Jerusalem

JERUSALEM

JERUSALEM

Portrait of the City in the Second Temple Period

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

2002.5763

THE JEWISH PuBLICATION SOCIETY PHILADELPHIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

0"'0'"

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

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

vii

Contents Preface

xi

Introduction

Xlll

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

12

CONTENTS

viii

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

82

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

129

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

132

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

CONTENTS

ix

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

183

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

226

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

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

x

CONTENTS

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

Chapter 10. Social Stratification

351

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

Chapter 11. Religious Ambience

375

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

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

Epilogue

413

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

Illustration Credits 470 Subject Index 472

404

401

xi

Preface

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

xii

Jerusalem in the Second Temple period.

xiii

Introduction

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

1. Natural History 5, 70.

xiv

INTRODUCTION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

xv

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

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

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

xvi

INTRODUCTION

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

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

INTRODUCTION

xvii

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

xviii

INTRODUCTION

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

Part I

From Cyrus to the Hasmoneans

3

Chapter 1

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

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

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

4

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 1. The Persian Empire.

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

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

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

5

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

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

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

6

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

7

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

8

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

9

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

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

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

10

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

11

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

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

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

12

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

13

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

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

14

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

15

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

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

16

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

17

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

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

18

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

19

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

20

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

The Era of Ezra and Nehemiah

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

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

21

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

22

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

23

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

24

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

25

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

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

26

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

27

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

28

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

29

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

30

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMON EANS

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

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

31

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

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

32

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Chephlrah

*

...,

Mltzpahfjl Ramah Glbeon

*.**

*

QlryatYe'artm *

*Beerot JERUSALEM

Mlchmash Geba Azm avet

*~:atot

0

* * * Netofah

Bet. Ha-I(erem

Bethlehem

Teqoa * *set-Zur

Figure 6. Yehud's borders.

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

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

33

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

34

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

35

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

36

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMON EANS

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

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

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

37

Figure S. Samaria in the Persian era.

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

38

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

39

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

Figure 9. A Yehud coin depicting an owl.

Figure 10. A Yehud coin depicting some

The legend reads:"Yehizqiah the Peha

divinity (perhaps) on a winged wheel.

[governor)."

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

40

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

41

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

42

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

43

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

44

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

45

Chapter 2

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

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

46

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

,.'

"

-

,,,'

: Aj '.._- ..

~'''

.

Figure 11. The empire of Alexander the Great.

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

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

47

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

48

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49

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

50

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

51

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

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

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

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

52

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

53

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

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

54

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

55

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

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

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

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

56

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 13. Stamped jar handles.

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

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

57

Figure 14. Zenon's travels.

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

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

58

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

59

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

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

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

60

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

61

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

62

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

63

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

64

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

65

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

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

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

66

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

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

67

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

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

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

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

68

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

69

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

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

89. Geography 12, 8,9, C575.

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

70

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

71

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

72

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

73

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

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

74

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

75

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

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

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

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

76

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

77

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

78

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

79

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

80

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

81

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

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

82

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

83

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

84

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

85

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

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

86

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

87

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

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

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

88

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

"sb.echem S AM A Jlt A

JUDEA

Figure 17. Jonathan's realm.

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

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

89

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

90

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

91

Chapter 3

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

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

92

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMON EANS

Figure 18. Jerusalem under Hasmonean rule.

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

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

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

93

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

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

94

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

• dly D .......

M t:dil r:l'raJU! OIl

Sell

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

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

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

95

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

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

96

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

97

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

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

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

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

98

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

99

Figure 21. A Hellenistic tomb in

Figure 22. The Hasmonean palace complex

Hamrath, Syria,similar, perhaps, to

in Jericho.

the Maccabean tomb in Modi'in.

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

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

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

100

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

101

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

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

102

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

103

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

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

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

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

104

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMON EANS

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

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

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

50. Ant. 13.13,5,374.

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

105

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

10(j

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.eE)

107

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

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

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

108

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

109

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

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

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

110

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

TEMPLE MOUNT

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

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

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

111

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

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

112

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

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

113

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

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

Ibid., 18.4,3,91-92.

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

114

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

Political and Religious Groupings in Hasmonean Jerusalem

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

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

115

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

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

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

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

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

116

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

117

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

118

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

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

119

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

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

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

120

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

121

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

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

122

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

123

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

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

124

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

Pharisees and Sadducees The Ideological Dimension

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

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

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

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

125

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

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

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

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

126

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

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

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

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

127

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

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

128

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

129

Other Aspects of Hasmonean Pharisaism

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

130

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

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

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

131

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

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

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

132

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

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

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

133

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

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

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

134

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

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

The Temple in Hasmonean Jerusalem With the dramatic expansion and growth of Jerusalem, the Temple still remained the central focus in the city. Before the Hasmoneans, the Temple's physical prominence was ensured by its location on the highest point of the eastern ridge, where the entire city was then located. However, with the expansion of Jerusalem westward, the newly enclosed area was, in fact, on much higher ground. Nevertheless, even without its topographical prominence, the institution continued to command center stage. This prominence was further enhanced by the fact that the Hasmoneans themselves regularly officiated there and were able to raise the funds necessary for the ongoing maintenance, refurbishing, rebuilding, and expansion of its facilities. Revered as Judaism's single holy site by an ever-growing population in Judaea (partly by natural increment, partly by forced conversions), the Temple was also the subject of much attention and debate among the newly established sects, each emphasizing, in its own way, the centrality of Jerusalem's sacred site. For all their differences, no group ever denied the sanctity of this site, even though some might have been critical about the way in which the Temple was being run. The importance of the Temple found expression at this time in a variety of ways. One was through literary works, foremost among which is 2 Maccabees;17.
THE HASMONEAN ERA (141-63 B.C.E.)

135

A second book emphasizing the centrality of the Jerusalem Temple is Jubilees, composed in all likelihood in the middle to late second century.175 Purportedly the words of an angel conveyed to Moses, Jubilees is, in effect, a midrash on Genesis and Exodus, reflecting-as this genre invariably does-many of the concerns of its author, in this case a second-century priest. 176 One of its main thrusts was to trace current Jewish practices to the earliest period in the history of the world and the Jewish people: Counting years in a jubilee cycle (a fifty-year period) began with Adam; the (solar) calendar was already revealed to Enoch; and each of the holidays was celebrated by the patriarchs. Jubilees pays special attention to aspects of the Temple service, which also found expression early on. Adam offered sacrifices (Jub. 3:26-27) and Enoch incense (Jub. 4:25-26). Both Noah and Abraham are singled out for special mention (Jub. 7:36, 21:7-10), the former for having made atonement for the land through a lavish sacrificial ritual (Jub. 6:1-3), the latter for having offered tithes and celebrated the festivals of Shavu'ot and Sukkot (Jub. 13:9,16,25-27, 14:9-12,19,15:1-2, 16:20--31). Abraham not only provided detailed instructions for sacrificial procedures to Isaac before his death (Jub. 21:7-16), but purportedly offered Isaac as a sacrifice (as per Gen. 22) on Passover (Jub. 17:15-16). Many observances connected with the Passover festival are associated, as might be expected, with Moses (Jub. 49). The book concludes with a re-emphasis of the Sabbath's sanctity and the fact that the only work allowed on that day had to be related to the Temple. Sacrifices, oblations, and burning frankincense, all part of the required daily offerings, were permitted on the Sabbath, since they ensure Israel's perpetual atonement before God. Clearly, no greater significance could be attributed to the Temple's daily ritual (Jub. 50:9-11 ).177 A third work, the Letter of Aristeas, devotes a long section178 to a description of the Jerusalem Temple. Although this book purportedly narrates events that transpired in the third century B.C.E., and we have already made use of it as possibly reflecting certain aspects of Ptolemaic Jerusalem, there is general agreement today that the book itself was written in the latter half of the second century. While there is reason to believe that its description of the Temple and Jerusalem is largely idealized and stereotyped,179 the particular section that purportedly 175. VanderKam, "Jubilees," 1030-1032. 176. Ibid., 1030-1031, and Mendels, Land of Israel as a Political Concept, 57-88. Another concern of Jubilees that presumably reflects a priestly agenda is the emphasis on the renewal of the covenant associated with Shavu'ot (6:10-11,17). 177. See generally, C. T. R. Hayward, Jewish Temple, 85-107, and Himmelfarb, "'Kingdom of Priests,' " 89-98. For an earlier expression of this idea, see Ps. 20. 178. Chapters 51-104. 179. See Hadas, Aristeas, 40-53 on the Hellenistic literary models and utopian descriptions that permeate

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

136

describes Jerusalem seems to reflect a period after the city had begun expanding westward, i.e., in the days of the Hasmoneans. It describes the view of the city from the Temple ramparts westward as resembling a theater's cavea, with streets intersecting at regular intervals. Moreover, the inhabitants' scrupulous observance of purity seems more appropriate for a Hasmonean context than for a Ptolemaic one (Lett. of Aristeas 105-106). Aristeas' description of the Temple emphasizes its splendor and magnificence-its walls, sophisticated water supply system and reservoirs, inner furnishings, aspects of the sacrificial ritual, and a description of the high priest in his elaborate garb (Lett. of Aristeas 83-99). Whatever historical truth lay in the particulars of this description, the awe and pride reflected in this account of the Jerusalem Temple says a great deal about the standing that the institution commanded in the eyes of this Diaspora Jewish author. Despite all the adoration of the Temple that we noted, the Temple also had its detractors. We already mentioned the priests who left Jerusalem out of protest. Some went to Egypt and others to the Judaean Desert. For both groups, the current Temple leadership (i.e., the Hasmoneans) and the halakhic regulations then in vogue appeared misguided and profane. While Onias N built his own temple in Leontopolis, the Essenes' reaction was more nuanced. On the one hand, the Qumran sect considered itself, metaphorically speaking, a substitute Temple. In speaking of the governing council of the community, it is noted: As long as these men exist in Israel, the deliberative council of the community shall be established in truth .... Insofar as the laymen are concerned, it will be indeed a sanctuary; and insofar as the priesthood is concerned, it will constitute the basis for a true "holy of holies." The members of the community will be in all justice the witnesses of God's truth ... effecting atonement for the earth and ensuring the requital of the wicked. As for the priesthood they shall be a seat for the "holy ofholies."I80

A second Essene reaction was to focus on a heavenly temple. Thus the angelic liturgy, based on the vision in !sa. 6, points to a preoccupation with this heavenly sphere. An elaborate description of this liturgy is offered in the Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice. 181 The Qumran sect also focused on the future eschatological Temple. The Temple Scroll and the New Jerusalem text record the elaborate speculation developed within the sect, or those close to it, in this regard. 182

the book. The New Jerusalem text from Qumran also seems to have been influenced by Hellenistic city plan models; see Chyutin, "New Jerusalem," 71-97. 180. IQS 8, 4-10. 181. Newsom, Songs a/the Sabbath Sacrifice. 182. See Collins, Jerusalem and the Temple, 12-24.

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

137

Some circles envisioned a future Jerusalem without a Temple. In the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch (89:73), it is stated that all the offerings of the Temple are impure. The Temple is represented by a tower, and in the new house (i.e., Jerusalem), to be built by God in the coming age, no mention is made of such a structure (1 Enoch 90:28-29). Even the various calculations, or perhaps we should say recalculations, in the book of Daniel would seem to indicate that the author refused to accept the restoration of the Jerusalem Temple by Judah Maccabee as adequate and satisfactory.183

Temple-Related Observances Concomitant with the above literary expressions, a number of religious practices focusing on the Temple seem to have crystallized or have been revitalized (see Neh. 10:31--40) at this time. Admittedly much of the relevant evidence derives only from the later, Herodian, era. It is very likely, however, that pilgrimage to Jerusalem on the three festivals as well as contributing a half sheqel to the Temple increased at this time. 184 Given the Hasmonean interest in promoting the Temple and cultivating the loyalty and support of the Diaspora (e.g., 2 Maccabees), it seems almost certain that these two Temple-focused practices were encouraged at this time. Although it is impossible to assess the degree of success regarding contributions to the Temple, some evidence for this practice does exist for the pre-Herodian era. 185 The evidence with respect to pilgrimages, though meager, is a little more explicit. Relating to Herod's confrontation with Antigonus and the Parthians (ca. 41 B.C.E.), Josephus notes the following: During the daily skirmishes that took place, the enemy were waiting for the arrival of the multitude from the countryside who were coming for the celebration of Pentecost, as it is called, which is a festival. And when this day came, there were many tens of thousands of armed and unarmed men gathered round the Temple. 186

183. Ibid .• 9-1l. 184. Despite the lack of explicit testimony, it is almost certain that contributions to the Temple were already in vogue in the Hellenistic era. Samaritans in Delos were sending monies to their Temple on Mount Gerizim in the second and first centuries B.C.E. (Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 102-103), and Jews and Samaritans in Egypt disputed over where to send their communal funds (Ant. 12.1, 1, 7-10). 185. Crassus' decision to plunder the Temple in 53 B.C.E. and the list of spoils he appropriated indicate a degree of wealth that may be linked to large-scale contributions from Judaea and the Diaspora. More direct evidence may be found in the subsequent statement of Josephus, quoting Strabo, that in the first half of the first century B.C.E. Diaspora Jews had deposited some eight hundred talents on the island of Cos for transfer to Jerusalem (Ant. 14.7, 1-2, 105-113). Finally, Cicero's statement--{;a. 60 B.C.E.regarding the Jewish custom of sending gold to Jerusalem annually from all the provinces reflects an already well established practice (Pro Fiacco 28, 67 [GLAJJ, I: 197]). 186. Ant. 14.13,4,337. See also War 1.13,3,253.

138

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

There were other biblical practices relating to the Temple that were probably in vogue at this time and served to strengthen the people's ties with this institution. One such observance was the bringing of the Second Tithe to the city. As its name indicates, this tithe was in addition to the one set aside annually for the levites and later appropriated by the priests. As noted in Deut. 14:22-26, the Second TItheeither the produce itself or its monetaty equivalent-was to be used only in Jerusalem. The practice is attested in Hellenistic times by the book of Tobit (l :7)187 and is noted by Jubilees (32:11) and Josephus.1 88 These three sources state that the Second TIthe was to be offered each year. Rabbinic literature seems to follow another tradition, whereby the Second TIthe requirement was suspended in the third and sixth years of a sabbatical cycle and replaced by a tithe for the poor; it was to be offered four times every seven years in the sabbatical cycle-on the fIrst, second, fourth, and fIfth years. 189 Such a practice may also be alluded to in the Septuagint translation of Deut. 26:12. In the first century C.E., Bet Hillel and Bet Sharnmai expressed their differences in regard to specifIc practices in this domain. l90 Another custom that may have developed around this time involved the bringing of fourth-year vineyard produce (or its monetaty equivalent) to Jerusalem. Based on Lev. 19:24, the practice became so widespread that the Mishnah even defInes the specifIc boundaries set at a one day's journey from Jerusalem. Those living within this area were required to bring the produce to the city, whereas those living beyond the boundary could redeem the produce and bring money instead. 191 The same holds true for the presentation of fIrst fruits in the Temple, a ceremony spelled out in some detail in Deut. 26. Although officially associated with the Shavu'ot festival in the spring, these offerings could, in fact, be brought throughout the summer as well. According to tannaitic sources, such occasions were often accompanied by much pomp and ceremony.192 Providing wood for the altar seems to have been widespread throughout the Second Temple period. Neh. 10:35 already takes note of certain families charged with this responsibility, and the involvement of leading families continued throughout this entire period. Nine specifIc days are singled out in the Mishnah for offering wood. 193 However, at a certain point this practice came to include all the people, and these offerings were generally made on the ninth or 187. On the date of Tobit, see Schiirer, History, 1II:223-224; Zimmennann, Book of Tobit, 21-27; and C. A. Moore, "Tobit," 591. 188. Ant. 4.8, 8,205. 189. Safrai, "Religion," 818-825. 190. M Ma'aser Sheni 2, 3; 3, 6. 191. M Ma'aser Sheni 5,1. 192. M Bikkurim 3, 2-12, and T Bikkurim 2, 8-14 (ed. Liebennan, 291-293). 193. Ta'anit4,5.

