92 – 96, 101 f., 105 f., 108, 126, 130, 151, 154, 157 f., 193 – 195, 197, 200, 205, 223, 267 f., 327 f., 331, 343, 355, 361, 376, 417 f.

Judaism 7, 10, 31, 75, 116, 122, 174, 190, 193, 199, 222 f., 228, 233, 244 f., 261, 294, 311, 316, 319 – 321, 337, 339, 385, 393, 395, 397 f., 400, 402, 411 f., 415 f., 419 f., 425, 438 – Alexandrian 230, 412 – „Common“ 402, 419 – Diaspora 6 f., 75, 153, 209, 244 f., 247, 275, 369, 397 f., 412, 415 – Egyptian 3, 7, 223, 275, 397, 404, 415 – Judaean 7, 76, 275, 397, 412, 415 f. – Oniad 7, 13, 232, 319, 395, 397 – 416 – priestly 368, 397 – 399, 402, 405, 409, 412, 415, 419 f., 441 – Qumranic 393 – rabbinic 393 Judaean War 4, 6, 8, 28 f., 32 – 40, 43, 45, 47, 49 f., 57 f., 64 – 69, 74 f., 77, 79 f., 92 f., 95, 100 – 102, 105 f., 108, 121, 124 – 126, 131, 162, 200, 205, 326, 328, 331, 355, 359, 361, 363, 417 f., 421 – Book Seven 28, 35, 37 f., 47, 66 f., 327 Joseph & Aseneth 3, 9, 13, 19, 211 f., 214, 223, 281, 293 – 322, 348, 399, 403 – 408, 410 f., 415, 422 katoikic (land) 202, 204, 329, 340, 362 karet (punishment) 130, 140 kingship/kingdom 109, 220, 227, 261, 265, 273 f., 282 f., 288 – 291, 313, 352, 355, 413 – Seventh king 225 – 227, 229, 234 – King of the sun 222 – King’s Mountain (Har HaMelekh) 142 f., 145, 157 – klerurch(oi)/ klerurchiai 268, 273, 329, 340, 362, 404 Lacedaemonian => see Spartan(s) „Land of Damascus“ 373 „Land of Ḥelkias“ 202 – 204, 206 „Land of Onias“ 2, 5, 20, 64, 152, 164, 167, 169, 175, 180 – 182, 186 – 188, 196, 203 f., 212, 247, 259, 330, 332, 349 f., 360, 362 f.

General Index

language(s) 2, 128, 160, 172 f., 179, 196, 211 f., 263, 268, 273, 288, 293 – 295, 317, 333, 349, 405, 412, 440 lambs 133 f., 433 laographia 236 Latin 5, 27, 124, 171, 293, 296, 347 „laws of the fathers“ (and see => „ancestral law“) 61 „Leontopolis Source“ 48 f., 51 – 56, 65, 68, 78, 102, 104 f., 328, 417 Letter of Aristeas 22, 86 – 88, 90, 183, 213, 236, 248 f., 261, 278, 281, 283, 292, 310, 312, 319, 330, 400 Levite(s) 36, 93, 154, 191 f., 277, 382 lion(s) 164, 303 – 305, 346 – 348, 415, 419 list of high priests 36 f., 44, 59, 62, 65, 80 f., 87 f., 90, 93, 104, 106, 274, 279, 374 – 376, 417 literary- and composition criticism 11, 21, 31, 37, 105 literary genre(s) 111, 131, 133, 174, 230 f., 234, 238, 274, 293, 406 local revolts 338 f., 342 f., 408 loyal/loyalty 2, 32, 54, 67, 71, 97, 195, 204, 213 f., 222, 239, 245, 250 – 253, 259, 275, 309 f., 314, 320, 322, 338, 340, 353, 355, 357, 391, 402, 404 f., 413 – 415, 430, 432, 434 Macedonian(s) 34, 185, 225, 227, 261, 264, 287, 314 Maccabees/Maccabean 36 f., 43, 45, 57 f., 66, 76, 93, 99, 104 f., 117, 128 f., 133 f., 176 f., 227 – 229, 232, 272, 277, 235 – 327, 353, 368, 371 f., 399, 419 – Maccabean/Hasmonean Revolt 36, 42 f., 45, 57, 93, 99, 105, 117, 128 f., 133 f., 176 f., 227 – 229, 232, 277, 325 – 327, 353, 368, 371 f., 399, 419 1 Maccabees 23, 38, 42 f., 48, 58 – 60, 62, 71, 84, 108, 118, 120, 129, 213, 325, 345, 352 2 Maccabees 1 f., 13, 16, 21, 23, 27, 42 f., 58, 93, 97, 99, 108 – 127, 129 f., 134, 155, 224, 233, 236, 239, 241 – 244, 246, 249 f., 259, 274, 283, 286, 290, 307,

487

312, 325 – 328, 348 f., 352 f., 356 f., 371 f., 375 – 377, 418 3 Maccabees 3, 9, 13, 22, 115, 212, 214, 232, 236 – 260, 279, 281, 297, 303, 306 – 316, 322, 352, 355 f., 400, 403 – 408, 413, 422 martyr(s)/martyrdom 111, 113, 118, 121 f., 280 Masada 363 Masoretic 333 – 335, 436 Menaḥot (tractate) 137, 153 Menelaus Source 43 f., 47, 59 – 65, 81, 93, 99, 104, 159, 325 Menorah/Menoroth 172, 389, 402 mercenary/-ies 2 f., 8, 64, 98, 178 f., 196, 199, 205, 213, 237, 239, 251 – 253, 259, 268, 270 – 273, 275, 278, 285, 321 f., 329 f., 332, 338, 340, 351, 363, 404 f., 407, 409, 412, 417 f., 422 f., 443 Merkavah Mysticism 295 Messiah/messianic 116, 130, 133, 219, 222, 225, 229 f., 233, 304, 348 metrical rhymes and inscriptions 172, 175, 179, 182, 196, 288, 406 f. metropolis (Mother-City) 274, 430 Mikdash Adam (Temple of Man) 10, 369, 391 – 396, 399, 435, 440 military 2 f., 27, 36 f., 49 – 51, 53, 56, 104, 131, 167, 181, 188 f., 195, 200 f., 204 f., 213 f., 239, 253, 268 f., 271 – 273, 278, 285, 291, 313 f., 329 – 332, 338, 340 – 342, 345, 350, 354 f., 357 f., 361 – 363, 404 f., 407, 413, 423, 443 – army 39, 41, 64, 112, 131, 193 f., 202, 213, 253, 268, 272 f., 282, 328, 330, 338, 352, 355, 357 f., 360 – 362, 404, 413 – cavalry 202, 206, 227 – colony 189, 273, 347 – mounted archer(s) 266, 271 f., 283 – navy 362 – official 49, 338 – settlers/settlements 2, 180, 184, 188 f., 268, 271, 273, 279, 284, 291, 329 f., 345, 347, 349 – 351, 361 f., 404, 408, 415 – troops/forces 1 – 3, 39, 48, 49, 64, 73, 116, 119, 129, 177, 196, 199, 239 f., 253,

488

General Index

258, 327, 330 f., 338, 340, 356 f., 360 – 362, 413 minorities 340 f. mixed (cemetery/-ies and military units) 170 – 176, 178 f., 196, 287, 321, 330, 351, 399, 407 monarch(y) 110, 224, 265, 267, 273, 283 monotheism/monotheistic 179, 196, 221, 224, 408 f. „Mound of the Jews“ => see also Tell el-Yahoudieh 5, 14, 164, 170 multiple temples 9, 35, 71 f., 106, 399, 435 – 442 mythology 172, 224, 305 nagid („prince of the covenant“) 131 f. Nazir/Nazirite 138 – 140, 401, 423 f. Neith 293 „New Jerusalem“ 300, 335, 348 f., 384 f., 414 f. nome 3, 21, 35, 42, 64, 67, 100, 184, 186, 188, 198, 200 f., 255, 329, 332, 334, 341, 345 f., 348, 369, 418, 424 name(s)/named/unnamed 3, 6, 19, 27, 34, 40 f., 44 – 47, 57, 59 – 61, 63, 65, 79 f., 82, 84 – 90, 93 – 102, 106, 119 f., 124, 126, 138, 142, 147 f., 151 f., 154 f., 157 – 159, 161 f., 164, 167, 170 – 172, 174 – 183, 185, 187, 189, 192, 194, 196 – 204, 230, 238, 244, 246 – 248, 250 f., 261, 269 f., 279 f., 282 f., 297 f., 305, 307 – 309, 318 f., 332, 334, 344 f., 347 f., 351, 353, 355, 368, 370, 373 – 378, 382 f., 389, 407, 411, 413, 419, 424 f., 429, 435, 443 – Aramaic 65, 99 f. – biblical 176, 183, 297, 411, 443 – divine 318 f. – dynastic 177 f., 353 – Egyptian 177 – Greek 44, 59, 61, 65, 97, 99 f., 155, 171, 176 – 179, 202, 389, 411 – Hasmonean 176 f., 425 – Hebrew 44, 59, 65, 99, 155, 177, 411, 443 – Jewish 170 f., 175, 178, 180, 189, 196, 351, 407, 411 – Latin 27, 171 – Semitic 178, 189, 196

– theophoric 176, 355, 411 non-Jews/Jewish 171, 173 – 176, 178 – 180, 184 f., 196, 202, 209, 224, 231, 233, 257, 284, 308, 343, 351, 405 – 407, 409 – 411, 413, 423 Nubian 342 numismatics 273, 279 f., 374 oikoumene 1 offerings (see also sacrifices) 73, 137 f., 139 f., 144, 151, 153, 223, 390, 401, 414, 435 – burnt 168, 435 – cereal 137 – heave 233 – votive 285 f., 401, 412, 433, 435 – whole 138 – 140 Oniad authorship 3, 9, 13, 19, 210, 213 f., 216, 219, 226, 230 – 235, 237, 243, 247, 249 f., 253 f., 258 f., 275, 279, 283, 286, 291 f., 295 – 297, 302, 304, 306 f., 309 – 311, 313 – 316, 320 – 322, 348, 422 – background/origin/milieu 3, 9, 13, 16, 19, 229, 233 f., 237, 248 f., 253, 256, 275, 279, 286 – 289, 291, 295 – 297, 299, 302 f., 307, 309, 312, 315 f., 368, 377, 386, 399 f., 403, 405 – dynasty 9, 50, 80, 88, 99, 129, 131, 367 f., 381 – 386, 389, 396, 429 – genealogy (high priestly succession) 14 f., 19, 21, 44, 54, 58 f., 61 – 65, 69 f., 80 – 88, 90 – 94, 96 – 101, 106, 149, 372, 374 – 377, 379, 417 – Jews 20, 170, 173, 175, 190, 196, 230, 232, 234 f., 248, 256, 259, 276, 356, 360, 386, 396, 405 f., 408 f., 414 f., 433 – literature 3, 13, 209 – 214, 237, 304, 321, 403, 405 – 408, 410 f., 416 – soldiers/units 39, 64, 111, 188, 239 f., 253, 258, 351, 356 f., 360 – 362, 407, 413 – Zadokites 381, 384 f. Onias’ community 2 f., 6 – 10, 12 f., 16 – 18, 20 – 22, 56, 64, 169, 171 – 180, 182, 187 – 192, 195 – 199, 203, 205, 209 – 213, 229, 234 – 235, 237, 243, 247 f., 253 f., 258 f., 281, 285 f., 291, 298, 304, 315, 319, 321 f., 331 f., 336, 340, 342 f., 348,

General Index

350 f., 354 f., 361 – 363, 381, 386, 389, 392, 394 – 417, 419, 422 – 424, 434, 442 f. – organization of 18, 21, 182 – 188, 195, 350 f., 412, 419 – death / murder 16, 55, 92, 94 – 96, 106, 108 – 113, 115, 118, 121 – 127, 130 – 134, 201, 326, 359 f., 372, 375 – 377, 418 – flight / arrival to Egypt 2, 6, 45 f., 57, 60 f., 64, 67, 80, 82, 92, 102 – 104, 106, 118 – 125, 134, 148, 152, 155, 158, 161, 181, 192, 194, 200, 205, 211, 230, 232, 234, 276 – 278, 281 – 285, 291, 300, 315, 325 – 332, 337, 339, 343, 358, 369, 372 f., 375, 401, 418 – settlement 3, 5, 17 – 19, 47, 164, 167, 169, 180 f., 187 – 189, 202, 276, 287, 292, 330, 335, 338, 340 f., 348 – 351, 364, 408, 415, 434 Onias’ Temple 3 – 19, 20 – 23, 27, 31 – 40, 45, 47 – 49, 51 – 54, 56 f., 60 f., 64 – 69, 72 – 74, 76 f., 83, 102, 104 – 107, 118, 122, 135 – 140, 142, 147, 152 f., 156, 161, 163, 177, 186, 190, 192 f., 196, 198 f., 201, 205, 209 – 211, 214, 216, 219, 230 – 232, 240, 243, 247 – 249, 256 f., 259, 275 f., 285 f., 289, 295 f., 298, 300, 304 f., 312, 315 – 317, 322, 332, 334 – 336, 343 f., 346 – 348, 354, 362 – 364, 367, 381, 385 f., 389 – 391, 397 f., 400 – 404, 408 f., 412 – 425, 429, 432 – 435, 437 – 439, 440 – 442 – appearance 4, 8, 33, 35 f., 38, 49, 51 – 53, 68, 73, 164, 332, 348, 415, 417, 420 – appurtenances / vessels 35, 38, 52, 68, 74, 76, 389, 401 f., 419 – attitudes toward 7, 19 f., 23, 34, 54, 73 f., 76, 105, 122, 209 f., 240, 243, 256, 285 f., 300, 334, 336, 340, 343, 412, 421 f. – building of / foundation 10, 12, 18 f., 22, 33, 36, 38 f., 45 – 48, 51, 53, 58, 60 f., 64, 67 – 69, 72, 76 – 79, 96, 102 – 104, 106, 112, 124, 126 f., 135 f., 140 f., 144, 147 f., 150 – 152, 154 – 156, 159 – 161, 167, 180, 191, 229 f., 232, 235, 240, 255 f., 260, 282 f., 300, 305, 308, 325, 327,

489

329, 331 f., 339 – 344, 350, 355, 376 f., 389, 409, 415, 417 – 423, 432, 438, 440 – closure / destruction of 3, 34, 36 f., 39, 48 f., 51, 53, 67 – 69, 104, 164, 235, 363 f., 421 – date of foundation 4, 8, 13, 33, 82, 102 – 104, 106 f., 332, 415, 417 f., 422, 437 – distance to 35, 49, 51, 53, 164, 167, 199, 350 – duration of 8, 36, 53, 68, 413, 416, 421, 425 – history of 3 f., 7 f., 10, 12 f., 19, 21 – 23, 27, 32 – 34, 37, 39 f., 53 f., 61, 63, 66 – 68, 70 – 72, 102, 109, 118, 122, 124, 130, 135, 140 f., 144, 163, 198 f., 230, 297, 300, 325 – 364, 417 – identity of builder 4, 8, 13, 16 – 19, 21, 32 f., 40, 43, 57 f., 79 – 82, 86, 92, 94 – 96, 100 – 102, 106, 108, 124, 126 f., 131, 162, 198 – 201, 205, 250, 276, 325, 367, 369, 386, 395, 417 f., 432 – importance 3, 7 – 9, 13 f., 16, 20, 162, 189, 199, 209 f., 336, 354, 361 – 364, 404, 412 f., 417, 422 f., 425, 432 – legitimacy 7, 17 f., 76 – 78, 105, 138 – 140, 148 f., 151 – 153, 157, 241, 250, 254 – 256, 260, 294, 300 f., 333 – 336, 399, 404, 422, 439, 441 – location 5, 14 – 16, 142, 163 – 169, 187, 199, 201, 212, 247, 249, 297, 334, 346 – 350, 369, 389 f., 402, 408, 418 – motives for building 4, 8, 20, 33 f., 36, 38, 52, 68 f., 78 f., 104 f., 331 f., 417 f., 421, 438 – remains of 5, 14, 21, 164 f., 167 – 170, 332, 346, 349 – scholarship on 4, 6, 15 – 23, 367 – worship at 18, 74, 151 f., 190 f., 193, 197, 212, 247 f., 256, 344, 369, 389, 400 – 402, 409, 412, 418 – 420, 423 onkolai (garment) 142, 151 onomastics 6, 171, 173 – 178, 196, 198, 411 f., 424, 443 oral tradition(s) 46, 115, 127, 135, 137, 144, 154, 156, 159, 161 origio 270 f. Osiris 298, 412

490

General Index

pagan 18, 23, 35, 113 – 115, 171, 175, 181, 209, 221, 224, 251, 261, 282, 291, 306, 313, 320 f., 343, 346, 407, 439 f. Palestinian 12, 23, 135 f., 143, 145 f., 149, 155, 172, 213, 217, 295, 335, papponymy 19, 100, 370, 374 – 378 papyri/papyrology 6, 12 f., 21, 23, 80, 145, 173, 175, 184 – 186, 194, 198 – 206, 219, 236, 251, 269, 273, 325, 330, 343 – 345, 347, 350 f., 358, 363, 372, 377 f., 389, 400, 403, 408, 412, 418 f., 421, 424, 433, 440 Parthian(s) 431 Pasht => see Bubastis-in-the-field Passover 50, 164, 210, 269, 311 patron(s)/patronship 28, 67, 114 f., 357, 363, 434 Peḥah 280 Pentecost 412 permission (royal) 34 f., 37 f., 48, 72 f., 255 f., 260, 340, 343 Persian(s) 117, 265 f., 280, 287, 330, 401 period 52, 81, 128, 280, 283, 433 petition (Onias’) 35, 38, 55, 72, 329, 331 f., 340, 418 Pharisees 7, 136, 368, 412 pilgrims/pilgrimage 191, 256, 300, 412, 423, 431 f., 441 pious/piety 1, 17, 22, 35, 55, 73, 82, 110, 112 – 116, 120, 128, 221, 224, 246, 283, 301, 320 f., 332, 343, 384 f., 409, 419 phoenix 212, 298 polis asedek => see „City of Righteousness“ polemics/polemical 22, 29, 42, 55, 65, 122, 125, 137, 151 f., 161, 285 f., 334 politarch 182 – 186, 188 f., 195, 197, 350, 413 politeia 289 politeuma 178, 183 – 188, 195, 197, 349 – 351, 412, 419 polytheism 174, 257 Pompeian 263, 266 f. „Potter’s Oracle“ 222 prayer(s) 7, 233, 242, 244 – 246, 248, 255 f., 259 f., 303 f., 312, 314, 331, 388, 392 – 395, 398, 415, 420, 441 pre–Maccabean/Hasmonean 36 f., 43, 45, 57 f., 61, 66, 104, 389, 402

priest(s) / priestly 1, 6 f., 10, 13 f., 19, 27, 31, 36, 41, 55, 59, 62 f., 65 f., 69, 73 – 75, 79 f., 86 f., 90, 93 f., 97 – 99, 101, 105, 116 f., 130, 138 f., 142 f., 145 – 147, 149, 151 – 161, 172, 186, 189 – 193, 196, 205, 212, 223, 231 – 234, 237, 244 – 250, 259, 262 f., 265 – 272, 275 – 278, 285, 289, 291, 297 f., 302, 305, 308, 312 – 322, 341, 355, 363, 367 – 389, 393, 395 – 403, 405, 409 f., 412, 414 – 417, 419 – 421, 423, 434, 438, 440 – 442 priestly pedigree 7, 62, 69, 189 – 193, 223, 244, 247 f., 291, 302, 315, 332, 335, 371, 374, 380, 383 – 385, 398 – 400, 402, 409 f., 416 priestly blessing 190, 233 priestess(es) 152, 189 – 193, 247, 400, 420 priesthood 10, 39, 62, 71, 82, 89, 138, 145 f., 149, 153 f., 161, 191 f., 212, 214, 233 f., 237, 251, 268, 274 f., 289, 298, 300 – 302, 315, 319, 321, 369, 372, 381, 383 – 386, 388 f., 392, 395 – 397, 399 – 401, 403, 412, 416, 420 propaganda 17, 59, 224, 226, 249, 352, 438 f. prophecy/prophetic 2, 16 f., 28, 34 – 36, 52 f., 68, 78 f., 104 f., 116, 128 f., 131, 148 f., 153, 158, 160, 204, 210, 215 – 217, 219, 221, 224, 226 – 228, 230 – 232, 240, 282 f., 285, 301 f., 310, 331, 333 – 336, 349, 364, 379, 382, 385 f., 396, 399, 418, 436, 440 f. proseuche 255, 332, 415 prostasia 61, 269 proselytes 294, 300, 308, 316, 320 – 322, 411, 432 Pseudo-Hecataeus 3, 9, 13, 48, 261 – 292, 302, 315, 322, 355, 358, 400, 403 – 407, 422 Ptolemaic 1 – 3, 6, 13, 22 f., 32, 39, 48 f., 54 – 57, 64, 67, 70, 87, 104, 112, 129, 131, 145, 163, 173, 176 f., 186, 188, 193 – 195, 199 – 202, 205, 213 f., 222, 224, 226, 229, 234, 236, 238, 242, 249, 251 f., 254 – 256, 258 f., 261, 264 f., 268, 272 f., 278, 281, 284 f., 295, 298, 309 f., 313 – 315, 322, 329 f., 336 – 345, 350,

General Index

352 – 358, 360 – 362, 378, 401, 404 f., 407, 413, 417 f., 433, 443 purity/impurity 55, 212, 233, 290, 316, 319, 343, 384, 392, 394 Pythagoreans 233 Quellenkritik (source criticism) 11, 30 f., 39 f., Qumran => see Index of Places – community 9 f., 13, 17, 20, 201, 212, 233, 286, 290, 321, 348, 352, 367 – 370, 372 f., 376, 380 – 386, 388 f., 393 – 396, 398 f., 402 f., 437 f., 440 – Community Rule (Serekh HaYaḥad [1QS]) 195, 381 – 383 – Damascus Document (CD) 370 f., 376, 378 – 382, 385, 387, 391, 395 – 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) 381, 391, 393 – Halakhic Letter (4QMMT) 290, 370, 384, 388, 395, 437 – halakha 290, 321, 386, 439 – Hymn Scroll (1QH) 370 – ha-rabim („the many“) 195, 383 – Pesher Habakkuk (1QpHab) 302, 388, 392 – Pesher on Isaiah 388 – Scriptorium 391 – scrolls 17, 368, 372 f., 380 f. – temple 9, 369, 373, 390 – 396, 435, 437 – Temple Scroll (11QT) 370, 385, 395, 439 – War Scroll 392, 395 – Wicked priest 20, 290, 367, 379, 384, 388 Ra/Re => see Atum-Re Rabbis 5, 12, 77, 94, 126, 135 – 162, 240, 336, 372, 419, 439, 442 rabbinic 11 – 16, 18, 22 f., 45 f., 77, 117, 135 f., 144 – 147, 150 – 154, 156, 159, 161 f., 344, 345, 393, 401, 409, 418, 420, 430, 439 – literature and texts 5 f., 11 – 13, 15 f., 23, 46, 80, 84, 91 f., 100, 125, 135 – 162, 190, 240, 250 rabim => Qumran Ramesside period 163 ravens 133 f. reforms 139, 188, 282, 327 f., 337, 348, 362, 415, 419