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

139

fifteenth of Av (July-August). Josephus, however, notes: ''The eighth day was the feast of wood-carrying, when it was customary for all to bring wood for the altar, in order that there might be an unfailing supply of fuel for the flames, which are always kept burning."I94 Finally, a practice rooted in the Persian era was the division of the priesthood into twenty-four courses. Along with some of their lay neighbors from districts throughout Judaea, these priests would minister in the Temple for one week at a time, twice a year. 195

"Purity Burst Forth in Israel" One of the most dramatic religious developments during this period is the appearance of unprecedented purity concerns among a wide variety of Jews. 196 The apocryphal books of Tob. 2:9 and Jth. 12:Cr-1O already indicate such concerns in regard to corpse or gentile uncleanliness. The Letter of Aristeas 305-306 notes the Egyptian Jewish custom of washing hands before praying, a practice that is attested on several other occasions in the Diaspora,I97 among the Essenes in general, and at Qumran in particular. 198 The second document issued by Antiochus ill upon his conquest of Jerusalem in 198 B.C.E. also prescribes strict adherence to purity issues throughout the city: No foreigner is allowed to enter the Temple precincts, and all Jews must do so only after purification; no flesh or skins of unclean animals are allowed in the city, nor may unclean animals be bred there. l99 How effective such measures were is impossible to determine, nor is there any way to conclude whether these rules were reinforcing an established norm or helping create a new one. 2OO A variety of sources attest that the Hasmonean era brought with it a markedly increased emphasis on ritual purity. We have already noted the Hasmonean policy of purifying pagan settlements before resettling them with Jews, and cleansing the land from the impurity of idolatry appears to have been of major importance. Moreover, the Dead Sea scrolls stress purity concerns for members 194. War 2.17,6,425. This practice is also recorded in Megillat Ta'anit; Lichtenstein, "Die Fastenrolle," 331-332.

195. M Ta'anit4, 2. 196. See Alon, Jews, Judaism, 146-234; E. P. Sanders,lewish Law, 131-254; and Regev, "Pure Individualism," 176-202. 197. Ant. 14.10,23,258, and Acts 16:13. 198. War 2.8, 4,129; 8,10,150; lQS 5,13; CD 10, 11-13, 11,22 (bathing). See also the Sibylline Oracles 3,591-593;4,162-169. 199. Ant. 12.3,4, 145-146.

200. Another expression of purity concerns was a strict ban on intermarriage, as spelled out in Jubilees and 4QMMT; see Werman, "Jubilees 30," 1-22, and Hayes, "Intermarriage and Impurity," 15-35.

140

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

of the sect: Admission involved a series of purity requirements, meals had to be taken in a state of purity, and immersion was required a number of times a day. Many of the stepped cisterns at Qumran undoubtedly served as ritual baths.201 For the sect, there was a direct correlation between degrees of purity and the religious and moral state of the individual. Despite the fact that there is a dearth of halakhic traditions ascribed in rabbinic literature to the first Pharisees who lived in Hasmonean times, many of those that have been preserved address purity issues. 202 Thus the first sages noted by name, Yose b. Yo'ezer and Yose b. Yohanan, discussed corpse uncleanness and declared the "land of the gentiles" (i.e., all land outside of Eretz Israel) and glass vessels as impure. 203 In the next generation, Joshua b. Perahya ruled that wheat from Alexandria was impure. 204 From the later Hasmonean era, Judah b. Tabbai and Simon b. Shatah declared metal vessels impure.205 The Mishnah speaks of an increased frequency of the Red Heifer ritual, based on Num. 19, the purpose of which was to remove corpse impurity. This ceremony was performed on the Mount of Olives to the east of the city; and according to a later rabbinic tradition, if indeed it is of historical value, the ritual was performed on only a few occasions during the entire biblical period. However, according to one tradition,zo6 no less than four such ceremonies are recorded for the Hellenistic-Hasmonean era and another three for the ensuing Herodian era. The most concrete expression of purity concerns comes from the material remains of the period, as evidenced by the introduction of ritual baths, or miqva'ot, at this time. The immersion ritual in the earlier, biblical, period was geared primarily for priests and seems to have involved primarily immersion in "live (i.e., flowing) water" (Lev. 14:1-32), i.e., streams, springs, rivers, and the sea. Only in Hasmonean times do artificial water installations intended for purification appear. Both Qumran and the Hasmonean palace complex in Jericho provide us with a rich trove of such miqva'ot, several have been identified at Gezer, and perhaps traces of one in pre-Herodian Jerusalem as well. 207 201. See 1. Bawngarten, "Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies," 157-170, and "Purification Rituals," 199-209. 202. For a later dispute between Hillel and Shammai on handwashing, see M Berakhot 8, 2. 203. M 'Eduyot 8, 4; B Shabbat 15a. On this and the following references, see Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 40--48. 204. T Makhshirim 3, 4 (ed. Zuckermandel, 675). It is unclear if the dissenting sages were his contemporaries or later, second-century, rabbis. 205. Y Shabbat 1,4, 3d and parallels. Y Ketubot 8, 8, 32c ascribes the declaration of glass impurity to Simon. 206. M Parah 3, 5. 207. North, "Qumran Reservoirs," 100-132; Strobel, "Die Wasseranlagen," 55-86; Wood, "To Dip or to Sprinkle?" 45-60; and R. Reich, "Miqva'ot," 560-563 as well as Netzer, "Ancient Ritual Baths," 106-119; R. Reich, "Archeological Evidence," 48-52; and, generally Amit, "Ritual Baths from the Second Temple Era." On the Jerusalem miqveh, see Avigad, "Jerusalem," 729.

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

141

Perhaps the most indicative evidence for the pervasiveness of purity requirements is the appearance of ritual baths alongside agricultural installations (olive and wine presses) throughout Judaea. To date, many hundreds of miqva'ot have been discovered in the region, the majority in agricultural contexts. 208 Whether this implies self-motivated purity concerns among a wide spectrum of Jews or reflects Temple purity requirements influencing agricultural practices remains an open question, although the latter alternative seems more compelling. Much of the produce from areas close to Jerusalem may well have been intended for Temple use, having been either ordered by Temple officials or that which someone wished to bring to the city. Whatever the case, the main problem-here, as above, regarding Temple-related practices-is that our evidence for this phenomenon dates from Herodian and post-Herodian times. Once again, it is unclear whether and to what degree the practice had already commenced under the Hasmoneans. Such a conclusion seems quite likely, but we cannot be absolutely certain. 209 Clearly, not all stepped, plastered cisterns were used as ritual baths, and a number of criteria have been suggested for identifying a miqveh: a divider or low partition(s) down the middle of steps, two adjacent pools with a pipe or channel connecting them, and a double entrance. 210 As noted above, a definite Hasmonean date can be attributed to pools at Gezer, Jericho, and Qumran. Many miqva'ot were undoubtedly in use in Jerusalem as well, although the remains found there can be dated only to the Herodian era. Concern for ritual purity found expression in another way as well. Excavations in the late twentieth century produced a wealth of stone vessels that were used by a broad segment of Jerusalem society in the late Second Temple period. 2l1 These vessels include a wide variety of utensils: dishes, bowls, jars, drinking cups, measuring cups, etc. True enough, stone was readily accessible and thus a relatively cheap commodity in the Jerusalem area, and this, in turn, may account for its usage in the Hasmonean era. Nevertheless, it is difficult to disassociate the appearance of such vessels at this time from the newly awakened concern for ritual purity among the priestly and nonpriestly populations.

208, Although R. Reich has offered a number between 300 and 350, Amit estimates that, as of 2001, some 500 miqva'ot have been discovered, 90 percent of which date to the pre-70 period (Amit, personal communication). See, however, the reservations regarding the identification of miqva'ot by Wright, "Jewish Ritual Baths," 190-214. 209. Whether there is any connection between the appearance of miqva'ot in Jewish society in the later second century B.C.E. and the increased use of public baths in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds at the time is an intriguing question that deserves further attention. 210. R. Reich, "Miqva'ot," 560-563. 211. See Rimon, " 'Purity broke out in Israel', "7-27, and especially Deines,liidische Steinfiisse, 71-115.

142

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 31. A coin of Alexander Jannaeus showing an eight-pointed star surrounded by a wreath. The paleo-Hebrew inscription reads: "King Jonathan."

If, indeed, the later rabbinic tradition whereby such vessels were not susceptible to impurity212 was operative at this time, it would also readily account for their widespread presence. We can only speculate as to why such purity concerns became so important in this period. Perhaps it was a desire to emulate priestly purity, or a response to the growing influence of the Temple with its punctilious observance of purity, or perhaps the striving of increasing numbers of people to achieve holiness and sanctity, or a combination of the above.213 Whatever the reason, this concern took hold; we read that when Herod wished to enter the city on a festival with his non-Jewish entourage, Hyrcanus explained to him that it would not be right to so endanger the purity of the masses gathered there. 214 One can thus readily understand the relevance of the talmudic statement that serves as the head of this section: "Purity burst forth in Israel."215

The Avoidance of Figural Art Beginning with the Hasmonean era and continuing for some three centuries, a dramatic change took place in the attitude of the Jews toward figural art. Biblical society had sanctioned the use of such art as long as it did not smack of idolatry. As noted in earlier chapters, this more liberal interpretation of the Second Commandment seems to have been normative throughout the early Second Temple period. The coins of Yehud from the fourth and third centuries, and the figurative decorations on Tobiad Hyrcanus' palace in Iraq el-Emir from the late third and early second centuries, attest to the fact that this practice continued down to Hasmonean times. However, beginning with the latter half of the second century, figural images all but disappear from the Jewish scene. Hasmonean coins are ani conic (Fig. 31), as are the archaeological remains from this period. The tombs and the small finds

212. M Ohalot 5, 5. 213. See Harrington, "Did the Pharisees?" 42-54. 214. War 1.11 , 6, 229, and Ant. 14.11 , 5, 285. 215. B Shabbat I3a. See also T Shabbat I, 14 (ed. Lieberman, 3-4), and Y Shabbat I, 3, 3b.

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

143

from Jerusalem, together with those from Jericho and Qumran, point to the nearly universal observance of this prohibition. 216 This sudden shift in practice has merited little scholarly attention. In truth, there is precious little to go on since our sources simply ignore this phenomenon. It has been suggested, on the one hand, that Pharisaic influence led to this more conservative posture217 and, on the other, that the change was due to Sadducean influence-assuming that the latter had a more restrictive interpretation of the Second Commandment. 218 Another approach posits this shift in figural representation as a reaction to the religious persecutions of Antiochus N in particular and to the threat of Hellenism in general. 219 However, such a drastic step may best be understood as part of the overall Hasmonean religious ideology, one that was modeled after Deuteronomy and dictated a complete disengagement from idolatry and everything associated with it. Just as Ezra took Deut. 7 one step further and considered all gentiles in the category of the seven nations regarding the prohibition of intermarriage, so, too, the Hasmoneans may have considered all figural images as extensions of idolatrous behavior and thus prohibited any and all representations. The fact that the new policy was universally observed from the outset is a strong argument in favor of a centralized, strictly enforced prohibition. However, while certitude in this matter remains elusive, the reality created-Le., a studious avoidance of figural art-is undeniable. This practice, so different from surrounding cultures, served as a unique assertion of Jewish identity in a world where the use of images was ubiquitous.

Hellenization in Hasmonean Jerusalem In the course of this chapter's discussion of Hasmonean Jerusalem, we have commented from time to time on one or another aspect of Hellenization. We will now try to bring together these diverse strands while supplementing this material with further evidence. We will also attempt to place this phenomenon of Hellenization into perspective, balancing it with the particularistic policy that simultaneously characterized many aspects of Hasmonean society. The question, as noted earlier in this chapter, is not whether Hasmonean society was Hellenized; this issue has been resolved once and for all in light of 216. The only exception to this rule is the graffiti of a stag in the tomb of Jason along with some tiny, almost imperceptible, outlines of sailors on a boat; see Rahmani, "Jason's Tomb," 70--72. 217. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, IV:6-7. 218. M. Smith, "Goodenough's 'Jewish Symbols,'" 60. 219. Avigad, Beth She 'a rim, 277-278.

144

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

Figure 32. Jason's tomb, located in the Rehavia neighborhood of Jerusalem.

the archaeological finds and historical research carried out during the twentieth century. The challenge now is trying to determine the extent of this influence, what areas of life (political institutions, material culture, social mores, institutions, literary expressions, ideas and beliefs) and which sectors of society (socioeconomic, geographical, urban-rural, etc.) were most--or least-affected. 220 Besides the Hasmoneans, about whom we have already commented, we have had occasion to point to the significant impact Hellenism had on the upper echelons of Jerusalem society. The Greek names borne by the various emissaries to Rome and elsewhere are clear evidence of this. 221 Moreover, as noted above, the two monumental tombs from this period, Jason's to the west of the city (Fig. 32) and Bnei Hezir to its east, belonged to leading priestly families and were built according to standard Hellenistic models. A number of the literary works noted earlier reflect the fact that Greek culture found expression in other ways as well. We note here three examples that span the Hasmonean era. One of Judah Maccabee's emissaries to Rome was Eupolemos, most likely the same person who wrote a history of the biblical kingdom of Judah in Greek. A generation later, 2 Maccabees borrowed Hellenistic motifs, ideas, and literary style in telling its story, although this very same book juxtaposes Ioudaismos and Hellenismos as conflicting approaches. This book was written in Greek, as were the prefatory letters to

220. See Rajak, "Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism," 261-280; Rappaport, "On the Hellenization of the Hasmoneans," 477-503, and "Hellenization of the Hasmoneans," 1-13; and Levine, "Hasmonean Jerusalem," 140-146. 221. S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 35 .

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

145

the Jews of Alexandria. 222 Finally, some of the Greek Additions to Esther, and perhaps the book itself, were translated in Jerusalem (either in 114 or, more likely, 78 B.C.E.).223 Hellenistic influence permeated sectarian life as well. The Pharisaic adoption and adaptation of concepts such as resurrection and an ora1law appear to have been borrowed from surrounding cultures. Even more poignant is the specific innovation in the marriage document (ketubah) attributed to Simon b. Shatah. 224 This Pharisaic sage purportedly altered the traditional ceremony and document so that the arrangements and obligations were between the bride and groom, with the husband agreeing to give the wife the best of his property in case of divorce, without designating something specific beforehand. Such a change in practice is attested in Egyptian marriage contracts from the fourth and third centuries B.C.E., and it is possible that this practice first crystallized in Egypt and was adopted by the Jews several centuries later. 225 Alternatively, it is possible to view this development as part of a more general Aramaic common law pervasive throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. 226 Very swprising, however, is the degree of Hellenistic influence on the Essenes or Qumran sect. For a group so assiduously detached from contemporary society in order to prepare for the end of days, discovery of the extensive degree to which they adopted outside organizational patterns and religious beliefs borders on the incredulous. In numerous details regarding their communal and administrative arrangements (admission of new members, rules of governance, and punishments), the sect adopted the practices of other Hellenistic religious associations.227 Not even remotely similar precedents are known from earlier Jewish history. Especially unexpected is the extensive influence of surrounding cultures on the sect's ideology. Major aspects of its belief system are indebted to ideas that originated outside of Israel: dualism, determinism, the solar calendar, communal living, angelology, eschatology, etc. 228 How these influences came to be adopted 222. See Himmelfarb, "Judaism and Hellenism," 19-40; as well as T. Fischer, "Maccabees," 448, and van Henten, Maccabean Martyrs, 302. 223. See C. A. Moore, "Esther," 626--633. It is worth noting that, as with Ben Sira several generations earlier, now, too, books written to strengthen Jewish commitments likewise borrowed Hellenistic ideas and motifs; see Alexander, "Jerusalem as the Omphalos," 104-110. On Hellenistic literary influences on I Maccabees, see Gera, "Battle of Beth Zechariah," 25-53. 224. B Ketubot 82b. 225. Geller, "New Sources," 227-245, and Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 116-119. 226. See E. Eshel and Kioner, "Aramaic Ostracon," 21. 227. Dombrowski, ",n'i1 in IQS and to koinOn," 293-307; Weinfeld, Organizational Pattern; and Klinghardt, "Manual of Discipline," 251-270. 228. See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:218-247; Winston, "Iranian Components," 183-216; and Shaked, "Iranian Influence," 308-325, and "Qumran," 277-281.

146

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

is an intriguing issue, though to date no fully satisfactory answer has been forthcoming. Some have supposed that the sect's presumed Diaspora origins may account for this degree of influence, while others posit that third- and secondcentury Judaea must have been so suffused with such ideas that, by the middle second century, members of the sect assumed they were invoking Jewish, and not Hellenistic, notions. 229 Whatever explanation may account for this influence, the case for serious cultural inroads into a remote comer of Hasmonean society finds no more persuasive confirmation than at Qumran. However, this Hellenistic dimension of Hasmonean society should not stand alone. As we have noted on a number of occasions, together with the many foreign influences, the Jewish factor was also being assiduously cultivated at the time. The Hasmoneans were kings but also high priests, their coins were uniquely aniconic yet bore symbols drawn from the surrounding cultures, they had Greek as well as Hebrew names, and so on. Integrating the two worlds in one fashion or another seems to have been a historical fact for all identifiable groups in that society, at least those about which we have information. This integration of influences may have worked in a number of ways. Some of the most stridently Jewish expressions of the period may have been stimulated by outside patterns. The revolt against a foreign imperial power, missionary activity, and the apocalyptic mode all have striking parallels in the Hellenistic Levant. 230 Thus protesting and reacting against the "other," foreign, forms and patterns often stimulated and shaped these expressions (2 Maccabees).231 Hellenism was not only a culture in and of itself. It was, as aptly expressed by Bowersock,232 "a medium not necessarily antithetical to local or indigenous tradition. On the contrary, it provided a new and more eloquent way of giving voice to them." Bickerman's233 claim regarding the Hasmoneans also held true for much of their society: "Here the character and significance of Maccabean Hellenism is plainly revealed. The reform party wished to assimilate the Torah to Hellenism; the Maccabees wished to incorporate Hellenic culture in the Torah." A moderate form of Hellenism was generally the order of the day. In adopting those customs, patterns, and beliefs that did not threaten the fundamentals of Judaism (and here each group would determine its own boundaries), the Jews of 229. For a presentation of each of these options, respectively, see Stegemann, Library of Qumran, 142-162, and Murphy-O'Connor, "Essenes and Their History," 215-244. See also the likewise speculative suggestion of Beckwith, "Pre-History and Relationships," 3-46. 230. See Eddy, King Is Dead, passim. 231. Another instance of using Hellenistic ideas for strengthening Jewish particularism can likewise be seen in Jubilees; see Werman, "Book of Jubilees," 275-296. 232. Bowersock, Hellenism in Late Antiquity, 7. 233. Bickerman, From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees, 156.

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

147

Jerusalem were in essence recognizing the legitimacy and desirability, if not the necessity, of incorporating foreign practices into their society. Undoubtedly, the fact that their recognized religious leaders, i.e., the Hasmonean high priests, embraced such a policy made it easier for others to do the same.

The End of an Era In 63 B.C.E., the Roman general Pompey conquered Jerusalem and, once againas had been the case before the Hasmoneans-the city became subservient to a foreign power. Could the conquest have been avoided and, if not, could sovereignty, or at least some semblance of extensive autonomy, have been preserved? The answer to the first issue is a resounding no! Whether the Romans conquered the Levant or not had nothing to do with Jerusalem or Judaea (see Chapter 4). The real question, then, is whether the Hasmoneans might have been able to gain better terms for themselves and their kingdom following Rome's takeover than they, in fact, did. Here, the answer is quite probably yes. Judaea's standing with Rome probably was not very high at the time of conquest. Having studiously cultivated Roman loyalties via embassies and treaties throughout the late second century, the latter Hasmoneans, from Aristobulus I onward, apparently severed all ties. We hear nothing about any contact with Rome throughout the frrst half of the first century. The quarrels between the two contending brothers, Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II, upon Pompey's arrival in the East, did little to enhance the Roman general's confidence in these leaders. Each tried to undermine the other, and neither seems to have commanded widespread public support. 234 Jewish society and Hasmonean leadership were fragmented at this point. We have had occasion to discuss the opposition of various groups, particularly the Dead Sea sect and the Pharisees. Other religious circles likewise harbored a great deal of animosity toward the Hasmoneans, as reflected, for example, in the Psalms of Solomon, written soon after the Roman conquest. Referring to the Hasmoneans, the author declares: Lord, You chose David to be king over Israel, and swore to him about his descendants forever, that his kingdom should not fail before You. But (because of) our sins, sinners rose up against us, they set upon us and drove us out. Those to whom You did not (make the) promise, they took away (from us) by force; and they did not glorify Your honorable name. With pomp they set up a monarchy because of their arrogance; they despoiled the throne of David with arrogant shouting. But You, 0 God, overthrew them, and uprooted their descendants from the earth (ps. of Sol. 17:4-7). 234. Ant. 14.3,2,40-45.

148

FROM CYRUS TO THE HASMONEANS

The rifts, however, went even deeper and struck close to one of the Hasmonean bases of power. We are told that upon Pompey's arrival in the East, a delegation of some two hundred Jewish notables and leading citizens, most probably from Jerusalem, met with the Roman general and requested the abolition of the Hasmonean monarchy and the restoration of the status quo ante, i.e., the rule of only a high priest: Likewise the leading men, more than two hundred in number, gathered to address the general and explain that their forefathers, having revolted from Demetrius, had sent an embassy to the senate, and received from them the leadership of the Jews, who were, moreover, to be free and autonomous, their ruler being called High Priest, not King. Now, however, these men (i.e., the Hasmoneans) were lording it over them, having overthrown the ancient laws and enslaved the citizens in defiance of all justice; for it was by means of a horde of mercenaries, and by outrages and countless impious murders that they had established themselves as kings.235 Despite such opposition, the Hasmoneans might have been able to negotiate better terms of submission, but they themselves proved utterly incapable of coping with the new challenges posed by Rome and never were able to develop any sort of reasonable or credible strategy.236 The price paid for this failure was indeed high.

235. Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica 40, 2 (GIAll, I:no. 64). See also Ant. 14.3,2,41. 236. Hyrcanus II did, of course, survive the conquest and continued to serve as high priest and figurehead of the Jewish population for several decades. However, it is quite clear that the power behind the throne and the one directing public affairs was Antipater, Herod's father.

Part II

Herodian Jerusalem

151

Chapter 4

The Historical Dimension

Transition to Roman Rule From the third to first centuries B.C.E., Rome embarked on a long series of conquests. Its wars often lasted decades, but invariably Rome was victorious. Spain to the west; Gaul and Germany to the north; Carthage and North Africa to the south; Greece, Asia Minor, Syria, Egypt, and Judaea to the east-all succumbed to Roman might. These conquests were not carried out, as once thought, primarily to ensure Rome's survival or for strictly defensive purposes, but rather out of a desire for expansion and domination. l By the second century B.C.E., the Romans came to believe that their successes were part of an overall plan whereby, as "masters of the whole world," everything and everyone was to be brought under their rule (imperium orbis terrae).2 By the first century B.C.E., Rome had become fully aware of the advantages of these conquests: vast tax revenues, the opportunity to settle soldiers in conquered territories, lucrative markets for both import and export, and, not least, the power and prestige that conquests bestowed on its generals. 3 Following the victory over Antiochus m in the Battle of Magnesium (western Asia Minor) in 190 B.C.E. and the resultant treaty of Apamea in 188, Rome gained extensive influence over the East, just as it had in the West. Even though I. On Roman imperialism, see Harris, War and Imperialism, 105-130. On the problematics of assessing Roman motivation for conquest, see the judicious remarks of Gruen, Hellenistic World 1:273-287.

2. Plutarch, Tiberius Gracchus 9,6, and Rhetorica ad Herennium 4, 9, 13. See Mendels, Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 243-245, and Shatzman, "Integration of Judaea," 49-84. 3. Gruen, Hellenistic World 1:288-315.

152

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

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

...

,

ARABIA

".

Figure 33. The Roman Empire.

this victory could have been exploited for actual conquest, Rome preferred to content itself at this point with a sizable annual tribute from the Seleucid dynasty while cultivating ties with the Ptolemaic Empire and forging alliances with smaller kingdoms, including that of the Hasmoneans.4 Only after the expanding kingdoms of Mithridates of Pontus and Tigranes of Armenia began to threaten Roman interests (in the 80s and 70s of the frrst century B.C.E.), and with the growing danger on the eastern horizon from the Parthians and increasingly disruptive activity of pirates affecting the trade routes of the eastern Mediterranean, did Rome decide to act. s Just as Julius Caesar's triumphs in Gaul helped bolster his position in Rome, so, too, did his archrival, Pompey, seek to take advantage of this opportunity in the East to increase his influence at home. The smaller eastern kingdoms conquered by Rome served both as important links in the empire's defense system generally and as buffers against specific foreign threats (Fig. 33).6 In the East, such threats may have come from an empire (Parthian), various smaller kingdoms (e.g., Armenia, Pontus, and Cappadocia in Asia Minor), or from the potential incursions of native peoples and tribes that had not yet been brought under Roman domination. These king4. Ibid., 11:611-719; Liebmann-Frankfort, "Rome et Ie conflict," 101 - 120; and M. Stem, "Relations between Judaea and Rome," 1-22. 5. See Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty, 36-48,96-\05, 112-120, 280-284. 6. Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World, 42-61, and Ball, Rome in the East, 30-73 . See also Luttwak, Grand Strategy, 7-50. Rome might also have supported a local power broker, as was the case with Amyntas, a chieftain of Celtic origin, in Asia Minor; see Mitchell, Cremna, 41-51.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

153

doms also helped suppress banditry and piracy, two scourges of Roman rule, what Luttwak7 terms "low-intensity threats." Moreover, they often served as mediators on both the domestic and foreign fronts.s The effects of Roman rule on conquered peoples were mixed. On the one hand, their freedom was severely restricted and the populace was constantly subjected to economic exploitation. On the other, the inhabitants enjoyed the benefits of a unified political framework that brought in its wake peace, stability, and economic prosperity such as that enjoyed by the Nabataeans in what has been termed "the flowering of Nabataea."9 The pax Romana, like the pax Persica earlier, facilitated regular contact between distant regions; Jerusalem, as we shall see, benefited immensely from these opportunities. Aside from the commercial and cultural dimensions, these ties enabled the city to maintain close contact with Diaspora Jewish communities throughout the empire and beyond.lO Jerusalem seems to have enjoyed a special status in Roman eyes, not only because it was the political and religious capital of a native people but also because it was the spiritual center for communities scattered throughout the empire. Moreover, given the Romans' respectful attitude toward local temples, it is not surprising that the city would merit recognition and support. Jerusalem could not help but benefit from this combination of factors. 11 As Plutarch 12 was to note two centuries later, "the greatest blessings that cities can enjoy are peace, prosperity, populousness, and concord." Rome's impact on the material culture of the provinces could be seen everywhere. 13 Roman emperors continued the tradition of Alexander the Great, founding new cities and reshaping existing ones in a Greco-Roman mode; roads were paved, public baths and entertainment centers were built, and bridges and aqueducts were constructed. Rome facilitated the proliferation of sewage and drainage systems and colonnaded streets, and provided amenities such as nymphaea (pub7. Luttwak, Grand Strategy, 241. On the other hand, it should be noted that these kingdoms benefited as well. Rome could help suppress insurgents and maintain local stability, as often happened under Hyrcanus II; see, e.g., War 1.8, 2, 160-161; 8, 6, 171; 10,4,202. See also Braund, Rome and the Friendly King, 91-103, and Millar, Roman Near East, 27-79. 8. On Herod's role in such circumstances, see Ant. 16.8,6,270: "There Herod also reconciled Archelaus [king of Cappadocia] with Titius, the governor of Syria, who had been on bad terms with him after a dispute, and he then returned to Judaea." On the relationships between these client kings, see Jacobson, "Three Roman Client Kings," 22-38. 9. Bowersock, Roman Arabia, 59-75. 10. In the second century C.E., Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4, 30, 3, noted the following: "the world is at peace through their agency; so much so that we are able to travel the highways and sail the seas wherever we wish without fear." 11. See Millar, Emperor, 447-456. 12. Precepts of Statecraft 32.

13. See Ball, Rome in the East, 149-206,246-396.

154

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

lic fountains) and sophisticated irrigation systems, making it possible to sustain settlements in remote, arid areas. These technological advances benefited not only the aristocracy but the people at large as well. 14 In contrast, Rome's direct contribution to the cultural, religious, and intellectuallife of the eastern part of the empire was less evident. Greek culture remained pervasive throughout the East alongside local cultures. A distinctly Roman cultural stamp, such as the use of Latin, was almost entirely absent in these regions. The continued dominance of Greek throughout the East was formally institutionalized by the presence of two official secretaries who served in the Roman imperial court, one charged with correspondence in Latin for the western part of the empire, the other with correspondence in Greek for the East. Thus, if one wishes to speak of Rome's cultural contribution to this region, it would lie more in the promotion of Hellenistic culture, which indeed continued to deepen its hold on eastern cities and their hinterlands throughout the centuries of Roman rule. If under Alexander the Great Hellenism spread beyond Greece, under the pax Romana it sank deep roots in the lands around the eastern Mediterranean, including Judaea. As a result of the Roman conquest, a new constellation of leadership appeared in Judaea that viewed the pax Romana as a positive force and pursued a policy of full cooperation with the conqueror. This leadership, which continued for almost l30 years, down to the outbreak of the revolt in 66 C.E., did not emerge from the Hasmonean establishment but, as is common in such circumstances, from a marginal group in Judaean society, in this case one whose roots lay in Idumaea-Antipater, his son Herod, and their descendants. ls During the latter part of this era, i.e., the first century C.E., the Herodian family shared power with the priestly oligarchy that wielded considerable authority with Roman backing. While, on the one hand, priestly dominance was but a continuation of the political and religious leadership from earlier periods, on the other, this particular constellation of high priestly families was a Herodian creation. These were the families that Herod had ensconced in leadership positions that they continued to enjoy until the latter 60s of the first century C.E. 16 During the 130 years of Roman rule over Jewish Jerusalem, the city's fortunes ebbed and flowed. At first, when Gabinius, the Roman governor of Syria, divided 14. For a survey of the archaeological remains in the cities of Roman Palestine, see Tsafrir, Eretz Israel from the Destruction, 40-133; A. Segal, Town Planning, passim; J. Schwartz, "Archeology and the City," 149-187; and Weiss, "Buildings for Entertainment," 77-91,94-102. 15. On the contradictory evidence regarding the family'S origins, see Schiirer, History, 1:234 n. 3. A similar instance of a family assuming a leadership role owing to its unswerving loyalty to Rome is that of Eurycles in Sparta, who shares a number of interesting parallels with Herod, as well as a personal relationship with him (Ant. 16.10, 1,301-310); see Bowersock, "Eurycles of Sparta," 111-118, and Cartledge and Spawforth, Hellenistic and Roman Sparta, 97-104. 16. See M. Stern, "Social and Political Realignments," 40-62.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

155

Judaea into separate and distinct regions, the city was stripped of all claims to political preeminence, as its territory was drastically reduced. Soon after, however, the city began to regain its prominent position. After a period of transition (6337 B.C.E.), during which the Hasmonean dynasty was effectively eliminated and the family of Antipater and his son Herod assumed full control of the city, Jerusalem entered an era of relative stability and calm (37-4 B.C.E.). Jerusalem's prestige peaked under Herod and in the generations following his death, culminating in certain ways during the brief three-year reign of his grandson, Agrippa 1(41-44 C.E.). The dominant figure in the history of Jerusalem during this period was, of course, Herod, who reigned for thirty-three years. Unswerving loyalty to his Roman patrons gained him a large measure of autonomy; the Romans rarely intervened in matters conceming Herod's relations with his subjects and family or in regard to policies and programs pursued within the borders of his kingdom. But given Herod's political and cultural proclivities, integration into the imperial system contributed to some far-reaching internal changes in Judaea. Herod cultivated the country's non-Jewish population to a far greater extent than did his Hasmonean predecessors, and the adoption of Roman as well as Greek models and styles became more prevalent than ever. Moreover, Herod undertook sweeping changes in the social and organizational structure of his kingdom, much as he did in its political and cultural spheres. The ruling classes in his kingdom now came to include new components, while most of the previous leadership circle, especially the Hasmoneans and their supporters from among the Jerusalem aristocracy, was removed (if not physically eliminated) from power. Herod can thus be credited with a tripartite allegiance: to the Roman political structure (pax Romana), to Greco-Roman culture, and to the stability and prosperity of his kingdom and its capital, Jerusalem. The stability achieved during Herod's rule seemingly disappeared after his death. Within ten years, Judaea became a Roman province, and the type of delicate balance he had sought to achieve between Jewish autonomy and Roman rule was dramatically altered. At the end of Archelaus' reign (4 B.C.E.-6 C.E.), the Romans fully incorporated the bulk of Herod's kingdom (Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea) into their provincial system. From then until the outbreak of the Great Revolt-apart from Agrippa's three-year reign-Roman governors ruled Judaea. The ensuing instability, which became more pronounced in the following decades, was exacerbated by an often corrupt and insensitive provincial officialdom, on the one hand, and Jewish extremists who adopted an uncompromisingly aggressive religious national policy, on the other. Jerusalem became the scene of tension from within and conflict from without, which in the course of the next two decades sent it spinning into chaos and anarchy. It was during this period that ancient Jerusalem reached the apogee of its physical and economic growth as well as its religious and spiritual development.