491

religion/religious 1 – 3, 7 f., 10, 12, 14, 18, 47, 60, 66, 68, 75 f., 79, 104 f., 139 f., 153, 162, 179 f., 213, 215, 221, 223, 239 f., 243, 252, 269, 274, 276, 280 – 282, 288, 290, 292, 306, 312, 327, 331 f., 336 f., 340 – 342, 347, 351, 354, 389, 392 – 394, 398 – 400, 404, 407, 409, 412 – 415, 417, 419, 421 – 423, 430, 436, 438, 440 – 442 „remnant of Israel“ 371, 385, 392, 396 righteousness 335, 383, 389 rival/rivalry 1, 4, 10, 12 f., 22, 33, 36, 38, 41, 52, 68 f., 71, 77 f., 105, 157, 242, 259, 290, 328, 331 f., 414 f., 418, 420 f., 442 Roman(s) 3, 5, 8, 12 f., 27 f., 31, 36 f., 39, 44 f., 48 – 53, 55, 63, 66 – 69, 73 f., 103 f., 163 f., 166 f., 170, 173 f., 181, 188 f., 197 – 200, 209, 216, 219, 221 f., 224 – 226, 229, 234 – 236, 241, 258, 266, 268, 273, 288, 295, 298, 317, 325, 328, 337, 339, 350, 357, 360 – 364, 378, 401, 404, 406 – 408, 423, 431 – 436, 438 – military report 36 f., 49 – 51, 53, 104, 167, 181, 350 – period 5, 8, 12 f., 36, 45, 51 f., 68, 163, 166, 173, 188 f., 197 f., 209, 216, 219, 225, 229, 234 – 236, 241, 298, 363, 378, 407, 424, 435 f., 438 – source => see Roman military report royal correspondence (=> see also ‘Epistolary Piece’) 35, 48, 54 – 56, 71 – 73, 417 royal title 266, 273 f., 289 Sabbath 89, 330, 387 sacrifices/sacrificial 1, 7, 17, 27, 42, 73, 75, 105, 113, 138 – 140, 143, 153, 164, 191 f., 223 f., 231 f., 234, 244, 248, 264, 316 f., 331 f., 364, 369, 373, 382, 390 – 398, 401 f., 414 – 416, 418 – 420, 430, 433, 435, 441 – daily (Tamid) 42, 331, 401, 419, 430, 433 Sadducees 7, 383 – 386, 389 – Sadducean law/halakha 321, 386 Sages 143 – 146, 161 Samaritan(s) 2, 70, 77, 82, 88 – 90, 341, 398, 403 f., 433, 435 f., 438 f. – Pentateuch 404

492

General Index

Samaritan Temple (Mt. Gerizim) 15, 23, 52, 70, 72, 76 f., 89, 101, 157, 159, 193, 390, 398 f., 402, 429, 433, 435 – 441 sarcophagi 173 schism/schismatic 8, 10, 13, 175, 414, 417, 419 f., 442 scripture 190, 285, 333, 435 f. Sebastenoi 229 Second Temple 12, 136, 433 – period 4, 9, 18, 52, 61, 132, 144 f., 147, 176, 191, 193, 279, 319, 374, 425, 437 – history 4 – texts and literature 146, 279, 302 sect/sectarian(s) 7, 9, 74, 233, 290, 370 – 372, 378, 384 f., 387 f., 391 – 393, 395 Seleucid(s) 1 f., 13, 55, 57, 67, 70 f., 104, 109 f., 114, 116 f., 119 f., 122, 129, 131, 134, 177, 226, 241 f., 277, 282, 291, 326, 328, 330, 337 f., 343, 351, 353, 370, 373, 433 Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 319 f. service (temple/divine) 1, 36, 106, 127, 139, 143, 191, 400, 430, 440 f. Septuagint (LXX) 174, 255, 257, 263 f., 283, 295, 297, 334 f. Sevaḥim (tractate) 137 seven (number) 141, 226, 297, 301, 307, 311, 373 Shechemites 89, 223 Sheol 174, 179, 257 Sibylline Oracles 406 – Second Book 218, 220 – Third Book 3 f., 9, 13, 211, 215 – 235, 257, 297, 302 f., 311, 316 – 320, 322, 329, 399, 403, 407 f., 410, 422 – Fifth Book 4, 53, 211, 216, 220, 222, 235, 308, 319 f., 322, 364 Simon the Just (identity) 83 f., 86, 91 f., 106, 250, 368 Slavonic 296 solar (imagery) 17, 311 f., 335, 369, 388 f., 402, 419 solar (calendar) 17, 286, 311 f., 369, 386 – 389, 396, 402 f., 419 solar (worship) 297 f., 305, 369, 388, 402, 419 f.

soldiers/soldiery 41, 183, 196, 213 f., 221, 253, 271, 291, 314, 321 f., 330, 338, 340 f., 343, 362, 407, 413 Sons of Aaron 383, 393 Sons of Light 392 Sons of Zadok 9, 368 f., 372, 380 – 386, 389, 393, 395 f. Spartan(s) 38, 82, 84, 118, 268, 352 spiritual 1, 12, 230, 391 f., 395 f., 399, 435, 437, 441 stasis 45, 67, 69, 78, 105, 328, 421 strategos 2, 184, 194 f., 197, 200 – 202, 204, 329, 341, 345, 350, 357, 362, 418 Stoicism 412 Story of Aḥiqar 403 substitute 7, 104, 107, 125, 136, 153, 247, 257, 331 f., 383, 392 – 394, 396, 398, 401, 421 f., 441 f. symbols/symbolism 117, 128, 142, 172, 174, 196, 226, 304, 312, 315, 335, 347, 369, 379, 389, 406, 415, 418, 433 synagogue(s) 21, 72, 114, 127, 182, 185, 190, 192 f., 255, 332, 415, 441 syncretism/syncretistic 389, 397, 402, 412, 419 f. syntaxis 343 Syriac 296, 300 Syrian War(s) 131, 272 – Sixth 57, 66 f., 131, 205, 326 – 328, 338 – Fourth 88 Talmudic 136 f., 140 – 142, 147, 150 – 153, 155 – 157, 161 f., 193, 420 Tamid => see sacrifices Tannaim 140, 144 Tannaitic 22, 141, 144 Targum 53, 160, 334, 364, 404 Teacher of Righteousness 9, 17, 19 f., 37, 290, 302, 352, 367 f., 370 – 374, 376 – 388, 392, 395 f. Temple of Yaho 433 Temple tax (=> half-Shekel) 14, 414, 424, 430 – 434, 441 Temple (worship) 139, 384, 392 f., 414, 423, 430, 432 f., 440 f. Temple (archive) 48, 59, 104 theocracy/theocratic 266, 289

General Index

theology/theological 29, 126, 304, 409 Therapeutae 295, 412 Testament of Job 4, 211 tombs 121, 171 – 174, 191 – family 171, 173 – rock-cut 171 – tombstones 15, 170 – 174, 400 f., 406 toponym 145, 164, 166, 170, 202, 297, 305, 334, 348 topos 111, 255 f., 287, Torah 75, 153, 193, 385, 404 Tobiads (sons of) 2, 15, 41, 43 f., 67, 82, 84 f., 126, 326 – 328 „Tobiad Romance“ („Tale of the Tobiads“) 84, 211, 312 tower (structure) 33, 35, 49, 53, 68 Triballi 364 tripartite (temple-structure) 164, 167, 317 Triumvirs 229 universalism/universalistic 116, 179 f., 196, 224, 321, 397, 399, 405, 409 f., 412, 416, 420 Urim and Thummim 231 Vita 29

493

War of the Sceptres 112, 194, 203, 353, 358 Wicked priest => Qumran woman/women 48, 89, 151 f., 157 f., 178, 189 – 193, 197, 220, 300, 305, 317, 319, 322, 399 f., 420 worship 18, 71 f., 75, 114, 139, 140 f., 144, 148 – 153, 190 – 193, 197, 212, 221 f., 252, 275, 282, 297 f., 305, 341, 344, 347, 349, 369, 384, 389, 393 – 395, 399 – 402, 408 f., 414 f., 419 f., 423, 430, 432 f., 435, 437, 439 – 441 Yaḥad 367, 381 Yerushalmi (Talmud) 23, 135, 144 – 150, 152 – 154, 161 Zadokite 13, 17, 130, 154, 250, 335, 368 f., 372, 376, 380 – 386, 389, 393, 396, 419 – descent 97, 335, 380 – 384 – dynasty 154, 369, 383, 385, 389, 396 – heritage 17, 380, 386, 396 – (high) priests/priesthood 97, 130, 250, 368 f., 372, 380 – 386, 389, 396 – origin/background 13, 250, 369, 381, 386 Ẓedek 335, 383 f., 386, 389, 402 Zeus Xenios 439

Index of Names Aaron 82, 190, 267, 371, 393 Abias 75 Abraham 261, 298, 314, 443 Abram 167 Abramos 175 f., 182 f., 185 – 188, 195, 197, 350, 411, 413 Agathokles, son of Onesimos 171 Agetharchides of Cnidus 276 Agrippa I 98, 130, 154 Alcimus 33, 60 – 62, 83, 377, 387, 429 Alexander the Alabarch 432 Alexander Balas 71, 351 Alexander the Great 46, 89, 101, 116 f., 133, 225 Alexander Yannai/Jannaeus 39, 136 – 137, 176 – 177, 180, 199, 262, 266, 272 – 274, 288, 290 – 291, 303 – 304, 353 – 354, 412 Aline 180 Amram 190 Ananias 39, 64, 100, 112, 193 f., 199, 279, 354 f., 358 – 360, 429 Andronicus 109 f., 121 f. Antigonos of Sokho 345, 368 Antigonus (the Hasmonean) 373 Antiochus III 330 Antiochus IV Epiphanes 1 f., 6, 10, 17, 34 f., 41 – 47, 55, 59 f., 64, 66 f., 76, 79, 81 f., 94, f. 101, 103 f., 106, 109 – 111, 114 f., 119 – 123, 129, 131 f., 134, 157, 177, 200, 205, 220 f., 225 – 228, 234, 276, 282, 291, 325 – 329, 336 – 338, 343, 353, 371, 387, 402, 415, 418, 420 Antiochus V Eupator 119 Antipater 39, 64, 98, 177, 360 Apion 29, 238 f., 251 f., 298 Aquilla 334 Areus (Areios) I 84 f. Areus II 84 Aristobulus 63, 176, 213, 273 f., 288, 357, 373 Aristobulus II 63 Aristobulus III 63, 94 Arsinoa 180 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-027

Arsinoe 175, 177 f., 180 f. Artapanus 209, 212, 262, 268, 298, 312 Aseneth 293, 297 – 301, 303 – 308, 310 – 315, 317 – 320, 322, 411 Asher 308, 313 Augustus/Augustan 12, 170, 172, 176 – 177, 181, 189, 197, 204, 229, 236, 258, 400, 431 Barchias, son of Barchias 378 Benjamin 97, 155, 310, 314 Berussos 272 Bilhah 308 Boethus, son of Nikostratos 344 f. Bonaim ben Bonaim 100 Bothylis/Bethuel 443 Cadmus 284, 407 Caligula 236 Cambyses 297, 330 Cleopatra II 32, 48, 73, 111, 203, 242, 252 f., 313, 344, 352, 355, 357 f., 413 Cleopatra III 193, 199, 203 f., 354, 358 Cleopatra Thea 339 Cleopatra VII 161, 217 f., 220, 360 f. Dan 308, 313 Danaus 284, 407 Demetrius I 70 f., 241 Dinah 223, 322 Dionysus of Halicarnassus 29 Dionysus Petoserapis 338 Domitian 28 Dorion, the Idumean 341 Dosa 176, 411 Dosarion 176, 411 Dositheos, the son of Drimylus 251, 309 Dositheos 176, 202, 206, 253, 330, 355, 411 Dosithon 176, 411 Egeria (or Aetheria) 300 Eleazar 176, 192, 280, 409, 411 Eleazar, son of Boethus 345

Index of Names

Eleazar (high priest) 59, 82 f., 86 – 91, 95, 248 Eleazar (priest, 3 Maccabees) 244 – 249, 259, 314 f. Elijah 300 Ephraim 310 Eupolemus 230 Eusebius 127, 130, 181, 261 Flavian(s) 28 Flavius Josephus 2 – 6, 8, 10 – 15, 18 – 20, 22 f., 27 – 106, 108, 110 f., 116 – 121, 124 – 126, 130, 136 – 138, 141, 145, 148, 151, 154, 156 – 162, 164, 167 f., 173, 177 f., 180 – 182, 184, 187, 192 – 194, 196 f., 199 – 205, 209, 211, 214, 231, 233, 237 – 240, 250, 252 – 259, 261 – 271, 273 – 276, 279 – 282, 285, 289, 291 f., 298, 302, 305 f., 310, 312 f., 317, 325 – 336, 340 – 348, 350, 352 – 363, 370, 372 – 378, 388 f., 391, 399 – 401, 404, 413, 415, 417 – 424, 430 – 434, 443 Fulvia 432 Gad 308, 313 Gaius Popilius Laenas Gaudentia 192

337

Hadrian 216, 295 Haman 307 Ḥananyah 155 Hecataeus of Abdera 48, 261, 263, 284, 292 Heliodorus 109, 111, 113, 115, 211, 243, 246, 307, 325 Ḥelkias 39, 64, 100, 112, 177, 193 – 195, 197, 199, 202 – 204, 206, 354, 358 – 360, 378, 429 Hercules 151 Herod (the Great) 31, 50 – 52, 63, 94, 97 f., 177, 199 f., 332, 360 f. Herodotus 297, 329 Heron 202 Ḥezekiah 48, 160, 211, 266, 270, 276 – 285, 291, 315, 358, 404 Hieronymus of Cardia 276 Hilarion, daughter of Philip 171

495

Ḥonio 142 – 147, 150, 152, 155, 157 – 159, 161 Hyrcanus I 118, 136, 151, 262, 439 f. Hyrcanus II 39, 63 f., 130, 177, 263, 360 Hyrkanus (the Tobiad) 82 Iakobus 176 Iesus 176, 411 Ioanes 176, 411 Iosephos 176, 411 Irene 238 Isaiah 2 – 4, 16 f., 22, 35, 52 f., 68, 78 f., 105, 148 f., 153, 158, 160 f., 196, 210, 219, 229, 240, 282 f., 331, 333 – 336, 348 f., 364, 386, 388, 399, 418, 436, 440 f. Isakis 176, 411 Ithaca 238 Iuda 176, 411 Iudas, son of Iudas (Judas, son of Judas) 176, 411 Jacimus (Jakeimos)-> see Alcimus 60, 82 Jacob 298, 302, 304, 314 Jaddua (Jaddus) 46, 59, 81 – 83, 89 f., 116 f., 157 – 159, 429 James, the brother of Jesus 368 Jason (high priest) 1 f., 40 – 45, 58 f., 61, 65, 81 – 83, 92 – 96, 99, 109, 115, 118, 120, 155, 326 – 328, 337, 349, 373, 375, 387, 419, 429 Jason of Cyrene 58, 93, 108, 111 f., 119 – 122, 125 f. Jehoiakim 440 Jeremiah, the prophet 116 f., 329 Jerobam 75 Jesus ben Phiabi 177 f. Jesus (Christ) 97, 130, 368 Jesus (Yehoshuah) 41, 44, 59, 61, 65, 82 f., 93 – 95, 99, 156, 158 f., 174 f., 280 Joazar, son of Boethus 345 John, son of John 100, 378 John (Joannes) 156, 158 f., 429 John the Baptist 368 Jonathan, the Hasmonean 10, 38, 134, 290, 351 f., 372 f., 377, 379, 387 Joseph 27, 85, 297 – 299, 301 f., 306 – 308, 310 – 315, 317 f., 320, 322, 330, 346,

496

Index of Names

Joseph ben Mattityahu 27 Josiah 139, 282 Judah the Essene 368 Judas, son of Judas 77, 100, 116 – 118, 121, 177, 201, 242, 378 Judas Maccabaeus 33, 113, 116 – 118, 242, 280 Julia Severa 185 Julius Caesar 39, 64, 177, 360 f., 431 Justus, son of Leontius 257 Kephallion

98

Lepidus 229 Levi 190, 301 f., 310, 315 Lupus 36, 49 f., 52 Lysias 60, 82, 119 f. Lysimachus, son of Ptolemy 353 Lysimachus 97 Manassas 90, 310 Manasseh, king of Judah 440 Manasseh/Manasses (high priest) 59, 83, 86, 88 – 91, 157, 159, 429 Manetho 262, 269, 272, 298 Marcus Antonius 229 Marcus Aurelius 216 Maria 191 Marin (Marion), the priestess 152, 189 – 193, 196 f., 247 f., 399 – 401, 409 f., 420 Mary, wife of Clopas 97 Mary Magdalene 97 Matthias, son of Boethus 345 Mattityahu ben Mattityahu 100 Megiste, the priestess 191, 193 Melchizedek 384 Menelaus 2, 40 – 45, 58 – 62, 65, 81 – 83, 93 – 100, 109 f., 115 f., 118, 120 f., 134, 157 – 159, 326 – 328, 337, 375 f., 387, 417, 429 Micah 282 Miriam 190 Miriamne I 94 Mithridates of Pergamum 360 Mordechai 251 Mosallamus 266, 272, 285

Moses 116, 190, 261, 263, 267 – 269, 271, 280, 286 f., 298, 312 Naphtali 308, 313 Nebuchadnezzar 371 Nehemiah 116, 384 Nethanin/Nethanis 176, 411 Neḥunion 142 – 144, 147 f., 154 f. Nicanor 116 f., 241, 432 Nicaso 89, 157 Nicolaus of Damascus 42 f., 50, 64, 97, 350, 361, 423 Octavianus 229 Onias Aegypticus 201, 374 – 377 Onias (in general) 1 – 23, 27, 30 – 82, 84 – 119, 121 – 127, 129 – 142, 144, 146 – 170, 175, 177, 180 – 184, 187 – 196, 198 – 206, 209 – 213, 216, 219, 224, 229 – 234, 237, 239 – 241, 243, 246 – 249, 251 – 258, 275 – 279, 281 – 283, 285 f., 291, 294 – 302, 304 – 306, 308, 310, 312 – 317, 319, 321 f., 325 – 358, 360 – 364, 367, 369 f., 372, 375 – 378, 381, 385, 389 – 392, 394, 397 – 405, 407 – 425, 430 – 443 Onias I 81, 88 – 92, 279 Onias II 83, 85 – 92, 95 f., 100, 108 Onias III 1 f., 4, 6, 13, 16 – 20, 32 f., 45, 47, 57 – 59, 61, 63, 68, 79 – 81, 85, 92 – 96, 98 – 102, 106, 108 f., 111 – 113, 115, 117 f., 121 f., 124 – 127, 129 – 134, 155, 162, 197, 200 f., 205, 211, 240, 249 f., 254, 276, 281 f., 291, 325, 327, 334, 353, 358 – 360, 367, 369 – 378, 386, 395 f., 413, 417 f., 432 Onias IV 4 f., 16 – 18, 23, 33, 56 f., 60 f., 64, 74, 79 – 81, 85, 92, 95 f., 101, 106, 108, 112, 115, 126, 131, 158, 162, 165 f., 200 f., 205, 211, 250, 340, 347, 350, 358 f., 372, 375 f., 378, 401, 417 Onias the Circle drawer 6, 50 Origen 127 Osarsiph 298 Paul 395, 398, 409 Paulinus 36, 49 Pentephres 294, 306 f., 312 f.

Index of Names

Petefres 300 Phabeis 177 f. Phallion 98 Phanias 198 Pharaoh 297, 306 f., 309 – 314, 329, 407 Philip 118 – 123, 171 Philo of Alexandria 184, 187, 209 f., 213, 240, 245, 249, 257, 274, 277 f., 363, 389, 397, 400, 430 – 432 Pompey 73, 75, 264, 266, 274, 287, 360 Potiphera 297 Protarchos 202 Pseudo-Saadia 130 Ptolemy I Soter „Lagos“ 261, 264, 270, 272, 276, 278, 280 f., 284, 330, Ptolemy II Philadelphus 87, 90 Ptolemy IV Philopator 55, 238, 244 f., 250 f., 254, 258, 309, 356, Ptolemy VI Philometor 1 f., 32, 34 f., 37, 39, 48, 56, 66 f., 70, 73, 76, 103, 119, 121, 188, 197, 204, 225, 227, 229, 234, 253, 256, 313, 328 f., 336 – 340, 342 – 344, 355, 357, 408, 434 Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator 225 Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II „Physcon“ 32, 39, 111, 158, 170, 202, 225, 238 f., 242, 249, 252, 258 f., 336, 338 f., 355 – 357, 413 Ptolemy IX Soter II „Lathyrus“ 194, 199, 203, 353 f., 356, 358, Ptolemy XIII Theos Philopator 360 Publius Zotikos 185 R. Ḥananiah ben Ḥananiah 100 R. Meir 143, 147 – 149, 152 f., 160 R. Shimon bar Yoḥai 138 R. Yehudah 143, 147 – 149, 152 f. R. Yeudah haNasi 138 Rabbah 153 Rachelis 175 f., 411 Rashi 130 Reuben 302 Sabbataios 176, 411 Sabbathos 176, 411 Sabbation 176, 411 Salome Alexandra 63, 101 Salome, daughter of Ariston 97

497

Sambaios 176, 411 Sambathion 176, 411 Sanballat 89, 157 Sanncherib 160 Sappho 257 Sara, daughter of Naimia 191 Sargon the Assyrian 282 Saul 409 Seleucus IV 71, 109 f., 122, 325 Setna 305 Shabtai 167, 413 Shem 322 Shimei 142 f., 146, 148, 150, 152 f., 155, 157 – 159 Simon 34, 57, 59, 65, 82, 84 – 87, 89, 91 f., 94, 100, 106, 244 – 247, 249 f., 259, 310, 314, 370 Simon I 83 f., 91 f., 95, 154, 250, 429 Simon II 59, 83 – 85, 91 f., 96, 99, 106, 154, 250, 429 Simon III 19, 370, 372, 374 – 377 Simon, the captain of the Temple 2, 97, 109, 115, 155, 307, 325 f., 373, 375 Simon, the Hasmonean 58, 250, 259 Simon, the high priest (3 Maccabees) 244 – 247, 249 f., 259 Simon the Just/Shimon the Righteous 46, 65, 83 f., 86, 90 – 92, 106, 126, 149 – 151, 154, 157 – 159, 161 f., 250, 368, 389, 429 Simon, son of Boethus 65, 98, 345 Simon, son of Simon 100, 378 Simon Cantheras 98 Solomon 384, 391, 416 Somoelus 175 Strabo of Amaseia 50, 64, 100, 164, 180 f., 187, 273, 330, 350, 353, 363, 423 Symmachus 334 Taboubu 305 Theodora 176, 411 Theodore of Mopsuestia 2, 5, 18, 80, 124 – 127, 372, 418 Theodosios 176, 411 Theodosius 180 Theodotion 334 Theodotus 309 Theodurus, son of Theodorus 378

498

Index of Names

Theoni 200 Theophanes of Mytilene 263, 267, 287 Theophilos 176, 411 Theophrastus 266, 292 Thermus 357 Tiberius Julius Alexander 432 Timagenes 50 Titus 27 f., 48, 104, 359, 363 Tryphon, son of Simon 202 Vespasian

27 f., 34, 48 f., 67, 359, 363

Yehoḥanan 279 f. Yehudah (Aristobulus [I]) 266 Yeshu (Yehoshua) 156 – 159 Yoḥanan 155 – 159, 400 Yoḥevet 190 Yose ben Yose ben Perurah 100 Zacharias ben Zacharias 100 Zadok 9, 19, 368, 381, 383 f., 386 Zadok, the Pharisee 368 Zilpah 308

Index of Places Acheron 258 Acmonia 185 Actium 225, 229, 360 f. Africa 431 Ain Shams 297 Alexandria 9, 13, 20, 22, 34, 36, 48, 50, 52, 54 – 56, 64, 70, 92, 105, 142 – 145, 171, 174, 179, 183, 187 f., 195, 198, 209 f., 213, 230, 237, 239 – 242, 244 – 246, 248 f., 252 – 256, 258, 263, 265, 329, 336 – 339, 355 – 357, 360 f., 403, 412, 414, 418, 422, 424 Alkadema 191, 193 Ammon 109 Ancyra 431 Antioch 18, 108 – 110, 114, 119 – 122, 124 f., 127, 130, 326 f., 349 Apollinopolis Magna (Edfu) 145 Araq el-Emir 435 Arsinoe-Krokodilopolis 187 Arsinoite nome 100, 378 Asia 173, 226 f. Asia Minor 171, 185, 217, 294 f., 431 Babylon (Egypt) 300, 330 Babylon (Mesopotamia) 371 Babylonia 120, 146, 435 Bacchias 330 Beroea 60 f., 82 Beth She’arim 191, 257 Beth Shemesh 160, 364 Beth Zur 279, 283 Bithynia 185 Black Sea 443 Bousirite nome 202, 204 Buhen 342 Caesarea/n 127 Cairo 5, 14, 163, 167, 172, 182, 297, 300, 342 Canaan 333 Carmel 435 Carthage 171 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-028