156

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

It served as the home for sixty to eighty thousand permanent residents (see below), the capital of perhaps as many as one and a half to two million people living in and around Judaea, and, finally, the spiritual center of Jews throughout the world who at that time probably numbered somewhere between four and eight million. Under Herod, Jerusalem's urban development reached its fullest expression as he transformed the city's appearance by initiating a wide variety of building projects. The houses of the aristocracy, which have been excavated since 1967 in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, were built so solidly that they virtually erased the remains of previous periods; political and social institutions (e.g., the bouleuterion and Xystus), places of entertainment (e.g., theater, amphitheater, and hippodrome), and numerous palaces (e.g., Herodian as well as those of Queen Helena of Adiabene and her family) were also constructed. Outside the city walls, elaborate tomb complexes and impressive funerary monuments were erected. Those of the royal Adiabene family were found in the northern part of the city, the tombs of the Herodian dynasty in its northern and western parts, those of wealthy families in the Qidron Valley to the east, the Hinnom Valley and today's Abu-Tor neighborhood to the south, as well as in the present-day neighborhoods to the north (Sanhedria, Ramot Eshkol, French Hill, and Mount Scopus). Numerous traces of Herodian construction are still discernible in present-day Jerusalem, despite centuries of destruction and rebuilding: the monumental retaining walls of the Temple Mount, the remains of a Herodian tower adjacent to today's Citadel of David, the Qidron Valley tombs, and elsewhere. Following Herod's rule and during the sixty years before the Jewish revolt, Jerusalem shared its political role in Judaea with Caesarea, which had been built by Herod between 22 and 10 B.C.E.17 As the capital of the province, Caesarea served as the seat of the Roman administration and the focus of much of Rome's political, military, and judicial activity in the country. For the non-Jewish population, it was the capital in every sense of the word. For the Jewish population, however, Jerusalem continued to serve as its focus in most spheres, although Jews also required the services of the provincial government in Caesarea on occasion. As was the case with other conquered peoples, the Jews' reaction to Roman rule was far from monolithic. ls Some were undoubtedly bitter about their loss of autonomy and continued to dream of political independence. For them, Rome was tyrannical, brutal, exploitative, and mired in worldly vanities and pleasures. As a result, rebels of various stripes often enjoyed a measure of popular support, as, for example: Aristobulus II and his son (57-55 B.C.E.); Antigonus, the last 17. Levine, Caesarea under Roman Rule, 11-14. 18. On the diversity among Stoic writers and sophists in regard to Roman culture and rule, see Erskine, Hellenistic Stoa. 181-204, and Swain, Hellenism and Empire. 135-422.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

157

Hasmonean king (40--37 B.C.E.); Judas of Galilee in 6 C.E.; several messianic figures of the middle first century C.E.; and, finally, the rebels at the outset of the revolt (66 C.E.). Such extreme opposition was the domain of only a few circles, and only in times of widespread discontent and internal tension did they receive any kind of extensive support. 19 At the other end of the political spectrum, Herod wholeheartedly advocated identification with the pax Romana, and many followed suit. Indeed, most people probably reconciled themselves, to one degree or another, with Roman rule. Nicholas of Damascus, Herod's trusted adviser and a prominent historian in his own right, regarded Roman patronage as a blessing for all peoples. A generation later, R. Hananiah, a high-ranking Temple official, succinctly worded the merits of Roman rule: "One must pray for the welfare of the empire (lit., kingdom), for were it not for fear of it, each person would swallow the next alive."20 Recognition of Rome's might reverberate in Josephus' version of Agrippa IT's speech, in which the king unsuccessfully attempted to prevent the revolt of 66 C.E. Dwelling at length on Rome's vast power, as well as its sense of justice and consideration for its subjects, Agrippa emphasized the importance of peace and the fact that God Himself was on the side of the Romans. 21 Whether these particular sentiments were indeed the king's-as is entirely possible--or only those of Josephus is immaterial. Both men undoubtedly ascribed to such views. A striking example of diverse attitudes toward Rome can be found in the Babylonian Talmud. Although this source ostensibly relates to the second century C.E., almost a hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem and its Temple, there can be little doubt that similar views were prevalent much earlier as well: R. Judah began by saying: "How impressive (lit., lovely) are the actions of this people (i.e., the Romans). They have built marketplaces, and they have constructed bridges as well as baths." R. Yosi was silent. R. Simeon bar Yohai responded by saying: "Everything they have done has only been for their own benefit. They built marketplaces to place prostitutes therein, baths to pamper themselves, bridges to collect customs tax.'>22

Thus, while one sage saw the positive aspects of the material culture wrought by the empire, another remained silent (which may be interpreted as noncommittal), and a third adopted a distinctly negative and critical posture. This last 19. On similar opposition to Rome in the Greek East generally, see Bowersock, Augustusand the Greek World, 101-111. 20. M Avot 3, 2. 21. War 2.16,4-5, 345-404.

22. B Shabbat 33b.

158

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

view was pointedly not based on a different assessment of the urban facilities as developed under Rome but rather on the negative moral and social values associated with them 23 Whatever may have been the variety of perceptions of the local population, there is no doubt that direct Roman rule in the first century C.E. was at times accompanied by harsh exploitation and blatant offenses against the religious sensibilities of the Jewish people. The recurrent friction inevitably led to heightened tensions and a series of crises, not only between the Jews and Rome but also between Jews and non-Jews in Judaea. Such unrest, coupled by internal social and economic strains, contributed to increased religious and political tensions within the Jewish body politic, serving, on the one hand, to encourage withdrawal (e.g., as reflected in the Psalms of Solomon) or, on the other, to heighten national and messianic hopes and an expectation of revolutionary change among certain sectors of the population. In such an explosive situation, stability depended largely on capable and responsible leadership that would be able to steer the feuding parties on a prudent course in foreign and domestic matters alike. Among the failures of this era, and thus a decisive factor contributing to the revolt, were the relative weakness and instability of Jerusalem's various leadership groups as well as the diffuseness of the city's political authority (see Chapter 8). Power was divided among a number of groups and offices, and there was no one willing or able to cope with what appears to have been an accelerating and uncontrollable slide toward confrontation, culminating in a formal declaration of war-the tragic results of which should have been easily foreseen.

From Pompey's Conquest to the Rise of Herod (63-37 B.C.E.)24 Pompey dealt harshly with the Hasmonean kingdom and its capital city. Whether it was because of Hasmonean contentiousness, the criticism of their rule by other Jewish leaders, or the well-attested Roman proclivity to favor cities over ethnic entities, the victorious Roman general proceeded to emasculate the kingdom, lopping off vast tracts of land and freeing many Hellenistic cities, including the 23. For similarly contrasting views of Herod in rabbinic literature, which are positive toward his reconstruction of the Temple but highly critical of some of his alleged deeds, see B Ta'anit 23a and B Sanhedrin 51b compared to B Bava Batra 3b-4a. For some modern assessments of Herod, see Schalit, Konig Herodes, 645-675 (Hebrew ed., 322-342); Grabbe, Judaism, 11:362-366; and P. Richardson, Herod, 1-13, 315-318; as well as the contributions of Levine, M. Stern, Schalit, and Applebaum in Naor, ed., King Herod and His TImes. 24. On this era generally, see Schalit's chapters, "Fall of the Hasmonean Dynasty and the Roman Conquest" and "End of the Hasmonean Dynasty and the Rise of Herod," 26-70. For a more complete presentation, see idem, Konig Herodes, 1-97 (Hebrew ed., 13-59), and Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 21-59.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

159

coastal cities of Dor, Strato's Tower, Jaffa, and Gaza as well as the cities of the Decapolis (an alliance of ten cities, all of which-apart from Scythopolis [Bet She'an]-were situated in Transjordan).25 These steps drastically reduced the size of Jewish territory, thereby confining the area of Jewish rule to Judaea, the Galilee, Samaria, and parts of Idumaea and Transjordan (Peraea). Pompey also imposed a heavy tax on Jerusalem, razed its walls, and granted Hyrcanus IT only the title of high priest. 26 In the years immediately following the Roman conquest, Jerusalem's position continued to decline. During the 50s B.C.E., Aristobulus IT and his son Alexander rebelled against Rome on three occasions and failed each time. As a result of the first revolt in 57 B.C.E., Gabinius completed the dismantling of Hasmonean Judaea, dividing it into five independent districts, each with its own administrative and judicial apparatus. 27 The capital cities of these districts were Jerusalem and Jericho in Judaea, Adoraim in Idumaea, Amathus in Transjordan, and Sepphoris in the Galilee. The division into districts was meant to render any organized opposition impossible. Rome had taken similar measures in Macedonia in 168 B.C.E. and in Numidia in North Africa in 104 B.C.E. As a result, Jerusalem's centuries-old status as the country's sole capital was eliminated; and less than ten years after Pompey's conquest, the city plummeted to a political nadir. Independence was but a memory, and the city's political standing had been severely curtailed. As a measure of its impotence, the Roman general Crassus blatantly raided its Temple to cover the expenses of his Parthian campaign.2S But the pendulum was soon to swing in the other direction. Within the next ten years, the city's fortune began to rebound, and Jerusalem regained its unchallenged centrality and a large degree of its autonomy, if not outright independence. This tum of events was due to the opportunities created by Rome's civil war and to the fact that the city's leaders had become loyal and trusted allies of Rome. The catalyst for this dramatic change was Antipater, a wealthy aristocrat of Idumaean origin who had married Cypros, a member of "an illustrious Arabian (i.e., Nabataean) family.29 Already in 55 B.C.E., Antipater had extended aid to Gabinius, who was then fighting in Egypt, supplying him with produce, weapons, and money and promising him cooperation from the Jews of Egypt. 30 In return, Gabinius "reorganized the

25. War 1.7. 6. 154. and Ant. 14.4,4, 74-76. See Bietenhard, "Die syrische Dekapolis," 221-238, and Wenning, "Die Dekapolis," 6--8. 26. War 1.7, 6, 153-154, and Ant. 14.4,4,74.

27. Ant. 14.5,4,90-91. On the issues connected with this partition, see Kanael, "Partition of Judea," 98-106; Banunel, "Organisation of Palestine," 159-162; and Smallwood, "Gabinius' Organisation," 89-92. 28. War 1.8, 8, 179, and Ant. 14.7, I, 105-109. See Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty, 217-220. 29. War 1.8,9, 181, and Ant. 14.7,3, 121.

30. War 1.8,7, 175, and Ant. 14.6,2,98-99.

160

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Figure 34. A bust of Julius Caesar.

government (of Jerusalem) in accordance with Antipater's wishes"-a phrase that is as enigmatic as it is suggestive.3 ) Two years later, in 53 B.C.E., Crassus, now the highest-ranking Roman official in Syria, squashed the rebellion led by one Peitholaus, an enemy of Antipater, and executed him upon the latter's recommendation.32 Clearly, Antipater's fortunes were on the rise. The major turning point, however, came in 48--47 B.C.E., when Antipater, together with Hyrcanus IT, aided Julius Caesar in his war against Ptolemy XIIT in Egypt. Antipater extended support to Mithridates of Pergamon, who was heading for Egypt to reinforce Caesar, by enlisting the support of the rulers of Arabia and Syria. Antipater himself supplied three thousand troops to the cause and fought valiantly in the battles of Pelusium and the Nile Delta, where he was wounded. He also facilitated the entry of forces into Egypt by negotiating with the Jewish soldiers guarding the borders on behalf of the Ptolemaic rulers. In recognition of this aid, Hyrcanus IT was confirmed as high priest and named ethnarch (head of the people), while Antipater was awarded Roman citizenship, granted an exemption from taxes, and appointed procurator of Judaea 33 Antipater's sons were appointed govemors-Phasael over Jerusalem and Herod over the Galilee.34 The city of Jerusalem was also the beneficiary of favors bestowed by Julius Caesar (Fig. 34): Its walls were rebuilt, and the country's division into five districts was eliminated. Jerusalem now regained its position as the sole capital of 31. War 1.8, 7,178, and Ant. 14.6, 4, 103. 32. War 1.8, 9, 180, and Ant. 14.7, 3, 120. On the possible mention of Peitholaus in a fragment from Qumran, see D. R. Schwartz, "4Q468g," 308-309, and Horbury, "Proper Name," 310--311. 33. War 1.9, 3-5, 187-194, andAnt. 14.8, 1-3,5, 127-137, 143, see also 14.10, 2, 194. Despite the clearcut statement that Hyrcanus was appointed ethnarch, Josephus intriguingly refers to him on several occasions as "king" (see, e.g., War 1.10, 4, 202-203 and 12, 3, 241). In a similar fashion, Josephus calls Herod's son Archelaus a king, and, much later, Mark as well as Matthew follow suit regarding Antipas. Hoehner, Herod Antipas, 149-150, suggests that the use of the term "king" may reflect popular Jewish usage rather than an official title. 34. War 1.10, 4, 203, and Ant. 14.9, 2, 158. Aristobulus' son Antigonus also staked a claim before Caesar but was ignored (War 1.10, 1-2, 195-198, and Ant. 14.8,4, 140--142).