Castra Judaeorum 330 Cleopatra 73, 161, 193, 253, 313, 344, 354, 357, 360 – 362, 413 Coele-Syria 56, 193 Cyprus 199, 336 – 339, 357, 424, 443 Cyrenaica 171, 174, 183, 339 Cyrus 230, 399 Damascus 263, 334, 370, 373, 381, 387, 392, 395 Daphne 18, 95, 108 f., 111, 113 f., 118, 122, 124, 127, 326, 330, 372, 376 f. Dead Sea 10, 17, 352, 368, 372, 387, 390 Deir ’Alla 435 Delos 433 Demerdash 169, 175, 187 f., 362 Dendra 167 Egypt 2 f., 6, 13 f., 16 f., 20 – 23, 28, 33 – 35, 37 f., 40 f., 45 f., 48 – 52, 56 f., 60 f., 64, 66 – 69, 72, 79 – 82, 92, 100, 103 – 107, 112, 118 – 124, 134, 142 – 145, 147 – 149, 152, 154 f., 158 – 161, 166, 170 f., 173 – 175, 177 f., 181, 183 f., 186 – 188, 190 f., 197 – 201, 203, 205, 210 f., 216 f., 225, 227 – 232, 234, 236, 239 – 246, 250 f., 255, 259, 261, 265, 269 – 271, 273, 275 – 282, 284 – 288, 291, 295, 297 f., 300 – 302, 307, 310, 312 – 316, 325 – 333, 336 – 343, 348 f., 351 – 358, 360 f., 363 f., 369 f., 372 f., 375 – 377, 386, 397 – 401, 404 f., 407 f., 411 – 416, 418, 421 – 425, 430, 432, 436, 438, 440, 442 f. Elephantine 98, 167, 212, 269, 330, 398, 401, 403 f., 411, 414, 416, 421, 432 f., 436, 440 – 442. Eleusis 103, 327, 336 – 338 el-Matariye 297 Ephesus 431 Euergetis 344, 434 Fayûm

198, 202, 251, 330, 356, 424

500

Index of Places

Galatia 431 Galilee 27 f., 31, 352 Gamarat 171, 174 Gilead 352 Greece 84, 284, 407, 438 Haran 435 Hebron 145, 435 Heliopolis 9, 35, 42, 57, 64, 67, 70, 181, 188, 193, 200 f., 205, 209, 212, 237, 255, 259, 276, 297 f., 300 f., 304 f., 312, 315, 329 f., 332, 335, 345 f., 348 – 350, 362 – 364, 369, 386, 389, 402, 408, 414 f., 418 – 420, 423, 432, 441 Heliopolite nome 2, 201 Heracleopolis 178, 183 – 186, 188 f., 197 f., 351, 412 Heracleopolite nome 204 Hermoupolite nome 198 Hierapolis 21, 170 f., 173, 321, 351, 406 f., 409 Ionia 431 Iotapata 27, 74 Italy 28 Jerusalem 1 – 4, 6 – 10, 14, 16, 20 f., 23, 27, 33 – 36, 38, 41 – 45, 48 f., 51 f., 54, 57, 65 – 73, 76 – 79, 86, 89, 93, 99, 103 – 106, 109, 111, 116 – 123, 126, 129, 134, 138 – 140, 142, 144, 147, 150, 152 – 155, 157, 165, 177, 190 f., 193, 195, 201, 205, 209, 220 f., 228, 230 – 232, 234, 242 – 247, 249 f., 259, 264, 266 f., 269 – 271, 274 f., 277 – 279, 281 f., 285 f., 289 – 291, 300, 312, 317 f., 325 – 329, 331 – 338, 344, 348 f., 351 – 353, 363, 368 f., 371 f., 379 f., 382 – 389, 391 – 396, 398 f., 401 – 403, 413 – 425, 429 – 442 Judaea 1 f., 6 – 8, 27 f., 31, 34 f., 37, 39, 41, 43, 46, 56, 59, 62 – 64, 66 – 68, 70 f., 75, 103, 117, 119, 123, 131 f., 160, 172, 176 f., 193 f., 199 – 201, 230, 232, 241 – 243, 246, 249 f., 259, 265 f., 269, 273 – 275, 278, 280 f., 283 f., 286, 288 – 291, 315, 326 – 330, 334 – 337, 347 – 349, 352 –

355, 359 – 361, 363, 372 f., 397 f., 402 f., 407, 412, 414 – 416, 418, 422 f., 430, 438 Judaean desert 98, 377 Judaean hills 145, 157 Kalyub 163 Kios 185 Kom Sabakha 49 Kourion 199, 424 Lachish 435 Leontopolis 5, 18, 35, 48 f., 51 – 56, 65, 68, 70, 78, 102, 104 f., 142, 164 – 166, 168, 178, 230, 237, 243, 305, 328, 345 – 350, 367, 414 f., 417, 419, 435 Libya 330 Lower Egypt 198, 424 Lydia 330 Macedonia 185, 225, 261, 264, 287, 314, 337 Mamre 435 Memphis 3, 35, 49, 51, 53, 164, 167, 199, 201, 210, 305, 330, 335 f., 350, 403, 434 Migdol 329 Miletus 431 Moab 334 Mt. Ebal 436 Mt. Gerizim 52, 55, 77, 89, 193, 390, 399, 402, 433, 436, 438 – 441 Nile Delta 2, 5, 14, 142, 163, 166 North Africa 56, 171, 174 On 297 f., 330, 389 Oxyrhynchites 186 Palmyra 191 Paneion 38 Panopolis 338 Pathros 330 Pelusium 64, 331, 360 Pergamum 360 Philometoris 344 Phoenicia 56 f. Phrygia 330

Index of Places

Qasr Ibrim 342 Qidron Valley 97 Qumran 7, 9 f., 13, 19 f., 93, 103, 195, 201, 212, 223, 230 f., 233, 274, 285 f., 290, 302 f., 311, 321, 333, 348, 352, 367 – 399, 402 f., 435, 437 f., 439 – 441. Rome 27 f., 31, 37, 48, 65 f., 75, 171, 185, 192, 217, 220 f., 225, 235, 336 – 338, 360 – 362, 422 f., 431 f. Sadeh 330 Sais 298 Samaria 71, 89, 399, 435 f. Sardis 431 Schedia 248 Sedmet el-Gebel 171 Shibin el-Qanater 163 Sparta 84 f., 326, 352 Syene 412 Syria/Syrian 2, 34, 41, 194, 276, 282, 295, 326

Teberkythis 186 – 188, 413 Tebetnoi 186 Teeis 186 Tell Basta 166, 347 Tell el-Yahoudieh 5, 12, 14 f., 17 f., 21, 64, 163 – 182, 184 – 189, 192, 195 – 197, 212, 232, 247, 257 – 259, 287 f., 292, 321, 349 – 351, 353, 362, 390, 399, 405 – 408, 411 – 413, 416, 419 f., 432 Tell es-Sai’diyhe 435 Tell Ḥisn 297 Tell Muqdam 166, 346 f. Thebes/Thebaid 198, 338, 424 Trans-Jordan 109, 326 f. Trikomia 100, 202, 251, 378 Tukh 163 Usha

18

Venosa 12, 18, 169 – 173, 177 – 180, 184, 189, 288, 405 f. Yehud

Tabor 435 Tahpanhes (Daphne) 330 Taman (Russia) 443

501

Zion

280 300, 348

Index of Ancient Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 6:9 – 8:22 14:18 – 20 22:22 – 23 34 37 – 50 37:27 – 28 40:15 41 41:45 41:46 41:50 45:9 46:20 49:5 – 7 49: 8 – 12 49:9

133 384 443 223, 322 297, 302 315 315 311 297 297 297 313 297 301 304 348

Exodus 1:14 5:7 – 8 5:14 – 19 16:1 – 36 16:31 26:31 28:6 – 14 28:42 30:11 – 16 38:8

166 166 166 299 299 318 318 317 430 190

Leviticus 8:7 – 8 21:21 23 24:16 26:46 27:34

231 139 311 319 263 263

Numbers 4:1 – 3 8:24 8:25

93 93 93

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110593358-029

11:1 – 9 18:21 18:24 26:59 27:21 36:13 Deuteronomy 12

299 277 277 190 231 263

12:2 – 3 12:4 12:4 – 6 12:4 – 14 12:5 12:13 – 18 17:16 27:4 28:69 33:8

34, 63, 76, 126, 399, 437, 439, 440 440 436 333, 435, 436 6 436, 441 333, 435 278 436, 441 263 231

Joshua 9:14

231

Judges 1:1 – 2 20:18 26 – 28

231 231 231

1Samuel 2:22 2:27 – 36 9:16 10:1 10:22 13:14 14:3 14:18 14: 36 – 37 14:41 22:10 22:13

190 130, 384 131 131 231 131 231 231 231 231 231 231

Index of Ancient Sources

23:2 23:4 23:6 23:9 – 12 28:3 – 6 30:7 – 8

231 231 231 231 231 231

2Samuel 2:1 5:19 5:23 – 24 6:21 7:8

231 231 231 131 131

1Kings 2:27 2:35 8 8:16 1:35 14:7

130, 384 130, 384 437 436 131 131

2Kings 2:11 18 – 21 23:27 21:1 21:5 – 11 21:10 – 16 23:4 23:9

300 282 436 440 440 440 440 138 f.

Isaiah 1:26 1:26 – 27 15 17 19 19:16 – 25 19:18 19:18 – 19

19:19 41:2

335, 415 348 334 334 334 f. 333 53, 297 2, 17, 34 f., 68, 105, 143 f., 148, 153, 158, 160 f., 196, 240, 283, 333, 335, 349, 364, 399, 404, 415, 418, 436, 440 149, 160 335, 389

47:8 – 9 47:12 44:27 – 45:1 45:1

219 219 219 230

Jeremiah 2:16 3:11 7:34 16:9 25:10 25:11 43:7 43:9 43:13 44:1 46:14

330 258 258 258 258 226, 311 330 166 297, 330 330 330

Ezekiel 4:4 – 5 4:5 4:6 9:17 30:17 38 – 39 39:9 40 – 44 40 – 45 40:46 43:19 44 44 – 48 44:15 44:15 – 16 48:11 – 12

371 379 379 219 297 219 226, 311 396 384 385 385 384 384 382, 385 385 385

Hosea 5:13 10:12

303 370

Joel 2:17

302

Zephaniah 3:5

335, 389

Malachi

503

504

Index of Ancient Sources

1:11 2:1 – 9 3:20

153 302 335, 389

11:22 11:28 – 30 11:31 11:40 – 46

129 – 132, 134 103, 329 329 228

Psalms 7:2 22:13 22:21

303 303 303

37:23

371

Proverbs 20:2 22:13

303 303

Ezra 3:8 6:8 – 10 6:9 – 10 7:1 – 6 7:11 – 12 7:18 – 21

93 433 401 374 374 433

Job 9:7

333

Esther 4:17

303

Nehemiah 10:32 – 34 10:38 – 39 12:44 13:5 13:10

430 277 277 277 277

Daniel 1–6 1:5 – 8 2:44 6:11 7 7 – 12 7:7 – 8 7:9 7:25 7:27 9:24 – 27 9:26 9:27 11 11:21

128, 214, 312 306 219 312 129 128, 133 219, 226 116 387 219 379 129 – 132, 134 226, 311 129 131

1Chronicles 6:3 6:16 – 30 6:50 – 53 13:1 15:11 – 12 24

190 279 279 131 130 191

2Chronicles 3:14 6:5 – 6 13:3 – 12 29 – 33 31:2 – 10 32:21 33:1 – 9

318 436 75 282 277 131 440

Numbers 16:30 16:33

174, 257 174, 257

Deuteronomy 29:1 32:44

263 263

Septuagint (LXX) Genesis 22:22 – 23 37:35 42:38 Exodus 1:11

443 174, 257 174, 257

297

Index of Ancient Sources

1Kings 8:16 Isaiah 19:18 56:7 60:7

436

335, 348, 381, 386, 396, 403 f., 415 255 255

9:18 15:10 138:8 140:7

257 257 257 257

Esther 10:3 14:3

290 303

4QMMT (4Q397) 14 – 21 7 – 8

388, 392

Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa 4Q56 (4QIsab) 4Q164 (4QpIsad)

333 f. 334 231

Psalms

Qumran Book of Jubilees 1Q17 – 18 2Q19 – 10 3Q5 4Q482[?] 4Q216 – 228, 387 11Q12

387 387 387 387 387

Copper Scroll (3Q15) 3Q15, col. 11 381 Damascus Document (CD) 1.3 – 5 388, 392 1:3 – 14 371, 382 1:10 370 3:8 382 3:13 – 14 381 3:19 – 21 – 4:6 381 3:21 – 4:6 381 f., 385 4:17 – 18 388, 392 5:4 – 5 381 5:6 388, 392 5:6 – 8 392 6:11 – 12 392 6:17 – 18 392 16:3 387 4QFlorilegium (4Q174) 4Q174 1, 8 – 9 391 – 393 4Q174 1, 16 – 17 381 Halakhic Letter 4QMMT (Miqṣat Ma’ase ha-Torah)

Pesharim Pesher Nahum 4Q169 (4QpNah) 3 – 4 col. 1 4Q169 (4QpNah) 6 – 11

289

Pesher Habakkuk 1QpHab 2, 7 – 9 1QpHab 2, 8 1QpHab 7:5 – 6 1QpHab 8, 16 – 9, 2 1QpHab 11, 3 – 8 1QpHab 11, 6 1QpHab 11, 12 – 16

371 373 302 371 377, 388 392 371

Pesher Hosea 4Q167 (4QpHosb) frag. 2:2

303

Pesher on Isaiah 4Q164 (4QpIsad) 1, 6

388

Pesher Psalms 290, 384, 437

289, 303

505

506

Index of Ancient Sources

4Q171 (4QpPSa) 1 – 10, 3:15 – 16

371, 373

„New Jerusalem“ Texts 1QNJ (1Q32) 348 2QNJ (2Q24) 348 4QNJa (4Q554) 348 4QNJb (4Q554a) 348 4QNJc (4Q555) 348 4QNJ? (4Q232) 348 5QNJ (5Q15) 348 Temple Scroll (11Q19) 11QTa (11Q19) 384 11QTa (11Q19) col. 52, 13 – 16 439 11QTa (11Q19) col. 48:18 – 21 231

Rule of the Community 1QS 4, 1 – 2 1QS 5, 1 – 3 1QS 5, 7 – 10 1QS 8, 5 1QS 8, 13 1QS 9, 4 – 5

195 381 381 393 393 394

1QS 9, 12– 15 381 1QSa 1.8 – 11 93 1QSa 1.1 – 5 381 1QSa 1.11 – 13 93 1QSa 1.24 – 25 381 1QSa 2.1 – 3 381 1QSb (Benedictions) 3.22 – 25 381 4QpapSa (4Q255) 382 4QSb (4Q256) 382 4QpapSc (4Q257) 382 4QSd-j (4Q258 – 264) 382 5QS? (5Q11) 382 The Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice 4Q401 14 II, 6 – 8 302 4Q403 1 II, 27 302 Thanksgiving Hymns (Hodayot)

1QH ii.13 1QHa 9, 34 – 36 4Q428 (4QHodayotb)

302 376 103

War Scroll 1QM col. 1:2 – 3 1QM col. 18:1 1QM col. 14:14

392 233 302

Miscellaneous 4Q159 1 2, ll. 6 – 7 (4QOrda) 430 4Q417 (4QInstruction) 1 i-ii 302 4Q425 (4QPseudoDaniel) 274

New Testament Matthew 17:24 – 27 27:51

430 318

Mark 15:38

318

Luke 1:59 22:45

100, 378 318

John 19:25

97

Acts 6:2

195

Romans 2:14 3:28 – 29 11:32

398 398 398

1Corinthians 3:16 – 17 3:17 6:19

441 395 395, 441

Index of Ancient Sources

Galatians 1:16

398

1Peter 5:8

303

Hebrews 7:5

277

Revelations 5:5

304, 348

507

Flavius Josephus The Judaean War (Bellum Judaicum) BJ 1 1.3 1.31 1.31 – 32 1.31 – 33

1.31 – 34 1.32 1.33

1.34 1.70 1.90 1.117 – 120 1.130 1.150 1.279 1.404 – 406 1.597 1.187 – 196 1.190 1.190 – 191 1.191 BJ 2 2.128 2.148 2.152 – 153 2.156 2.165 2.168 2.197

42 – 44, 47, 57, 67, 69, 96 69, 374 33, 43 – 45, 326, 344 f. 41, 45, 57, 93, 326 f. 2, 4, 32, 34, 36, 40, 43 f., 47, 66, 92, 95, 99, 108, 118, 124, 126, 130, 156, 200, 205, 277, 326, 329, 423 41 f., 103 126 46 f., 49, 66 f., 73, 96, 100, 184, 200 f., 329, 332, 346 f., 349 f., 415, 420 47, 329 273 201 63 98 75 361 38 257 360 180, 203, 350 177 362 74 233, 388 388 268 257 257 38 401

2.409 2.409 – 410 2.429 BJ 3 3.4 3.352 3.375 4.656 5.123 5.201 – 205 5.204 – 205 5.212 – 214 5.419 5.527 5.529 BJ 7

7.117 7.218 7.408 – 437 7.416 – 421 7.420 7.420 – 422 7.420 – 435 7.420 – 436 7.421 7.421 – 422 7.421 – 423 7.421 – 435 7.421 – 436 7.422 7.422 – 424 7.423

7.423 – 425 7.423 – 426 7.423 – 427

433 401 279 74 359 69 257 48 359 432 432 318 374 345 69 38, 46 – 48, 50, 52 – 54, 56 f., 65, 73 f., 78, 96, 105, 327 48 430 67 421 50, 53 49 f. 130 48, 108 180 f., 350 37, 39 363 67 32, 34 – 36 51 156 4, 33, 51, 57, 67, 92, 95 f., 103, 106, 124, 154, 162, 250, 326, 329, 332 104, 118 254 326

508

7.423 – 436 7.424 7.424 – 425 7.425 7.426 7.426 – 427a 7.427 7.427 – 430 7.427b 7.428 7.428 – 429 7.428 – 430 7.430 7.431 7.431 – 432 7.432 7.432a 7.432b 7.433 7.433 – 434 7.433 – 435 7.433 – 436 7.436 7.447 – 453

Index of Ancient Sources

124, 200, 328 341, 344, 409 37 57 4, 8, 33, 164, 167, 199 – 201, 346, 350 49, 50 51, 68, 73, 329, 344, 350, 362 332 52 285, 401 389, 419 401 164, 194, 341, 343 38, 52, 68 f., 78, 415 4, 33, 331, 420 39, 52, 78, 105, 126, 148, 156, 331, 333 52 52 194 433, 424 3, 39, 48 – 50, 53 363 53 28

The Jewish Antiquities (Antiquitates Judaicae) 1.17 1.94 1.153 1.159 1.248 1.289 2.91 2.184 2.185 2.188 2.239 – 253 3.163 3.180 3.216 – 218 4.198

252 50 443 261 443 443 298 298 330 298, 330, 346 268 231 317 231 29

4.200 – 202 5.361 – 362 6.332 8.274 – 281 10.151 – 153 Ant. 11 11.16 11.297 – 301 11.302 11.302 – 303 11.302 – 311 11.302 – 324 11.306 – 308 11.306 – 312 11.308 – 309 11.312 11.317 – 339 11.321 – 324 11.322 11.323 11.324 11.326 11.333 11.333 – 336 11.336 11.338 11.339 11.340 – 341 11.341 11.346 – 34 11.347 Ant. 12 12.3 – 6 12.3 – 10 12.9 12.21 – 120 12.38 12.40 – 41 12.43 12.43 – 44 12.44 12.125 12.135 12.137

71 384 257 75 279 89 433 156, 158 f., 161 90, 429 89 157 – 159, 161 89 89 89 157 192 46 157 46, 429 72, 106 89 46 46 116 46 46 330 88 89 89 46, 59, 82, 88, 90 42 f., 45, 47, 60 f., 83, 101, 106, 157 f., 328 264, 281 276 281 87 261 433 92 59, 82 f., 85 – 87, 90 f., 95, 99, 429 87, 90 f., 93, 95 f., 108, 201 330 50 50

Index of Ancient Sources

12.138 – 144 12.147 – 153 12.154 – 234 12.156 12.156 – 158 12.157 12.157 – 158 12.158 12.224 – 225 12.225 12.225 – 228 12.236 – 237 12.236 – 240 12.237 12.237 – 238 12.237 – 239 12.237 – 240

12.237 – 241 12.238 12.238 – 239 12.238 – 240 12.239 12.239 – 240 12.240 12.240 – 241 12.244 12.246 – 247 12.248 12.248 – 253 12.258 – 264 12.267 12.284 – 287 12.285 12.285 – 287 12.286 12.300 – 304 12.349 12.349 – 355 12.355 – 356 12.36 12.379 12.379 – 383

433 330 312 88 89, 429 59, 88, 91 – 93, 100 82 f., 86, 90 87 82, 84, 91, 429 38 118 79 33 4, 33, 47, 72, 92 f., 95 f., 106, 108, 158, 201, 376 82, 94, 327 32, 65, 85, 95 f., 375, 429 34, 36, 42 – 44, 54, 57 – 61, 92 f., 95, 97, 99, 326 58, 157 – 159, 161, 327 65, 93, 96 f., 99, 100, 106 85 2, 326 44, 60, 99 41, 43 93, 157 158, 327 327 336 337 329 439 75 199 100, 134, 214 193 77 75 214 100 214 120 120 119

12.382 – 388 12.383 12.383 – 387 12.384 12.384 – 385 12.385 12.385 – 388 12.386 12.387 12.387 – 388 12.388 12.389 12.391 12.393 12.395 12.397 – 398 12.400 12.406 – 409 12.413 Ant. 13

13.45 – 57 13.46 – 57 13.54 13.61 13.62 13.62 – 71 13.62 – 73

13.62 – 78 13.63 13.63 – 64 13.64 13.65 13.66 13.67

509

60 4, 32, 34, 54, 58, 60 f., 99, 106 93 60 43 60 – 62 33 119 33, 61 f., 93, 130, 134, 254, 375 - 377 32, 34, 54, 58, 60 f. 4, 8, 32 f., 49, 51, 200 f., 346, 420 60 61 61 61 61 61 75 61 37 f., 52, 54, 57, 61, 65, 70 f., 73 f., 78, 83, 101, 105 f., 151, 195, 197, 346 379 70 f. 71 70 4, 33, 37, 57, 70 f., 79, 95, 329, 376 254 23, 32, 34 – 36, 47, 54, 70 f., 105, 130, 332, 340, 342, 409, 419 70 4, 33, 37 f., 49, 51, 192 f., 256, 278, 401, 420 4, 33, 331 56, 78, 105, 148, 156, 331, 333, 344 56 f., 164, 346 71 f., 77, 164, 256, 303, 305 f., 343, 345 f., 408 4, 33, 51, 55 f., 72 – 74, 106, 282, 291, 303, 305 f., 343 f., 408, 420

510

13.68 13.69 13.70 13.71 13.72 13.73 13.74 – 79 13.79 13.80 13.166 – 170 13.197 – 199 13.255 13.256 13.284 – 287 13.285

13.285 – 287 13.287 13.292 – 297 13.301 13.304 13.319 13.328 – 356 13.348 13.349 13.349 – 351 13.349 – 355 13.351 13.353 – 355 13.354 – 355 13.371 – 373 13.372 – 383 Ant. 14 14.6 – 7 14.9 14.21 – 28 14.33 14.41 – 47 14.44 14.65 14.66 – 6775 14.68 14.110 14.110 – 113