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

161

Judaea. Moreover, a number of areas (such as Jaffa and parts of the Jezreel Valley and the Galilee) were returned to Jewish rule, the tax burden was eased, and a special tax for the benefit of Jerusalem was to be collected throughout Judaea (Jaffa excepted). The illegal collection of funds by Roman generals was halted as was the conscription of Jewish males to the army, and the population no longer had to bear the burden of lodging Roman soldiers. Hyrcanus' titles-high priest and ethnarch-were reconfirmed in a series of official Roman documents that also recognized his and his children's leadership.35 Nevertheless, the deployment of political power in Jerusalem-most important, the division of authority between Antipater and Hyrcanus-remains shrouded in mystery. Even in the aforementioned decrees, it appears that Antipater, in fact, was the one who benefited most from the new situation; this is certainly a central argument emerging from Josephus' narrative. Antipater proceeded to build a strong political base for himself and his family (often by severe measures of intimidation),36 which eventually, after his death, enabled one of his sons to come into power. Therefore, whether Hyrcanus indeed wielded some authority or whether he was a mere figurehead (and only in that capacity is he noted and praised in the Roman documents) has been debated for generations; the evidence at hand remains inconclusive. 37 Despite Antipater's efforts to install himself and his sons as the undisputed political leaders of Judaea, there remained a great deal of resistance in the city to their authority and power. For one, Hyrcanus' hostility was strikingly demonstrated in the failed attempt to bring Herod to justice before a sanhedrin when, as governor of the Galilee, the latter had executed one Hezekiah.38 In this effort, Hyrcanus was goaded into action by Jerusalem notables who berated him for being a puppet ruler and for not exercising his legitimate and mandated authority?9 Herod, however, made a mockery of this attempt, appearing in official garb and with a bodyguard, which created much consternation among those gathered. Aided by the intervention of Sextus Caesar, the Roman governor of Syria, his case was disrnissed. 40 35. War 1.10, 3-4, 199-201, and Ant. 14.8, 5, 144; 10,2-7, 190--212. It is no wonder, then, in light of these decrees and others relating to the Diaspora (see below), that Jews were especially stricken with grief on learning of Caesar's death; see Suetonius, Julius Caesar, 84.

36. See Ant. 14.9, 1, 157. 37. An example of Hyrcanus' political assertiveness may be evidenced in his visit to Mark Antony at Ephesus in 41 to request the freeing of Jewish slaves and the return of territory taken by Tyre. Antony's response to Hyrcanus was affirmative on both counts (Ant. 14.12, 2-6, 304-323). At one point, it was assumed that the Hasmonean coins bearing the name Yehohanan were to be attributed to Hyrcanus II; Meshorer, however, has recently revised his earlier assessment and now attributes these coins to Hyrcanus I. See Meshorer, Treasury, 23-27, and Grabbe, Judaism, II:323-324. 38. War 1.10, 5-8, 204-213, and Ant. 14.2-5, 158-184. 39. Ant. 14.9,3,163-167. 40. Gilboa, "Intervention," 185-194.

162

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Political turbulence in Rome in the late 40s, following Caesar's assassination, also served to undermine stability in Judaea, and Antipater and Herod found themselves opposed and challenged on a number of fronts. Several prominent Jerusalemites, described as sworn enemies of Antipater and his sons, attempted to remove them. The first was Malichus, who actually succeeded in killing Antipater.41 Immediately after Herod's successful plot to avenge his father's death by murdering Malichus, one Helix followed up with a revolt in Jerusalem aimed at Herod's brother Phasael, whom the latter successfully rebuffed. 42 Moreover, it was at about this time that the Hasmonean Antigonus, son of Aristobulus II, tried to gain control of Judaea with the help of the ruler of Chalcis, only to be banished by Herod. Adding to this turmoil, Marion, ruler of Tyre, succeeded in appropriating some territory in the Galilee. 43 Josephus reports that three delegations of Jewish leaders opposing Herod and Phasael tried to convince Mark Antony, now in command in the East, to replace the brothers. In three successive encounters, these leaders met Antony in Bithynia in Asia Minor, then in Daphne near Antioch, and, finally, in Tyre. In Tyre, no less than one thousand representatives were reported present, an astounding number if the figure is accurate. 44 Herod, for his part, had become engaged to Mariarnme, a Hasmonean princess, and thus hoped to win the loyalty of Hyrcanus and his fol10wers.45 Josephus reports that the latter interceded on Herod's behalf with Antony, gaining for him and his brother the title of tetrarch, which carried with it responsibility for the administration of Judaea. 46 As in the closing decades of Hasmonean rule, the transition period between Pompey's conquest and the rise of Herod (63-37 B.C.E.) was marked by divided loyalties in Jerusalem (and probably among the entire population of Judaea). On the one hand, there was the newly emerging family of Antipater and his son Herod and, on the other, the legacies of the Hasmoneans and pre-Hasmoneans (the latter recalling a society devoid of any independent political power). This conflict received its final expression in the three-year war between Herod and Antigonus. Unlike the struggle among the Hasmoneans at the end of the Hasmonean era, this one might not have erupted had each side not been backed by a foreign power. By 40 B.C.E., the Parthians had managed to conquer vast areas of the Roman East; with Parthian aid, Antigonus was installed as king and 41. War 1.11,3-5,223-228, and Ant. 14.11,3--6,277-293. 42. War 1.12,1,236-237, and Ant. 14.11,7,294-296. 43. War 1.12,2-3,238-240, and Ant. 14.12, 1,297-299. 44. War 1.12,4-6,242-245, and Ant. 14.12-13,2,297-329. 45. Ant. 14.12, 1,300. On other political marriages in the Herodian family, see K. C. Hanson and Oakman, Palestine. 34-36. 46. War 1.12,5,244, and Ant. 14.13,1,325.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

163

was able to conquer Jerusalem, kill Phasael, and disqualify Hyrcanus from serving as high priest by inflicting a physical blemish on him. As a result of Antigonus' successes, Herod fled to Rome where he was warmly welcomed by both Antony and Octavius (the future emperor Augustus) and crowned king of Judaea by the Senate. 47 Armed with promises of support from Rome and a large force of soldiers, Herod returned to Judaea in 39 B.C.E. and two years later conquered Jerusalem. 48 By the end of these three years of conflict (40-37 B.C.E.), the new reality that Antipater and his family had discerned in the 60s became apparent to everyone else. From then on, the legitimacy and authority of a local ruler depended on Rome, whose confirmation and support were a sine qua non for political success. This realization had eluded a number of Hasmoneans and others as well; during the decade when Judaea was divided into five separate districts, each region was undoubtedly under the leadership of aristocratic leaders49 who had paid a heavy price for their failure to support Antipater and Herod in the 40s. Some forty-five of these leaders were massacred in Jerusalem when Herod took final control of the city in 37 B.C.E. With the exception of Hyrcanus II, who simply may have been too weak to mount any sort of resistance, no Hasmonean was willing or able to make this transition to Roman rule. Aristobulus II and his son Alexander continued to rebel during the 50s, and Antigonus threw in his lot with the Parthians. Given this absence of political foresight and the ability to make the required political adjustments, the Hasmonean dynasty was doomed. The nonpolitical dimensions of Jerusalem life during this period are almost totally ignored by Josephus, and given the fact that he is our sole historical source we have little to say in this regard. However, Josephus does note in passing several aspects ofthe city's religious life that are quite revealing and, in fact, receive a great deal more attention later on in both his and others' narratives. The first is the sanctity ofthe Sabbath that precluded any Jewish military activity against the city's besiegers on that day. When strictly observed, the Sabbath proved to be an Achilles' heel for Jerusalemites in the early Hellenistic era (see Chapter 2); even though Mattathias decided to fight on the Sabbath at the outbreak of the Maccabean revolt (l Mace. 2), his decision does not appear to have had any effect on the Jerusalem populace thereafter. Thus Pompey exploited the Jews' avoidance of

47. Strabo, Geography 16,2,46, a contemporary of Herod, says the following about the king: he was "so superior to his predecessors, particularly in intercourse with Romans and in his administration of affairs of state, that he received the title of king." On Rome's sponsorship and recognition of aspiring dynasts, see Braund, Rome and the Friendly King, 23-37. 4S. War 1.13, I-IS, 2, 24S-353, and Ant. 14.13,3-16,4,330-491. 49. War I.S, 5, 169, and Ant. 14.5,4,91.

164

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

battle on the Sabbath when taking the city in 63, and perhaps Herod did likewise against Antigonus in 37.50 Another religious aspect of the city noted by Josephus is the large crowds, notably from rural areas, that came to the Temple on the Jewish festivals. Mention is made on one occasion that the city was crowded with pilgrims for the Shavu' ot holiday. 51 Furthermore, these crowds were said to have been punctilious in their observance of purity laws, and Herod was cautioned at one point by Hyrcanus not to introduce foreign soldiers into the city on a festival. 52 The piety and faithfulness of Jerusalem's priests are noted on several occasions. In one instance, probably on Passover of 65, with Aristobulus and his followers in control of the Temple but besieged by Hyrcanus and his supporters, the former spared no expense in attempting to acquire the sacrifices prescribed for the holiday. Given the shortage of sacrificial animals, they were forced to buy them from their besiegers; when they discovered that they were being swindled, their prayers for revenge were allegedly answered. 53 On another occasion, during Pompey's siege two years later, the priests continued in their ministry even while Roman soldiers had broken into the Temple precincts and were massacring them. 54 Thus, although we have only these few isolated pieces of information, it seems safe to conclude that, at this point in the history of Jerusalem, three elements in the city's religious life were clearly of paramount importance: the priesthood, the Sabbath, and the Temple cult. As will be seen below, the same three foci continued to occupy center stage in Jerusalem's religious life up until the city's destruction. In another vein, several Roman edicts offer fleeting glimpses into several aspects of Jerusalem's aristocracy. Like documents from the Hasmonean era, these edicts also list the various Jewish emissaries to Rome: Lysimachus son of Pausanias, Josephus son of Mennaeus, Alexander son of Theodorus, Patroclus son of Chaireas, and Jonathan son of Onias.55 Moreover, as in the earlier Hasmonean 50. War 1.7, 3, 146, andAnt. 14.4,2-3,63--64. Much has been written regarding the confused reports about the fall of Jerusalem, some claiming that it occurred on the Sabbath, others that it happened on Yom Kippur. See the discussions in Schiirer, History, 1:284-286 n. 11; Marcus and Wikgren, in LCL to Ant. 14.16, 4, 487 (pages 700-701); Smallwood, lews under Roman Rule, 565-567; GLAll, II: 352-353; Grabbe, ludaism, 11:326-328; and Regev, "How Did the Temple Mount Fall?" 276-285. Although the conquest of the city by Herod is dated almost universally to 37 B.C.E., other suggestions (38 or 36) have been put forth; see Dio Cassius 49,22,3--6 (GLAll, II: 359-361), and Filmer, "Chronology," 285-291. On calendrical issues connected with the 63 conquest, see Schiirer, History, 1:239-240 n. 23. 51. War 1.13, 3, 253, and Ant. 14.13,4,337. 52. War 1.11, 6, 229, and Ant. 14.11,5,285. 53. Ant. 14.2,2,25-28. 54. War 1.7,4-5, 148-151, and Ant. 14.2, 1,20; 4, 3, 64--68. 55. Ant. 14.10, 10,222; 12,3,307.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

165

lists, these names are usually associated with priestly families, and it is very likely that this group continued to serve in diplomatic roles. Given the preponderance of Greek names among these emissaries, we have evidence here of the continued acculturation within the upper classes of Jerusalem society, as was the case under the Hasmoneans beforehand. Finally, it was the Hyrcanus-Antipater era in the 40s that first witnessed the bonding of Jerusalem and the Diaspora, as expressed through the help gained for the latter by the Jerusalem authorities; Hyrcanus is specifically noted in this regard. These decrees were first issued by Julius Caesar and later by Dolabella, governor of Asia Minor; Mark Antony; and other consuls and praetors. They cover a wide range of privileges that the Diaspora Jews had come to enjoy: sharing common meals; collecting money for local use and Temple needs; practicing their customs and laws, including the observance of the Sabbath; holding assemblies; being exempt from military service; and owning a communal building.56 The contacts between Jerusalem and the Diaspora continued to grow in subsequent generations and became one of the most remarkable developments of the ensuing period. It is inconceivable that such ties could have been forged and solidified without Rome, whose power not only guaranteed these rights but also ensured that contacts between Jerusalem and the Diaspora communities could be safely and securely maintained.

Herodian Politics: At Home and Abroad (37-4 B.C.E.) From Rome's vantage point, Herod's rise to power in Jerusalem in 37 B.C.E. was another link in its chain of ''vassal'' kings intended to secure the empire's eastern border. 57 From the Jews' viewpoint, it marked the end of a transition period in which Antipater and his sons challenged the Hasmonean dynasty and the established Jerusalem aristocracy, and ultimately prevailed. Herod's conquest of Jerusalem obliged him to cope with formidable challenges. He had inherited a largely hostile city and immediately set out to deal with his opponents. As noted, Herod executed forty-five of Antigonus' main supporters while others fled; he expropriated the property of Jerusalem's wealthy inhabitants and mobilized his own resources to pay his debts to Rome, while reacting swiftly to end the spoilage of the city by Roman soldiers. 58 Herod sought to strengthen 56. Ibid .• 14.10,8-25,213-264. 57. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty, 321-328. 58. War 1.18, 3-4, 355-359, and Ant. 15.1,2,5-7. A similar situation was then taking place in Rome as Augustus methodically replaced the old aristocracy with a new one, in part by simply eliminating his enemies; Syme, Roroon Revolution, 331-386.

166

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

ties with the Hasmonean dynasty (in addition to having married Mariamme some years earlier) by recalling Hyrcanus II from exile in Babylonia and bestowing on him honor and recognition. Josephus asserted a political motive behind Herod's actions, claiming that this was done more out of apprehension than respect, allowing the king to monitor Hyrcanus' activities and, if circumstances warranted, to eliminate him altogether. 59 In the years immediately following his rise to power, Herod sought to consolidate his rule. Eschewing the Hasmonean dynasty, he appointed his friend Hananel the Babylonian as high priest, which predictably aroused the ire of Alexandra, daughter of Hyrcanus II and mother of Herod's wife, Mariamme. Alexandra had assumed that her son Aristobulus III would be chosen as high priest. Even after she appealed to Antony and Cleopatra, Herod refused the former's request that the boy be sent to him and kept the young Aristobulus in the country. Moreover, owing to his fears regarding the residual popularity of the Hasmonean dynasty among many, Herod asked Antony to execute Antigonus. 60 These apprehensions in regard to the remaining Hasmoneans eventually led Herod to murder not only Aristobulus III but Hyrcanus II, Alexandra, and eventually Mariamme as well. 61 The tensions confronting Herod were not limited to the Hasmonean dynasty and its allies, and challenges surfaced in other quarters. The prominent Baba family had sided with Antigonus and criticized Herod, who then ordered their death. Some twelve years later, Herod discovered that his directives had never been carried out and that a fellow Idumaean, Costobar, had harbored them from danger. 62 On the foreign front, Cleopatra advanced her claims for control of parts of Judaea and Arabia; having the ear and heart of Antony afforded her significant leverage. 63 Herod, however, had also forged a good rapport with Antony,64 and Cleopatra was forced to settle for Jericho, with its famous and lucrative palm dates and balsam plants, together with a large part of the coast of Palestine and Phoenicia. 65 In the end, Herod was able to lease these regions back from Cleopatra,66 thereby effectively keeping them under his control. Finally, tensions between the Romans and Nabataeans flared up over the latter's failure to pay their tribute; under Rome's orders, Herod was sent to 59. Ant. 15.2,3-4, 18-22. 60. Ibid., 14.16,4,487-491, War 1.18, 3, 357. 61. War 1.22, 1-2,433-437. 62. Ant. 15.7,10,260-266. 63. Sullivan, Near Eastern Royalty, 225-228. 64. Ant. 15.3,8,74-79. 65. War 1.18,5,361-362, and Ant. 15.4, 1,88-95. 66. Ant. 15.4, 1-2,94-96.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

167

Figure 35. The

Nabataean Empire at its greatest extent.

battle against them in the late 30s, a move that served him well in the long run as it offered him an excuse for not joining his patron, Antony, in the latter's illfated battle against Octavius at Actium. 67 Herod's lingering insecurities explain the presence of Roman soldiers in Jerusalem during these ftrst years of power, as they do his decision to build major defensive installations in the city.68 One such project involved the rebuilding of the palace-fortress north of the Temple Mount that replaced the Hasmonean Baris. Herod named this complex "Antonia," after Mark Antony, and the new building served as the king's residence for about ten years, after which it assumed a largely military function. A second project that may have been carried out at this time was the construction of three massive towers in the western part of Jerusalem aimed at preventing an attack on what was the city's most vulnerable quarter. Herod's fortunes changed dramatically in 30, following Augustus' victory over Mark Antony at Actium a year earlier and the king's successful rapprochement with the victorious Roman. 69 As noted, Herod's military engagement with the N abataeans had prevented him from sending troops to Actium on Antony's behalf, thus opening the way for the king's deft-and highly successful-conciliatory appeal to Augustus (Fig. 35). The relationship between Herod and Augustus was 67. Ibid., 15.5, 1-5, 108-160. 68. Ibid., 15.7, 8, 247-248. 69. War 1.20, 1-3,387-397, and Ant. 15.6,5-7, 183-201. On the significance of Actium in Roman life, politically and mythically, see Wallace-Hadrill, Augustan Rome, 1-9.