Index of Ancient Sources

105, 148, 156, 331 55 f., 73 55 f., 164, 201, 256, 343, 345 f. 148, 256, 331, 333 4, 33, 38, 49, 51, 344, 415, 420 192 f., 277 f., 401 70, 76 70 70 38 75 f. 439 101 203 32, 39, 54, 64, 177, 200 f., 344, 346, 358, 415, 429 354 64, 177, 429 136 273 373 50 353 203 112, 177, 354 193 358, 429 177, 203, 354, 358, 360 177, 354 39, 353 74 288 267 63 97 6, 50 98 267 274 73 50 430 f. 431

14.114 – 116 14.117 14.124 14.127 – 139 14.131

14.131 – 132 14.131 – 133 14.133 14.167 14.185 – 267 14.375 14.403 15.24 – 34 15.34 15.41 15.300 15.320 – 322 15.322 15.363 – 364 15.380 – 424 15.385 15.421 16.14 16.28 16.45 16.160 – 178 17.78 17.151 17.163 17.164 17.191 17.339 17.341 18.2 – 3 18.11 18.19 18.22 18.82 18.90 18.312 – 313 19.284 – 285 19.297 19.298 Ant. 20 20.38

330 180, 187, 350, 363, 423 63 360 32, 39, 54, 64, 164, 180, 201, 203, 332, 350, 360, 423 177 350 362 63 424, 431, 432 361 98 94 63 32, 54, 63 - 65 78 345 177 38 51 55 332 433 431 431 431 345 63 78 345 63 345 345 345 74 391 391 432 317 430 f. 187 98 32, 64 f., 85, 99 83 223

Index of Ancient Sources

20.179 – 181 20.181 20.206 20.206 – 207 20.224 – 251 20.235 20.235 – 237 20.236

20.237 20.238 – 245 20.266 – 267 20.260

154 277 277 154 44, 61, 63, 279 61 f., 93, 99, 130, 134 4, 32 – 34, 54, 57 f., 61, 82, 93, 429 4, 33, 49, 51, 63, 79, 95 f., 100, 130, 200 f., 332, 344, 346, 377, 415, 420 61, 80 f., 95, 106, 372 61 29 252

Against Apion (Contra Apionem) C. Ap. 1 1.54 1.56 1.183 – 204 1.186 1.186 – 189 1.187 1.187 – 189 1.189 1.190 1.193 1.195 1.196 1.196 – 197 1.197 1.197 – 198 1.198 – 199 1.199 1.201 1.205 1.209 – 211 1.238 1.250 1.261 1.265

262 f., 265 69 49 261, 270, 291 264, 281 276 f. 279, 283, 358 211, 400 48, 270, 273, 277 284 288 264, 273 275 274 275 264 285 285 271 f. 292 276 298 298 298 298

1.279 2.10 2.39 2.43 2.44 2.49

2.49 – 50 2.49 – 52 2.49 – 53 2.49 – 55 2.49 – 56 2.50 2.50 – 53 2.50 – 55 2.52 2.53 2.53 – 55 2.55 2.164 – 167 2.165 2.185 2.193 2.193 – 194

298 298 330 261 330 195, 201, 205, 251, 253, 298, 313, 341, 345, 350, 352, 354 f. 3, 201 f., 206, 413 214 112 29, 32, 39, 237, 258, 310, 355 – 357, 405 225 357 357 355 252 238 f., 252 356 238 f. 289 266 62 71 f., 106 399

Life (Vita) 1 2 3–4 4 8 63 80 198 342 358 412 415 424 – 426 428 – 429

511

374 74 69 378 100, 378 277 69, 277 69 49 49 74 48 28 28

512

Index of Ancient Sources

Jewish-Hellenistic Literature Artapanus Frag. 3 Frag. 3.2

298 262, 268 209

Ascension of Isaiah 4 311 7:1 311 Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus) 1:1 290, 353 23:9 319 28:21 257 50 154, 250 50:1 – 21 92 50:6 – 7 389 Book of Jubilees 30 40:10 44:24

223 298 298

1 Enoch 83 – 84 83 – 90 85 – 90 90:8

133 133 133 133 f.

2 Enoch 20:1 21:3 40:9 48:1

311 311 311 311

4 Ezra (2 Esdras) 11:37 12:1 12:31 12:31 – 32 16:6

304 304 304 348 304

Joseph & Aseneth J&A 1 1:1 1:3 3:1 – 4

312 311 307 307

3:11 4:7 4:9 J&A 5 5:2 5:4 5:5 5:7 6:2 6:4 6:69 J&A 7 7:1 8:1 – 7 8:5 8:9 10:2 10:12 – 13 10:17 11:1 – 3 11:7 – 9 11:15 – 18 11:16 12:1 12:5 – 6 12:9 – 11 13:9 13:11 14 – 17 14:1 14:8 15:3 15:5 15:7 16:15 16:16 16:17 – 23 16:18 17:6 18:6 18:9 19:5 19:10 J&A 20 20:5

408 307 314 306, 312 312 312 318 307 312 312 312 306 306 307 315, 408 312, 315, 408 317 408 311 311 408 318 408 312 408 303 f. 311 408 297 312 313 311 315 300, 415 300, 415 315 308 317 300, 415 311 314 300, 315, 408, 415 307 312 307

Index of Ancient Sources

20:6 20:8 – 9 20:9 J&A 21 21:7 21:8 21:21 J&A 22 – 29 22:12 – 13 22:13 J&A 22 – 29 23:7 – 9 23:8 – 9 J&A 24 – 28 24:14 25:1 – 4 26:6 27:6 27:10 28:12 – 14 29:1 – 6 29:4 29:8 – 9

312 313 307 313 307 307, 311 315 301, 308 301 302, 311 313 310 302 314 307 309 302 302 408 308 310 302 310

Letter of Aristeas 1 12 – 13 13 31 33 35 36 41 47 50 83 96 123 126 172 174 184 308 309 310 320

86 276 330 261, 264, 281, 292 86 86 330 86 283 86, 248 86 86 86 86 86 86 248 f. 195 195 183, 249, 400 86

1 Maccabees 1:4 – 6 1:14 – 15 1:15 1:16 – 20 1:20 – 24 1:20 – 40 1:21 – 24 1:21 – 37 1:23 1:29 – 64 1:45 1:59 2:6 – 13 2:42 3:58 – 59 4:36 – 59 5:9 – 23 6:5 – 13 6:14 6:14 – 15 6:55 – 63 6:56 6:60 – 62 7:5 – 9 7:13 7:33 7:33 – 38 10:18 – 21 10:18 – 25 10:38 10:73 10:80 12:7 – 8 12:7 – 23 12:19 – 20 12:19 – 23 13:1 – 6 14:48 – 49

352 1 345 336 59, 329, 336 103 76 329 345 129 387 387 76 352 76 201 243 111 119 120 119 120 60 60 352 401 76 351 379 71 272 272 118, 352 84 118, 352 38 76 48

2 Maccabees 2 Macc. 1 – 2 1:1 – 9 1:3 – 5 1:4 – 6 1:5 – 6 1:7

111, 113 241, 259, 290 243 242 356 111, 241

513

514

1:9 1:10 – 2:19 1:18 1:20 – 21 1:23 1:29 1:31 1:33 1:36 1:59 2:1 2.4 2:5 2:7 2:8 2:10 – 11 2 Macc. 3 3:1 3:1 – 3 3:2 3:4 3:4 – 12 3:4 – 20 3:9 3:15 – 16 3:33 3:34 – 36 3:35 2 Macc. 3 – 4 2 Macc. 4 4:1 – 6 4:4 – 6 4:6 – 7 4:7 – 10 4:7 – 20 4:7 – 21 4:7 – 22 4:8 4:9 4:9 – 17 4:13 4:14 – 15 4:23 4:23 – 25 4:23 – 28 4:23 – 29 4:25

Index of Ancient Sources

111, 241 241, 290 116 116 116 116, 255 116 116 116 387 116 116 116 116 116 116 109, 111, 243, 246, 1, 112, 115, 246, 409 115 255 97, 109, 373, 375 155 115 370 248 112 f., 409 372 115 97, 112 f., 124, 325 93, 109 109 115, 370 122 f., 125 f. 109, 325 59, 99 1 129 326 349 328 47 1 97, 155, 326, 375 109 130 375 110

4:26 4:27 – 32 4:29 4:33 4:33 – 36 4:33 – 38 4:34 4:34 – 36 4:35 – 36 4:35 – 37 4:36 4:36 – 37 4:36 – 38 4:37 4:38 4:50 2 Macc. 5 5:1 – 3 5:1 – 20 5:5 5:5 – 10 5:7 – 9 5:9 – 10 5:11 – 21 5:15 5:15 – 16 5:15 – 17 5:16 5:19 5:22 5:23 6:6 – 7 6:9 6:11 6:18 6:18 – 31 6:23 6:24 2 Macc. 7 7:6 7.26 7:30 8:5 8:8 8:17 8:20 2 Macc. 9

109, 326 110 97 18, 109 f., 113 – 115, 326 112, 377 115 110 108, 124, 130, 326 95, 127 55 122, 201 16 121, 123 110 110 110 328 103 337 93, 337 40, 326 f. 326 121 129 93 59, 286, 329, 401 336 76, 255 394 119 93 387 116 119 248, 409 111, 113 174, 257 248 111, 113 116 47 116 113 119 255 330 111

Index of Ancient Sources

9:16 9:25 9:29 10:1 – 5 10:1 – 8 10:21 11:23 11:29 11:32 2 Macc. 12 12:45 2 Macc. 13 13:3 13.3 – 7 13:3 – 8 13:4 13:4 – 8 13:7 13:23 13:23 – 26 14:6 2 Macc. 15 15:11 – 17 15:12 15:12 – 17 15:13 15:14 – 15 15:37

433 119 119 – 123 201 111, 242 98 116 93 93 111 174 111 93 134 43 60 121 93 119 f. 119 352 113 116 1, 112, 115 f., 224, 233, 246 f., 409 113 116 116 117

3 Maccabees 1:2 – 3 1:2 – 4 1:16 1:19 1:23 3 Macc. 2 2:1 – 20 2:19 2:28 2:28 – 29 3:1 3:3 3:4 3:6 3:7 3:8

251, 254, 313 309 245, 248 258 244 246 244 245 236 254 249 252 244 408 252 407 f.

515

3:12 3:12 – 29 3:21 3:24 4:1 – 10 4:6 4:8 4:11 3 Macc. 5 5:1 – 5 5:7 – 12 5:14 – 22 5:14 – 44 5:25 – 35 5:31 5:42 5:50 – 51 5:51 6:1 6:1 – 15 6:3 6:6 6:9 6:16 – 18 6:18 6:22 6:22 – 28 6:22 – 29 6:25 6:25 – 67 6:30 6:31 7:1 – 9 7:5 7:7 7:10 7:10 – 11 7:10 – 15 7:11 – 12 7:12 7:13 7:17 – 18 7:20

249 254 253 252 249 258 174, 233, 256, 258, 406 248, 253 238, 356 254, 313 245 254 313 245 252 174, 256, 406 245 174, 256, 406 212, 246 – 248, 315, 400 244 f. 244, 279, 314, 404 236 246 244 409 55 111 246 253 310 311 174, 256, 406 254 252 254, 310 244 251 308 308 244 248 311 255, 260

4 Maccabees 6:5 7:12

248 248

516

Index of Ancient Sources

Philo of Alexandria De posteritate Caini 31 257 De somniis 2.250

Pseudo-Hecetaeus ‘On the Jews’ (Περί ’Ιουδαίων) 261, 265, 274, 276, 285 f., 288, 290 – 292, 355

209

De specialibus legibus 1.67 209 1.77 – 78 430 f. 2.145 210 4.158 278 De Virtutibus 95