168

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

cemented later that year, when the latter marched through Judaea en route to Egypt. In addition to being warmly received by Herod, Augustus was given a lavish banquet, provisions for the army, and a supply of water for the trek across the desert. 7o A patron-client relationship on both personal and political levels had been created between the twO.71 It was during the following two decades (30-12 B.C.E.) that Herod's rule reached its apogee. Judaea enjoyed an era of extraordinary stability and prosperity, unencumbered by external wars or serious threats from within. Whatever tensions existed were short term and generally confined to family and court. Herod's relations with Rome continued to be pivotal to his public policy. His highly successful meetings with Augustus in 30 B.C.E. provided a firm basis for nurturing these ties. The emperor's benefactions dramatically increased the areas under Herod's jurisdiction;72 he received large tracts of land along the coast, in areas to the east and southeast of the Sea of Galilee, as well as Jericho and other districts that Cleopatra had expropriated from him. Herod's kingdom once again expanded in 23 B.C.E., when a number of regions to the northeast- Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis (today's Hauran)-were added by Augustus. Finally, three years later, the emperor granted Herod the additional areas of Gaulanitis (today's Golan) and the Hulah Valley north of the Sea of Galilee, which included the city of Panias (later Caesarea Philippi). Thus by 20 B.C.E., the king had assumed control of all the areas that were formerly part of the Hasmonean kingdom.73 Moreover, the Romans granted him procuratorial status in Syria that afforded him not only a sizable income but also considerable prestige and status (Fig. 36).74 Herod, in turn, honored his Roman patrons on numerous occasions and in a variety of ways. He built cities such as Sebaste, Caesarea, and Agrippias (the latter on the site of Anthedon near Gaza) in their honor, and dedicated temples in Panias, Sebaste, and Caesarea to the emperor. Other buildings, such as his 70. Ant. 15.6,7, 194--201. Herod continued to support Roman military efforts later on, when he dispatched approximately five hundred soldiers to help Aelius Gallus in his campaign in Arabia (ibid., 15.9, 3, 317).

71. For the Roman background of this phenomenon, see the collection of essays in Wallace-Hadrill, ed., Patronage, and especially the contributions of Rich, "Patronage and Interstate Relations," 117-135, and Braund, "Function and Dysfunction," 137-152. See also K. C. Hanson and Oakman, Palestine, 70--86.

72. War 1.20, 3-4, 396-400, and Ant. 15.7,3,217; 10, 1,343; 10,3,360. 73. For a survey of these areas, see P. Richardson, Herod, 131-145. Similarly, in Asia Minor, the Romans continued to add to the territory of Amyntas until he controlled all of central and southern Anatolia (Mitchell, Cremna, 143). 74. There seems to be some discrepancy between War 1.20, 4, 399-400 and Ant. 15.10, 3, 350 in this regard. The former speaks of Herod being appointed to the position of "procurator of all Syria," and that other procurators had to seek his permission for any actions taken; the latter is somewhat more circumscribed, saying that while his consent was necessary, Herod himself was only "associated" with the other procurators (and not the procurator of the province). In any case, this position seems to have brought with it significant income, as indicated by the many cities whose debt Herod agreed to cancel (War 1.21, 12,428).

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

169

Figure 36. Herod's kingdom.

Jerusalem palaces and the Antonia fortress, were named after Herod's Roman patrons. 75 Finally, he sought to maintain good relations by visiting Rome, which he did several times in the decade between 20 and lO.76 A high point in the life of Jerusalem under Herod seems to have been the visit of Marcus Agrippa, whose prominence in Rome was second only to that of the emperor himself. The friendship between Herod and Agrippa probably began as early as Herod's first visit to Rome in 40 and quickly developed in the late 20s and thereafter. 77 Agrippa's visit to Judaea in 15 B.C.E. included stops at Caesarea, Sebaste, and three of Herod's palace-fortresses in the Judaean Desert. It culminated in Jerusalem, where he was enthusiastically welcomed; he visited the Temple on several occasions and responded graciously by offering a sacrifice and bestowing gifts on the Temple. He is also reported as having provided a festive meal for the populace.78 On this occasion,79 Herod named one of the Temple gates in his honofo and later accompanied him on his travels in Asia Minor (see below).81 75. War 1.21, 1-8,401-416, and Ant. 15.9,5,328-330. 76. On this phenomenon with regard to client kings generally, see Braund, Rome and the Friendly King, 55-73. 77. Roller, Building Program, 31,43-53. 78. Ant. 16.2, 1, 12-15, and Philo, Embassy 294-297. See comments of Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 299-300. 79. Herod had already honored Agrippa by naming one of the wings of his palace the Agrippeum (War 1.21, I, 402, and Ant. 15.9,3,318). 80. War 1.21, 8,416. 81. See P. Richardson, Herod, 263-264.

170

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Herodian Rule in Jerusalem No city benefited more from Herod's largesse than Jerusalem. Having constructed the Antonia palace-fortress and perhaps the large western towers early in his reign (some time in the 30s), he initiated a series of projects in the coming decade that changed the face of the city entirely. The Upper City to the west was a prime beneficiary, with Herod's sumptuous palace located next to the three defense towers built earlier. One of Herod's entertainment institutions, the theater, was probably located in the Upper City as well. Along with the theater, a hippodrome and amphitheater were also constructed at about this time, as was the Jerusalem bouleuterion (council building), the Xystus, monumental tombs, streets, marketplaces, and an expanded aqueduct system. Toward the close of the 20s (see below), the king embarked on his major undertaking for Jerusalem---enlarging and rebuilding the Temple and Temple Mount. The construction of the Temple, and its completion in several stages, provided the city with a number of occasions for celebration. The first, of course, came with Herod's announcement of the project before a gathering of Jerusalemites, apprising them of the scope and significance of the project. A year and a half later, according to Josephus,82 when the Temple building itself was completed, extensive festivities were held. Herod and others offered sacrifices to commemorate this achievement; and, coinciding with the anniversary of the king's ascension to the throne (perhaps intentionally), the festivities assumed an even more elaborate scale. Finally, eight years later, the outer courts of the Temple-along with the Temple Mount and its porticoes, basilica, and other components-were completed, undoubtedly providing the setting for another celebration, though Josephus does not note the nature of these festivities. 83 Turning to the political realm, Herod ruled Jerusalem and Judaea with an iron fist and an iron will. He controlled all the key positions and closely supervised all activities. His goals were to secure his domestic rule, increase popular support, maintain Roman backing, and, if necessary, deal quickly and ruthlessly with opponents-in short, to be the undisputed ruler of his kingdom. It would seem that he was eminently successful in this endeavor, as Josephus does not report any serious threats to the king's rule. 84 In contrast to his Hasmonean predecessors, Herod, who was not a priest, moved quickly to establish the dominance of the political title holder over that of 82. Ant. 15.11,6,421. 83. Ibid., 15.11,5,420. 84. On aspects of Herodian rule that in effect continued and institutionalized processes already at work under the Hasmoneans, see S. Schwartz, "Herod," 67*-76*.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

171

the high priest. Not only was such a move logical for personal reasons, given his family pedigree, but such a dichotomy was in line with Roman policy. The subordination of the religious elite to the political leadership was a hallmark of Romanization. 85 For the first time in the five hundred years of the Second Temple period, the high priesthood was stripped of all political power. The office had to be kept away from local factions and political rivals, and Herod understood that he had to keep tight control over the high priesthood if he wanted to secure his rule. The king, therefore, was to remain unquestionably supreme, while the high priest was reduced to a mere appointee, chosen and replaced at will. In terms of traditional Jewish practice, this shift in authority constituted a change of major proportions, and undoubtedly there were those who opposed it. Moreover, Herod often exploited the high priesthood for his own purposes. Immediately upon ascending the throne, he appointed his longtime friend Hananel of Babylonia to this position. Herod's murder of the admired young Hasmonean Aristobulus III, whom he had been pressured into appointing, offers a striking example of the potential threat posed to a ruler by a popular high priest. 86 In the course of his reign, Herod appointed no less than five high priests, some of whom were almost certainly of Egyptian origin-Yeshua son of Phiabi and Simon son of Boethus. The latter, who was appointed in 23 B.C.E. and remained in office until nearly the end of Herod's reign, was chosen as high priest after Herod fell in love with his daughter MariammeY As was customary in Hellenistic royal courts, Herod surrounded himself with an extensive coterie of officials and advisers. "Friends" and "favorites" of the king are frequently mentioned by Josephus, and they appear to have played an active role in affairs of state.88 The most famous of Herod's advisers, as already noted, was Nicholas of Damascus, historian, orator, author of tragedies, and philosopher. Nicholas often accompanied the king on his travels and represented him on occasion in Rome and elsewhere,89 as he did for Herod's son and successor, Archelaus, later on. 90 Nicholas had previously served in the court of Antony and Cleopatra, as had the author Phiiostratos, who also served in Herod's COurt. 91 Other 85. It should be noted that the differentiation was less sharp in Augustan Rome than in Herodian Jerusalem. Herod had absolutely no priestly functions, while Augustus (and other emperors later on) played a role as priest and sacrificer; see Gordon, "Veil of Power," 201-219.

86. Ant. 15.2, 5-3, 3, 23-56. 87. Ibid., 15.9,3,320-322. M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 600-612, and Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics," 14-34. 88. See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 87-90, and Roller, Building Program, 54-65.

89. Ant. 16.2,3-5,29-61; 10,8-9,335-355; see also 17.5,4,99; 5, 5, 106. 90. Ibid., 17.9,6,240; 11,3,315. 91. It seems that Herod benefited from the breakup of this Alexandrian court following the battle of Actium by attracting members of that circle to his own court.

172

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Herodian courtiers included Ptolemy, who was in charge of the kingdom's finances, and Corinthus, the king's personal bodyguard.92 Most, if not all, of these advisers were probably non-Jews, and their numbers were augmented by the gentile soldiers employed by the king. Among the benefactions that Augustus bestowed on Herod in 30 B.C.E. was a bodyguard of four hundred Gauls who had previously been in the service of Cleopatra. 93 These troops (perhaps with their wives and children) were apparently stationed in Jerusalem, and their numbers may have been supplemented by Thracian and German soldiers, likewise in the king's service. 94 Thus the number of non-Jews in the city, throughout Herod's reign at least, was far from negligible, and their impact on the city's economic, social, and cultural life was undoubtedly felt (although we have no way of assessing this).95 Herod often convened a sanhedrin (= synedrion, i.e., a group of officials, friends, and relatives with whom he consulted on a variety of issues). This practice was widely followed by contemporary rulers, including Augustus at Rome. 96 Consultations of this sort often dealt with family crises and the nature and degree of punitive steps to be taken. Such was the case in regard to Herod's Hasmonean wife Mariamme 97 and his sons Alexander and Aristobulus (on several occasions ),98 as well as Pheroras' wife99 and another son, Antipater. loo On one occasion, Augustus actually recommended that Herod convene such a body and include Roman officials to deal with one of his domestic crises.lO l Herod would also regularly call an assembly of Jerusalem residents to share important announcements. At one such convocation, he disclosed his plans to rebuild the Temple,102 and on his triumphant return from Asia Minor in 13 B.C.E. he announced a reduction in taxes. 103 At important junctures in his family saga, Herod deemed it necessary and desirable to convene such an assembly. Upon his return from Rome in 12, having reconciled with his sons, the king made an announcement 92. Ant. 16.7,2, 191; 17.3,2,55. 93. War 1.20,3,397. 94. War 1.33, 9, 672, and Ant. 17.8,3,198.

95. Added to the above are slaves and servants owned by members of the Herodian court and others, many of whom were probably not Jewish; see Ant. 15.7,4,226; 17.5,3,93; 20.8, 8, 181; 9, 2, 206; Matt. 26:51; and T Menahot 13,21 (ed. Zuckermandel, 533). 96. Ant. 17.11, 1,301. See also below.

97. Ibid., 15.7,4,229. 98. War 1.32, 1,620, and Ant. 15.2,7,31. 99. War 1.29, 2, 571, and Ant. 17.3, 1,46. 100. Ant. 17.3,6,93.

101. Ibid., 16.11, 1-3,356-364. See Rabello, "Herod's Domestic Court?" 39-56. 102. Ant., 15.11, 1,381-382.

103. Ibid., 16.2,5,62-65.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

173

to this effect before his Jerusalem subjects,I04 as he did when he was about to execute two of his sons several years later. lOS Although there is little recorded about public opposition to his rule, Herod was well aware of the immense challenges facing him on the domestic front. His kingdom, owing primarily to the annexations granted by Rome, came to include an extensive non-Jewish population, and both the Jews and non-Jews of his realm had reason to fear and suspect him. The gentiles, recalling the Hasmoneans' hostility, were undoubtedly unhappy to once again come under Jewish rule, while many Jews, for their part, also had their reservations about him. Some still harbored loyalties to the Hasmoneans while others recoiled from Herod's brutality or the close ties developing between him and the Romans. There may have been some who resented that a descendant of converts had become their king, even though Herod seems to have been rather punctilious in his observance of Jewish law. Nevertheless, any departure by him from accepted practice might arouse comment, as happened when the king tried to deal with an alarming degree of theft in Jerusalem and adopted severe measures (slavery and exile). As these deviated greatly from previous norms, they were a subject of comment and criticism, which is reflected in Josephus' report. I06 Herod dealt with these challenges in two ways, using a carrot and stick approach (i.e., benevolent actions or repressive measures).I07 In line with his earlier concerns for safety and security, Herod built a series of fortresses in various parts of the country-Sebaste, Caesarea, Gaba, and Esebonitis-to keep a close watch on the local population and quash any potential uprising or disturbance. lOB He also maintained a network of spies to keep him informed of any suspicious movements or unauthorized actions, and he prohibited all unauthorized gatherings, even if only a few people were involved. Punishment for any infraction was harsh, including death. 109 Furthermore, to ensure his continued control of affairs, Herod demanded a declaration of loyalty from his subjects at several junctures during his reign. Around 20 B.C.E.,110 and again in his later years, the king imposed an oath of alle104. War 1.23, 5, 457-466, and Ant. 16.4,6, 132-135. Herod's trip to Rome had commenced auspiciously; he presided at the Olympic games, being named the president or agonothetes owing to his financial support "for all time" (War 1.21, 12,426-427, and Ant. 16.5,3, 149). 105. War 1.27, 6, 550-551. On the Roman practice of consulting the people in different contexts, see Millar, Emperor, 368-375. 106. Ant. 16.1, 1, 1-5. The law, for example, stated that thieves would be sold as slaves to non-Jews and deported from the realm, if necessary; moreover, they were to pay a fourfold fine, as was customary at the time. 107. lbid.,I5.9, 5, 326.