277

De Vita Mosis 1:195 2.98 2.122 2:281

257 209 209 257

In Flaccum 42 – 43 47 117 124

274 184 187 187

Legatio ad Gaium 133 137 155 – 156 161 178 191 235 241 265 281 291 312

187 187 431 187 187 389 257 274 184 245, 430 431 431

Quis Rerum Divinarum Heres Sit (Her.) 186 430 Psalms of Solomon 289

The Sibylline Oracles Book 3 3.1 – 96 218, 220 3.11 221 3.32 219 3.38 – 39 221, 408 3.46 225, 229 3.46 – 92 225 3.49 219 3.52 229 3.59 219, 408 3.62 229 3.77 219 f. 3.96 – 110 224 3.97 219 3.97 – 161 218 3.97 – 349 218, 220 3.110 – 155 224 3.156 219 3.161 219 3.165 219 3.175 – 190 225 3.193 225 3.194 – 195 228 3.196 – 198 218 3.214 222 3.218 – 264 220 3.224 219 3.248 – 256 224 3.265 – 294 220, 222, 232 3.266 – 267 232 3.273 – 279 232 3.279 221, 408 3.280 226, 311 3.281 228 3.285 219 3.286 – 290 219, 222 3.294 232 3.295 – 300 218 3.302 222 3.302 – 304 232

Index of Ancient Sources

3.318 3.319 3.329 3.341 – 343 3.350 – 488 3.388 – 400 3.393 3.396 – 397 3.396 – 400 3.397 3.400 3.401 – 488 3.414 – 418 3.458 3.480 3.489 – 491 3.489 – 829 3.545 – 572 3.555 3.556 – 579 3.564 – 565 3.573 – 591 3.573 – 600 3.575 – 579 3.586 – 590 3.591 – 593 3.597 – 600 3.608 3.608 – 614 3.608 – 615 3.611 – 618 3.624 – 627 3.624 – 634 3.626 – 627 3.629 3.635 – 656 3.652 – 656 3.657 – 668

225 219 219 221, 408 218 220 232, 233, 257 227 f. 226 219 219 217, 219 224 232 f., 257 232 f., 257 218 218, 220 221, 407 221 222 231 232 220, 232, 234 231, 234 221, 408 233 221 225 227 219 226 – 228 221, 316, 410 220, 316, 410 231 221 228 219, 222 220, 228

3.663 – 668 3.665 3.702 – 731 3.703 3.715 – 719 3.718 3.722 – 723 3.728 3.732 – 740 3.734 3.738 – 739 3.755 3.760 3.766 3.767 3.767 – 795 3.772 – 775

232 222 220 222 223 222 223 226, 311 221, 407 221 221 223 221 217 219, 227 f. 219, 222 f. 222

Book 5 5.1 – 51 5.48 5.52 – 110 5.111 – 178 5.179 – 285 5.286 – 434 5.435 – 530 5.494 – 497 5.501 – 507 5.501 – 511

216 216 216 216 216 216 216 221, 316, 410 53, 364 216

Testament of Joseph 18:3 298 Testament of Solomon 11:1 (Recension A) 303 Tobit 13:2

174, 257

3:10 6:2 1:3

432 319 432

Ta’anit 3:8

6

Rabbinic Literature Mishnah Shekalim 1:1 1:3 Yoma

430 430

517

518

Megillah 4:8 Avot 1:2 Sotah 1:6 Menaḥot 13:10

Index of Ancient Sources

7:1

Jerusalem Talmud (Yerushalmi) 91, 250

151

5, 77, 135, 137 – 140, 147, 152, 401, 423 f.

Keritot 1:1

140

Middot 1:4 2:3 4:7

432 432 348, 419

Tosefta Pe’ah 4:6 Yoma 2:4

151

151

233

432

Nazir 4 :1

91

Soṭah 13:6 13:7 – 8 13:8

91 149 151, 161

Menaḥot 13:12 13:13 13:12 – 15 13:23

140 140 5, 77, 135, 344, 401 345

Ḥullin 2:26

139

Niddah 5:15

100

Shabbat 1 (18d), 74 Yoma 1,1 5,1 5,2 (42c) 6,3 (43c) 6,3 (43 c-d)

100

91 91 91, 150 150 5, 12, 91, 125 f., 135 f., 140 – 144, 156, 161, 336, 401, 409, 418

Megillah 4,9 (74c)

151

Nedarim 36d 6,8 (40a)

91 147

Nazir 1,7

91

Sanhedrin 1 (19a)

147

Aggadic Midrashim Leviticus Rabbah 21 91 Esther Rabbah 3:13

151

Pirḳe de Rabbi Eleazar38

322

Yalḳuṭ Shimoni (Midr. Abkir) on Gen 146 322 Avot de-Rabbi Natan Version B, chapter 10 345

Index of Ancient Sources

Targum Pseudo-Jonathan on Isa 19:18 53, 160, 334 on Gen 45:20 322 Babylonian Talmud (Bavli) Beraḥot 29a 137 Shabbat 62b 105a 120a 121a Eruvin 13b 21b 85b 103b-104a Pessaḥim 55a 57a-b

151 151 151 145

142 145 100 151

151 154

Yoma 9a 38a 39b 69a

91 145 91, 149 117, 250

Sukkah 56b

145

Rosh Hashanah 18b Ta’anit 23a Megillah 10a 24b Moed Qatan 24a Nedarim

8b 9b

319 91

Yevamot 64b

142

Ketubot 103b 105a

142 430

Nazir 4b

91

Sotah 8b

151

Gittin 56a

345

Kiddushin 66a 71a

136, 289 319

Baba Qamma 50a

145

Sanhedrin 20a 56a 97b 207b

142 319 142 142

Avodah Zarah 52b

5, 135, 140, 401, 409

Zevaḥim 19a

151

519

145

6 Menaḥot 109a-b

110a

5, 12, 77, 91, 125 f., 135 f., 140 – 145, 152, 156, 161, 336, 344, 401, 409, 418 153, 160 f., 334

Ḥullin 24b

94

5, 135, 140, 401 151

151

520

Index of Ancient Sources

Bekhorot 51a

145

Araḥin 13b

94

Deut 12:5 Deut 27:4

441 441

Samaritan Sources Pseudo-Eupolemos 298 Samaritan Penetateuch

Church Fathers and other Christian Authors Clemens Alexandrinus Stromata 5.113 261

Contra Judaeos 1.6

114

Peter the Deacon of Monte Cassino 300 Eusebius Chronicon 2.216

5, 181, 347

Praeparatio Evangelica 9.17.8 (PseudoEupolemus) 298 9.18.3 (Artapanus) 298 9.27.1 – 37 268 9.27.2 (Artapanus) 298 9.27.4 262 13.13.40 261

Theodore of Mopsuestia Commentary on Psalms 34, 13b (184,10) 126 54(55) 2, 5, 18, 124, 126, 418 65,3b (422,1) 126 Commentary on 2 Timothy 4:10 126

Pagan Sources Babylonian Chronicles BM 41670 120 BM 41840 120 BM 41915 120 BM 422239 120

Hippolytus On the Antichrist 6

303

Jerome Chronicon 127

5, 181, 347

Greek/Hellenistic and Latin Authors

in Danielem XI:14

5, 181, 298, 347, 364

Aristotle Metaphysics 1057b 7

270

Vulgata on Isa 19:18 – 19

334

John of Antioch FHG IV.558

110

Politics 1267a 20 1334a 3 1334b 29

268 268 287

Topics 139 a 29

270

John Chrysostom

Index of Ancient Sources

Cicero Pro Flacco 28 Claudius Ptolemy Geographia IV.5.53 Dio Cassius Historia Romana 42.41 – 43

2.112 2.154

521

329 329

431 Julius Caesar Bellum Alexandrium XXVI.3 360 181, 298 Livius History of Rome 45.12

103

360 Nicolaus of Damascus => Index of Names

Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca Historica 1.28.2 – 3 261, 292 1.55.5 261 19.86 276 30.7.2 110, 121 f. 31.2 103, 337 40.2 267 40.3 48, 261, 263, 265, 267, 270 f., 291 40.3.1 – 2 284 40.3.2 284, 407 40.3.3 274 f., 286 40.3.4 267 40.3.5 265, 267, 289 40.3.5 – 6 263 40.3.6 268 40.3.7 273 40.3.8 286 f. Dionysus of Halicarnassus Roman Antiquities 28 f. Flavius Philostratus The Life of Apollonius of Tyana 1.16 114 Hecataeus of Abdera Aegyptiaca 261 Herodotus Historiae 2.3.1 – 9.2 2.30 2.73

297 329 298

Ovid Metamorphoses 15.382 – 407

298

Plato Republic 540 A-B

265

Plinius the Elder Naturalis Historia 10.3 – 5

298

Plutarch Quaestiones Graecae 58 (304c) 151 Polybius Histories 29.27 Sophocles Antigone 810 – 813

50, 111 103, 337

258

Strabo of Amaseia 50, 64, 100, 164, 180 f., 187, 363 Geographica 16.2.6 114 16.2.40 273 17.1.27 – 9 363 17.1.29 298 Tacitus

522

Histories 5.5.1

Index of Ancient Sources

Timagenes

=> Index of Names

P. Harris I, 31, l. 5 I, 32a, l. 8

389 389

P. Köln Inv. 20380 recto Inv. 21041

219 273

P. Med. Inv. 69.59 Inv. 83.17

194, 204 251

P. Oslo II 14

219

P. Oxy. 745 1424 1448 2124

184 330 330 330

431

Papyri CPJ 8 9 18 18 – 32 19 20 – 26 24 25, l. 9 30 33 37 38 46, l. 18 86 127d 127e 132 (P. Louvre N 2329)

173 173 173 330 173 173 198, 202, 206, 251, 273, 330, 378 145 173, 330 173, 330 198 173 145 175, 198, 424 251 251

6, 18, 195, 198 – 202, 205, 214, 254, 326, 329, 338, 341, 350, 372, 375, 418, 424 137 175, 198, 424 138 255 145 194 f., 198, 202 – 204, 206 157 175, 198, 424 417 378 451 175, 198, 424 453 175, 198, 424 520 19, 204 f., 408 525, l. 85 (= Oxford, Bodleian Library Ms. Heb. a. 5) 400 565, ll. 15, 40 145 Mur 45

98

P. Dem. Berl. 3096

251

Pros. Ptol. II 2059 II 2083 V 13081 VIII 2593 VIII 2059

341 341 341 341 341

P. Ryl. 154 667

330 236

P. Sorb. 2019

198, 424

P. Tebt. 103 121 189 818

236 236 236 251

Index of Ancient Sources

1108 – 1112 1113 – 1115

343 343

P. UB Trier S 135 – 1 S 135 – 3

344 344

P. Vindob. G 40588 G 40663, col. VIII G 57700 G. 57704

251 100, 378 186 273

TAD A4.1 (= Cowley 21) A 4.4 (= Cowley 56) A4.7 (= Cowley 30) C3.15 (= Cowley 22) D1.17 (= CPJ 526); frag. 2, l. 8 XḤev/Se 8 49 56

523

269 98 421 433 145

98 98 98

Ostraca O. Petrie 24

167

Inscriptions CIG 5361 5362

183, 351 183, 351

CIJ 315 1007

192 191 f.

CYP 5

199, 424, 443

IJudO i BS19

443

I. Phil. I ii

341

29 29 – 39 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38

39 I. Th. Sy. 302 = SB V 8878 = OGIS I iii 344 f. JIGRE 9 13 22 24 25 27 28

255, 415 255, 415 255, 415 255, 415 255, 415 255, 415 255, 415

42 43 44 45 46 54 55 57 62 70

175 175 170, 173, 176, 184, 354 174 f., 184, 257, 406 184, 258 170, 173, 177 f., 258 174 f., 257, 406 175, 258 175 6, 64, 164, 169, 174 f., 177, 180 – 182, 184, 187, 203 f., 247, 257 f., 332, 349 f., 406 174 f., 182 – 188, 195, 257, 350, 406, 412 192 378 181, 349 176 171 100, 176 f., 378 192 100, 258, 378 192 171

524

80 83 84 90 93 96 98 105 114 115 117 125

Index of Ancient Sources

189 179, 258 6, 152, 189 – 193, 212, 247, 399, 409 f., 420 170 170, 173 170, 173 186 f., 413 255, 415 175, 184 192 255, 415 255, 415

126 129 131 156

255, 415 177, 193 – 195, 197, 204 176 177

Schwabe and Lifshitz no. 127

257

SEG 16.931 17.823 48 – 1987 – 2003

183, 330 330 187