108. Ibid., 15.8, 5, 292-298. 109. Ibid., 15.10,4,366-368. 110. Ibid., 15.10,4,368-370.

174

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

,

'0 J- ). . ,., ...•. ~. ' , ' ,

,\

~5:J1tj

Figure 37. A coin minted under Herod. Obverse: A tripod on base with a bowl at the top. The inscription to the left reads: "Year 3"; the one to the right is a monogram. Around the perimeter, the Greek inscription reads:"Of Herod the King." Reverse: Helmet with cheek pieces over which is a star flanked by two palm branches.

giance to himself and to the emperor (see below).11I In addition, the anniversary of Herod's assumption of power appears to have become an annual celebration,1I2 and there is evidence (from Si 'a in Transjordan and Athens) that statues of Herod were erected in his honor.113 Finally, Herod's coins regularly carried the legends "of Herod the King" or "Herod the King" (Fig. 37).114 On the other hand, Herod was also capable of adopting a very different approach to gain the loyalty of his subjects. He undertook many building projects in the pagan regions of his kingdom, some of monumental proportions. He constructIll. Although the content of this oath is unknown, it may well have been similar to that sworn to Augustus in Paphlagonia in the year 3 H.C.E.: Of Imperator Caes[ar,] son of the god, Augustus the twelfth consulship 5-3 H.C.E ., third year (of the province, 3 H.C.E.), on the day before the Nones of March (March 6) in Gangra in [camp?], the oath completed by the inhabitants of [Pa]phlagonia [and the] R[omans] who do business among them: I swear by Zeus, Earth, Sun, and all the gods [and] goddesses, and Augus[t]us himself that I will be favorably disposed toward [Cae]sar Augustus and his children and descendants all the time of my [life] in word and deed and thought, considering as friends those whom they may consider (friends) and holding as enemies those whom they judge to be (enemies), and for things that are of interest to them I will spare neither my body [nor] my soul nor my life nor my children, but in every way for the things that affect them I will undergo every danger; and whatever I might perceive or hear against them being said or plotted or done, I will report it and I will be an enemy to the person saying or plotting or doing any of these things; and whomever they may judge to be their enemies, these, on land and sea, with arms and steel will I pursue and ward off. If I do anything COiltrary to this [oath] or anything not in agreement with what I have sworn, I pray that there may come upon myself, my body and soul and life, my children and all my family and whatever is of use to us, destruction, total destruction till the end of all my line [and] of all my descendants, and may neither the [bodies] of my family or of my descendants by earth or sea be received, nor may (earth or sea) bear fruit [for them]. In the same words was this oath sworn by all the [inhabitants or the land] in the temples of Augustus throughout the districts (of the province) by the altars [of Augustus]. And likewise the Phazimonians living in what is [now] called [Neapo]lis [swore the oath,] all of them, in the temple of Augustus by the [altar of] Augustus (Sherk, Rome and the Greek East, 135-136 no. 105). The same text also appears in Sherk, Roman Empire, 31 no. IS. 112. Ant. 15.11,6, 423.

113. See P. Richardson, Herod, 206-208 . 114. Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, II: 17.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

175

ed entire cities for these subjects (e.g., Sebaste) and numerous public institutions (gymnasia, ha1ls, porticoes, theaters, fountains, baths, colonnades, and aqueducts) for those in neighboring cities as well. liS The most impressive of these projects was the construction of Caesarea, intended as a pagan city that would facilitate the country's economy and honor Augustus, Herod's patron par excellenceY6 When the opportunity arose, Herod responded with generosity to his people's plight. The years 25-24 witnessed a severe drought in Judaea and much of Syria that was accompanied by illness and plague. Herod thereupon sold his persona1 belongings so that he could buy grain in Egypt to distribute to the needy, first to his own subjects and then beyond, to those living in Syria outside his rea1m. ll7 He also had food prepared for the elderly and infirm who were incapable of caring for themselves and provided clothing for the needy. Josephus emphasizes the degree to which Herod's actions had a most favorable impact on his subjects, a1legedly replacing hostile and suspicious attitudes with ones of gratitude and respect. li8 Several years later (ca. 20), the king remitted a third of the outstanding taxes to further assuage the feelings of the population that objected to some of his actions;lI9 and once again, upon his return from Asia Minor in the year 13, he canceled a quarter of the taxes. 120 However, Herod's crowning achievement toward his Jewish subjects was the rebuilding of the Jerusa1em Temple. This project lasted for many years and served as a source of employment for thousands, although it was also accompanied by the imposition of taxes and forced labor.121 Herod did not content himself with these measures alone to gain stability and support. He embarked on an ambitious socia1 program designed to distance hostile elements, especially those groups with deep roots in Hasmonean Jerusalem. Appointing people from abroad to the high priesthood was one feature of this policy. The members of these families that he brought to Jerusalem became an integral part of the city's aristocracy and continued to serve as high priests down to the revolt against the Romans in 66 C.E. Herod also assigned key positions in his government to members of his family and Idumaean relatives, and he a1so made a concerted effort to involve the local pagan population in his court, army, and administration. His best and most trusted troops-three thou115. War 1.21,11-12,422-428, and Ant. 15.9,5,326--330; 16.5,3, 146--149. 116. See n. 17 to this chapter. 117. Augustus had acted similarly in 23-22, when a grain shortage in Rome required his immediate attention. See his Res Gestae 5.

118. Ant. 15.9, 1-2,299-316. 119. Ibid., 15.10,4,365. 120. Ibid., 16.2,5,64. 121. Ibid., 15.11, 1-7,380-425.

176

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

sand in number-were pagan soldiers drawn from Sebaste,122 in addition to contingents of Thracians, Germans, and Gauls,123 some of whom, as noted, undoubtedly resided in Jerusalem. Regarding the Jewish population, Herod attempted to cultivate close ties with those sects and groups that had exhibited hostility toward the Hasmoneans. These included the Samaritans, Pharisees, and Essenes. l24 His relationship with the Pharisees appears to have been somewhat complex. On the one hand, Herod expressed his gratitude to Pollion and his followers for their recognition of his rule at the outset of his reign,125 and he subsequently granted the Pharisees (along with the Essenes) exemption from swearing an oath of loyalty to him.126 Yet, several decades later there were Pharisees who had refused to take an oath of allegiance, thereby incurring a sizable fine that was paid by the wife of Pheroras, Herod's brother. 127 These particular Pharisees, we are told, wielded a great deal of influence over the women in Herod's COurt. 128 Claiming prophetic powers through God's appearance to them, these men predicted that Herod would be replaced by Pheroras and his wife. 129 The king subsequently executed many members of this group, along with others. Moreover, these same Pharisees had assured Bagoas, a eunuch, that he would be the father and benefactor of one who would rule the people, and thus promised him the power to marry and procreate. l30 Not only do the actions of these Pharisees, in attempting to undermine Herod, contrast with earlier reports about Pharisaic loyalty but their actions are strikingly different from anything else we know about

122. War 2.3, 4, 52. 123. Ant. 17.8,3,198. 124. Josephus offers the following reason for Herod's positive feelings toward the Essenes: There was a certain Essene named Manaemus (Hebrew: Menahem) whose virtue was attested in his whole conduct of life and especially in his having from God a foreknowledge of the future. This man had (once) observed Herod, then still a boy, going to his teacher, and greeted him as "King of the Jews." Thereupon Herod, who thought that the man either did not know who he was, or was teasing him, reminded him that he was only a private citizen. Manaemus, however, gently smiled and slapped him on the backside, saying: "Nevertheless, you will be king and you will rule the realm happily, for you have been found worthy of this by God." ... And from that time on he continued to hold all Essenes in honor (Ant. 15.10,5,373-379). 125. Ant. 15.1,1,1-4.

126. Ibid., 15.10,4,368-372. 127. Ibid., 17.2,4,41-45. The Pharisaic (and Essene) refusal to swear an oath of allegiance is interesting in light of the fact that such an oath was not considered objectionable by most Jerusalemites a generation or so later. When Vitellius asked for such an oath in Jerusalem upon the ascension of Gaius Caligula, no objection was forthcoming (Ant. 18.5,3,124). 128. See Ilan, "Attraction of Aristocratic Women," 5-28. 129. See Gray, Prophetic Figures, 152-158. 130. Ant. 17.2,4,41-45.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

177

Second Temple Pharisees from rabbinic literature (as meager as our sources are). The Pharisees are here portrayed as heavily involved politically and with a rhetoric and style commonly associated with other, messianically oriented, groups of the time. Unless Josephus (or his source) has completely confused the account, a possibility that appears rather unlikely, we can only assume that the Pharisees of that period were indeed a very diverse group politically and religiously and that various factions adopted strikingly different political postures toward Herod and Rome. Herod's assiduous cultivation of Diaspora Jewry found expression in several ways. First, as noted, he brought a number of Diaspora Jews to Jerusalem to assume the role of high priest. Others undoubtedly came as well, although no explicit mention is made in this regard.13l M. Stem suggests that Hillel's appearance in Jerusalem may have been related to this policy of welcoming Diaspora Jews to the city.132 Furthermore, the privileges extended to Diaspora communities by Rome at this time may have been inextricably intertwined with Herod's friendship with Roman authorities. 133 The king himself had much to gain from close ties with the Diaspora: a considerable amount of economic support, international recognition, and his legitimization as a Jewish king defending coreligionist interests everywhere. 134 The connection between Herod and Diaspora Jewry is explicitly confirmed in the detailed description of Ionian Jewry's request for aid. Nicholas, at Herod's behest, presented the case before Agrippa, who was persuaded to intervene with respect to the issues affecting not only these Jewish communities but a number of others as well. In his speech before Agrippa, Nicholas accorded a prominent place to the personal ties and loyalties to Rome of Herod, himself, and Antipater, the king's father.135 Toward the close of his speech, Nicholas noted the mutually friendly attitude between the king (i.e., Herod) and Agrippa as well as the service rendered by Herod, "who is now presently sitting beside yoU."136 Thus it appears that Herod actively promoted Diaspora Jewry's issues in his visits with his Roman patrons. Upon his return to Jerusalem from his visit with Agrippa, Herod unabashedly took credit for these achievements.137 It has been suggested, with some degree 131. For evidence of Alexandrians, and indeed an organized Alexandrian community, in first-century Jerusalem, see below. 132. M. Stern, "Social and Political Realignments," 40--62. 133. On these privileges, see Juster, Lesjuifs, I:188 f., 213-242, 377-385. Their substantial reliability has been upheld in several recent publications; see Saulnier, "Lois romaines," 161-198, and a series of articles by Pucci Ben Zeev: "Greek and Roman Documents," 46-59, "Did the Jews?" 23-45, "Jewish Rights," 39-53, and her magnum opus, Jewish Rights. 134. See Kasher, "Herod and the Jewish Diaspora," 11-22.

135. Ant. 16.2,3-5,27-65. 136. Ibid., 16.2,4,54--57. 137. Ibid., 16.2,5,63-64.

178

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

of plausibility, that much of Herod's beneficence to foreign cities is to be connected to the presence of large Jewish communities that the king was interested in cultivating and supporting. \38 There can be little question that even Augustus' positive attitude toward the rights of Rome's Jewish community was not only a continuation of Julius Caesar's policy but also an outcome of his relationship with Herod. This is clearly exhibited in Philo's description of the emperor's granting this community extensive privileges (not the least of which was guaranteeing Roman citizenship to the Jews) as well as his continual support of the Temple in Jerusalem. 139 It is even possible that the local Jewish community, as P. Richardson l40 suggests, responded by naming one of its synagogues after Augustus. One of the effects of this new political and social constellation in Herodian Jerusalem was a marked increase in the degree of Hellenization within the city. Besides some textual evidence, archaeological remains have brought to light architectural patterns and artistic motifs that attest to a widespread adoption and adaptation of models and styles originating in the wider Hellenistic and Roman worlds (see Chapter 7). Indeed, Herod sent his sons to Rome for their education, undoubtedly for academic reasons but also to become familiar with Roman mores and to make personal connections. 141 Greek names-often indicating cultural ties as well-are far from uncommon at this time. Josephus, the New Testament, and local inscriptions preserve a plethora of such names. 142

138. P. Richardson, Herod, 94,272-273, and generally, 264-273. 139. Embassy 23, 155-157: He [Augustus 1 was aware that the great section of Rome on the other side of the Tiber is occupied and inhabited by Jews, most of whom were emancipated Roman citizens. For having been brought as captives to Italy they were liberated by their owners and were not forced to violate any of their native institutions. He knew therefore that they have houses of prayer and meet together in them, particularly on the sacred Sabbaths when they receive, as a body, training in their ancestral philosophy. He knew, too, that they collect money for sacred purposes from their first-fruits and send them to Jerusalem by persons who would offer the sacrifices. Yet nevertheless he neither ejected them for Rome nor deprived them of their Roman citizenship because they were careful to preserve their Jewish citizenship also, nor took any violent measures against the houses of prayer, nor prevented them from meeting to receive instructions in the laws, nor opposed their offerings of the first-fruits. Indeed, so religiously did he respect our interests that, supported by well nigh his whole household, he adorned our Temple through the costliness of his dedications and ordered that for all time continuous sacrifices of whole burnt offerings should be carried out everyday at his own expense as a tribute to the most high God. 140. P. Richardson, Herod, 266-269. 141. War 1.22, 2, 435; 23,1,445, and Ant. 15.10, 1,342; 16.1,2,6; 17.1,3,20-21; 3, 2, 52-53; 4, 3, 79-80. On the phenomenon of dynasts' children being sent to Rome, see Braund, Rome and the Friendly King, 9-21. 142. See, e.g., Ant. 17.1,3,21; Acts 6; and Rahmani, Catalogue, 13-14.

179

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

T

Figure 38. Herod's family tree.

Herod's Domestic Woes In the last years of Herod's reign, life in his court appears to have lapsed into a long series of plots woven by members of his family, with the king proving utterly incapable of keeping them in check. In fact, the narrative of these trials and tribulations occupies a large part of Josephus' account of Herod's reign, albeit there is undoubtedly much that is melodramatic and exaggerated. These kinds of sordid issues frrst emerged decades earlier with Herod's neurotic suspicions and jealousy of Mariamme. Moreover, despite certain contradictions between the accounts of War and Antiquities, Herod's inability to cope with family affairs is made manifest from the very beginning. 143 By the last years of his reign, however, Herod had become hopelessly and powerlessly entangled in inheritance disputes and rivalries among his offspring and siblings (Fig. 38). The intrigues between Alexander and Aristobulus on the one hand, and their stepbrother Antipater on the other, were compounded by Salome, by Alexander's wife together with her father (the king of Cappadocia), as well as by others from abroad-Euryc1es of Sparta and Euarestus of Cos. It is little wonder that Herod was constantly rewriting his will (seven times in all!) in light of the pressures exerted on him at any given moment. l44 The incredible num143. War 1.2,2-4,436-444, and Ant. 15.3,5-9,62-87; 6, 5, 183-186; 7, 1-4,202-234. 144. See P. Richardson, Hero4 33-38, and Braund, Rome and the Friendly King, 139-143. See also K. C. Hanson, "Herodians," 15-20.

180

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Figure 39. Removing the eagle from the Temple.

ber of accusations and counteraccusations, aggravated by the spiraling tensions and intrigues, all had a debilitating effect on court life that was now rife with rumors. Herod deployed spies, friend turned on friend, and even Rome itself became involved in Herod's domestic tribulations. 145 Toward the end of his life, Herod suffered greatly-physically, emotionally, and mentally. These circumstances may explain, at least in part, his defiant and ill-conceived decision at this juncture to erect a statue of a golden eagle over the gate of the Temple. 146 It is difficult to believe that Herod could have been unaware of the rage and turmoil that such an act would create, as indeed it did in many circles of Jerusalem society. With the encouragement of the sages Judas son of Sariphaeus and Matthias son of Margalus Margalothus, several youths removed the golden eagle, smashing it to pieces (Fig. 39). They and others were later caught and executed by the king. 147

145. For example, Ant. 16.4, 1-5,90-129. On Rome's involvement in the royal wills of various dynasts and clients, see Braund, Rome and the Friendly King, 129-164. 146. Ant. 17.6, 2, 149-154. Placing an eagle in the Temple area can be explained only in the light of Herod's serious deterioration at the time. The king was careful throughout his lifetime not to offend his Jewish subjects in such a blatant fashion. Thus we cannot agree with those who assume that the eagle had been placed over a Temple gate as early as the original construction of the building some fifteen or more years earlier; see P. Richardson, Herod, 16. For suggestions as to the precise placement of this statue, see P. Richardson, Herod, 16-17; Roller, Building Program, 177-178. 147. Ant. 17.6,2-3, 149-63; 6, 8, 178; 7, 4, 206. It has been suggested that the eagle appearing on several Herodian coins might have been minted at the same time; see Meyshan, "Symbols," 109-120, and Meshorer, Treasury. 67-69, Plate 46, nos. 66, 66a, 66b. By way of comparison, on the various types of reactions of the populus Romanus to events, declarations, and grievances-from acclamation to rioting and violence-see Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps, 9-37 .

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

181

If this were not enough, Herod had become embroiled in his last years in a series of territorial disputes with the Nabataeans that not only proved frustrating and humiliating but also imperiled his relations with Rome. In this respect he was repeatedly outmaneuvered by Syllaeus who, inter alia, was angry at being refused Salome's hand in marriage because he had objected to undergoing circumcision as Herod had demanded. 148

Evaluating Herod and His Rule How, then, may we assess Herod's rule? Regarding the pagan population, it can be assumed that its attitude toward the king was generally positive.1 49 Herod, as noted, cultivated ties with this sector, bestowing many benefactions on its cities and incorporating many of its citizens in his political and military bureaucracy. ISO However, in the eyes of Jerusalemites and the wider Jewish population of Judaea, matters were far more complicated. The city witnessed the best and the worst of this complex ruler. He was indeed controversial, not only in the eyes of modern readers but as reflected in the various ancient sources at our disposal,151 as well as by his contemporaries. Herod was capable of the cruelest and the kindest of acts. He could play both the oppressor and the benefactor. He was driven by an insatiable lust for power, honor, and fame but no less by a need to be respected and adulated by his subjects. His policy and vision were crystal clear from the start-namely, the incorporation of his kingdom, both politically and culturally, into the pax Romana. Many concurred, while others had reservations about the wisdom and risks of such a direction. Josephus notes a number of occasions when Herod's actions ran counter to Jewish custom and irritated-if not angered-at least part of the populace. This is specifically noted, for instance, in regard to his building of entertainment institutions in the city, his law regarding theft, and his placing an eagle on the Temple Mount. 152 On the other hand, Josephus also mentions that the king at times would 148. Ant. 16.7,6,225; 9, 1-4,271-299; 10,8-9,335-355. 149. This probably holds true of other peoples living in his realm as well-the Idumaeans, Samaritans, and Ituraeans, although we know next to nothing in this regard. 150. Herod's stature in pagan eyes several generations later is reflected in the controversy in Caesarea between the Jews and their neighbors. Both groups appealed to Herod's actions when he built the city as a precedent for determining what sort of city was intended. The pagans looked to Herod no less than the Jews; War 1.13,7,266. See Levine, "Jewish-Greek Conflict," 381-397. 151. See Test. of Moses 6:2-6, and n. 169 to this chapter. See also Macrobius, Saturnalia II, 4.11 (GLAJJ. II: 665). 152. Ant. 15.8, 1, 267-276. See also above.

182

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

bestow generous gifts on the Jews (reduction of taxes, provision of food, building the Temple, etc.) that won him much favor and goodwill.153 Herod was careful to maintain the accepted religious norms of his day with an apparently unswerving commitment No images (besides the eagle and its concomitant numismatic depiction) were ever used by him in his public construction in Jewish Judaea, where the king was especially punctilious. 154 In addition, circumcision was mandatory for anyone marrying into his family, and building the Temple in Jerusalem became a main focus of the king's efforts (time and money) and a primary source of his fame. 155 Nevertheless, the exigencies of being a client king in the Roman orbit, together, of course, with the king's own personal proclivities, led to a number of compromises. Despite the studious avoidance of figural images, portraiture was known to the Hasmonean members of his family, and Josephus reports that depictions of Mariamme and Aristobulus III were sent to Antony.156 Herod, for his part, had statues built to the emperor and Roma, which were placed in temples dedicated to them,157 as well fountain spouts in the form of animals in his Jerusalem palace. 158 When all is said and done, there is probably some truth in Josephus' several evaluations of Herod. In one place, the historian notes that the starkest contrast in Herod's life was the public-private one: "In his life as a whole he was blessed, if ever man was, by fortune: a commoner, he mounted the throne, retained it for all those years, and oequeathed it to his own children; in his family life, on the contrary, no man was more unfortunate."159 Elsewhere, Josephus quotes a view (which he fmds wanting) that Herod's beneficence and cruelty (regarding family and citizenry alike) stemmed from contradictory passions within him. At this point, Josephus probes further and claims that the root of Herod's troubles lay in his insatiable desire for fame and respect As a result, he overreached his abilities 153. Ant. 15.9,2,315; 11,6,421.

154. Meyshan, "Symbols," 109-121, and P. Richardson, "Law and Piety," 347-360. 155. Despite Antigonus'accusation that Herod was not fully Jewish (Ant. 14.15,2,403), such a claim can hardly be entertained, nor does it seem to have been a factor in the Jews'relationships with him; see Cohen, Beginnings of Jewishness, 13-24. On the presumed hatred of the king by his Jewish subjects, see M. Smith, "Gentiles in Judaism," 228-234. 156. War 1.22,3,439, and Ant. 15.2,6,25-27. 157. War 1.21, 7, 414. Herod's grandson Agrippa I also made a number of compromises regarding accepted Jewish practices of the time when in Caesarea; see below. 158. Ibid., 5.4, 4, 181. 159. Ibid., 1.23, 8, 665; see also Ant. 16.3, 2, 76-77. A similarly positive evaluation of Herod's public career was rendered by Strabo, Geography 16, 2, 46, who was a contemporary of the king: "(Herod) was so superior to his predecessors, particularly in his intercourse with the Romans and in his administration of affairs of state, that he received the title of king, being given that authority fIrst by Antony and later by Augustus Caesar."

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

183

in building, thus having to levy heavy taxes on his subjects that, of course, did not help his popularity. His resentment and anger surged to even greater heights when he failed to receive the honor and respect that he considered his due from his own people and that he gladly accorded to his superiors, i.e., the Romans. l60 These wide-ranging explanations aside, what are we to make of Herod as the ruler of Jerusalem for a third of a century? On the one hand, we might question the historical value ofthe more positive accounts as an attempt by Josephus and his sources (e.g., Nicholas of Damascus) to whitewash the king and depict him in as favorable a light as possible. On the other, the critical comments may-in contrast-reflect the more conservative elements in Jewish society that viewed many of the king's actions as threatening and intolerable. In fact, it is quite plausible that the various evaluations expressed in Josephus' and others' writings are indeed representative; they reflect different constituencies and perhaps even the same one but with respect to different issues or at different times. Some people supported the king, others were vehemently opposed to him and his policies; some honored and respected him, and others disparaged him; finally, many may have changed their minds from time to time, depending on the particular circumstances. 161 As for Jerusalem, while the city witnessed some of the cruelest actions by Herod, particularly on the domestic scene, it also benefited extensively from his enormous capacity to build and transform an urban society materially, culturally, and socially. Moreover, the king often went out of his way to placate the population (e.g., with respect to the theater trophies; see Chapter 5), to assist it in time of need (the famine of 25), or to involve it in important decisions (when announcing his plans to build the Temple). The fact is, whether it was the carrot or the stick, Herod's Jerusalem appears to have been generally tranquil, certainly more so than it was under some of the later Hasmoneans who came before and under the Romans who came later.

The Reign of Archelaus (4 B.C.E.-6 C.E.) The reign of Archelaus was of short duration and, for the most part, uneventful, as least as far as our sources indicate. Josephus devotes most of his narrative to the first months of this era, which were dominated by violence at home and negotiations in Rome. Regarding the latter, after Herod's interment, the various c1aim160. War 16.5, 4, 150-159. 161. See the alleged comment of Antigonus, who once referred to Herod as a "half-Jew" (Ant. 14.15,2,403). On the controversies among modern historians in evaluating Herod and his reign, see D. R. Schwartz, "On Abraham Schalit," 9-13.

184

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

~... ~

Borde, of H.rod 's reolm

To ... ,chefous ~ To Herod Antipo1

EZ!l To Philip fl'fH3 To province of ~ Solomr's portion

~'I;"'s City founded by ~ .Herod 's sonl

Figure 40. The division of Herod's kingdom after his death in 4 B.C.E.

ants to the throne turned to the emperor to reaffirm their respective entitlements that were based, in part, on the different wills that the king had drawn up in his last years. 162 These Herodians were joined by a party of some fifty prominent Judaeans who advocated direct rule by Rome instead of by the Herodians. 163 They reportedly complained of Herod's cruelty, his many benefactions of foreign cities while poverty spread at home, the diminution in the power and status of the local aristocracy, as well as various deportations. After much deliberation, the emperor ultimately decided in favor of Archelaus, but in a diminished role. He was appointed ethnarch, not king, and given only the regions of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, without the Galilee, Peraea, and the northeastern regions of Gaulanitis, Auranitis, Batanaea, and Trachonitis, which were divided between his brothers, Antipas and Philip (Fig. 40) .164 At first Jerusalem and eventually the entire country were in turmoil. Disturbances broke out even before Archelaus left for Rome, when some peo162. P. Richardson , Herod, 33-38. 163 . War 2.6,1-2,80-91, and Ant. l7 .II , 1-2,299-314. 164. SchUrer, History, 1:336-357, and Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 114-119.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

185

pIe protested Herod's heavy taxation policy and some of his appointees, particularly the current high priest. 165 Matters quickly got out of hand and riots ensued, which spilled over into the Passover celebrations then taking place at the Temple. It is reported that a large number of Jews were killed in these disturbances. The situation had escalated even further by the holiday of Shavu 'ot, fifty days later, when a full-scale rebellion broke out fueled by pilgrims streaming into the city from around the country and by the attempts of the Roman commander Sabinus to confiscate much of the royal wealth stored in Herod's various palaces. At the same time, a wide variety of pretenders to the throne arose throughout the country, wreaking havoc on Roman troops and on the Herodian palaces located in the vicinity. Several thousands of Herod's veteran troops stationed in Idumaea were involved in these events 166-Judah son of Hezekiah at Sepphoris in the Galilee; Simon, a royal slave, in Peraea; and a shepherd, Athrongaeus, in Judaea. 167 The scope of these disturbances now required more forceful intervention, and Varus, the governor of Syria, was ordered to quell them; he seems to have accomplished this with relative ease. 168 A rabbinic source from the second or third century C.E. refers to these disturbances as "Varus' War."169 An interesting distinction emerges from these events. Although there were disturbances in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the country, the city appears to have been involved owing primarily, if not exclusively, to the pilgrims who came there on the festivals. These disturbances appear to have been essentially a rural phenomenon. The general "pacifistic" atmosphere of the Jerusalem populace was articulated on Varus' appearance in the city. The disclaimer is made that the only reason for disturbances was the presence of the pilgrims who caused the city's citizens to feel as besieged as the Roman troops sta165. War 1.1, 2, 4-7, and Ant. 17.8,4-9,1,204-209. 166. Ant. 17.10,4,270 speaks of Judaea. 167. War 2.4,1-4,55-65. 168. Ibid., 2.5,1-3,66--79, and Ant. 7.10,9-10,286--298. 169. Seder Olam Rabbah 30. For what has often been interpreted as a rather negative assessment of Herod and a reference to these immediate post-Herodian events, Test. of Moses 6:2-9 has the following to say: And a wanton king, who will not be of a priestly family, will follow them. He will be a man rash and perverse, and he will judge them as they deserve. He will shatter their leaders with the sword, and he will (exterminate them) in secret places so that no one will know where their bodies are. He will kill both old and young, showing mercy to none. Then fear of him will be heaped upon them in their land, and for 34 years he will impose judgments upon them as did the Egyptians, and he will punish them. And he will beget heirs who will reign after him for shorter periods of time. After his death there will come unto their land a powerful king of the west who will subdue them, and he will take away captives and a part of their temple he will burn with fire. He will crucify some of them around their city.

186

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

tioned there. 170 Nonetheless, it was the Temple that served as a magnet for the expression of Judaea's discontent. The religious gatherings there presented an opportunity for dissident voices not only to be heard but to have the benefit of a large and easily swayable audience, a situation that would recur with greater frequency in the coming decades. Almost nothing is known about Archelaus' ten-year reign in Jerusalem. l7l The building projects he undertook appear to have been outside the city; Jericho's royal palace was restored, an aqueduct was built to convey water from the village of Neara (today's Na'aran) to the Jericho Plain to irrigate newly planted palm trees; and nearby, the town of Archelais was built, as well as an aqueduct to bring water to the plain north of Jericho. In Jerusalem, Archelaus appointed several high priests, replacing Joazar with Eleazar (both Boethusians) and later replacing Eleazar with Jesus son of See.172 His rule ended in 6 C.E., after he succeeded in antagonizing both Jewish and Samaritans leaders; the latter subsequently complained to Rome, and Archelaus was recalled and eventually exiled to Gaul. 173 Here, too, a pattern was being forged for the future; Roman intervention was becoming all too common and it therefore became but a very small step for Rome to assume full control and annex the territory. Archelaus' exile provided that opportunity, thus marking the end of Herodian rule in Jerusalem. Apart from a three-year period in which Agrippa I ruled (41-44 C.E.), Jerusalem would now have to share the political spotlight with Caesarea. Herod's dream of establishing a dynasty had failed. He himself had concluded that it could never be realized, and thus he made provisions in his will to divide the kingdom. Herod himself was in no small part responsible for this state of affairs, since in his last years he executed his talented heirs, leaving behind those who were far less gifted for leadership roles. It is no wonder, as noted, that a delegation of Jewish notables came to Rome after Herod's death, requesting annexation to Syria. 174 And, indeed, it was only ten years later, upon Archelaus' removal from office, that their wish was fulfilled, at least in regard to Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea.

170. War 2.5,2,72-73, and Ant. 17.10,9,273. As noted, above, when the people of Jerusalem were asked to swear an oath of allegiance to Gaius Caligu1a on his ascension in 37, they responded positively; see Ant. 18.5,3, 124.

171. Following Ant. 17.13,2, 342; War 2.7,3, 111, however, notes nine years. 172. Ant. 17.13, 1,339-341. 173. War 2.7, 3,111, and Ant. 17.13,2,342-344.

174. War 2.6, 1-2,80-92.

187

ChapterS

The Urban Landscape

Herod's building projects are notable for their vast scope, monumental character, and unique style and were to be found throughout his kingdom and far beyond it. I From Agrippias, Ascalon, and Hebron in the south to Panias in the north, and from Caesarea and Antipatris in the west to Jericho, the Judaean Desert (Herodium and Masada), and the Transjordanian region (Machaerus and Esebonitis) in the east, Herod erected buildings, monuments, and other urban installations, as well as entire cities for his and his subjects' benefit. At times he built cities de novo, at times he restored them through extensive reconstruction (Fig. 41). The pax Romana, characterized by stability and prosperity, was a sine qua non for bringing his plans to fruition. 2 For Herod and other contemporary rulers, from Augustus down to the least of the client kings, building projects constituted a benchmark of their rule, enabling them to shape their respective societies and honor their gods and patrons while creating permanent monuments to the glory of their reign. 3 For rulers such as Herod, the buildings also expressed their desire to become integrated into the Roman Empire and its culture. Moreover, many of these projects had an important public relations component, as they were meant to win the hearts and trust of the people. In Herod's case, they should also be regarded as an attempt to reha1. On Herod's building projects throughout the eastern Mediterranean, see P. Richardson, Herod. 174-191, 201-202, and Roller, Building Program, 214-238. See also Woolf, "Roman Urbanization," 1-14. 2. See Herod's comments (discussed in Chapter 6) to the Jerusalem populace when announcing his plans to build the Temple, in Ant. 15.11,1,387. 3. This is most poignantly reflected in Augustus' Res Gestae (19-21). See Ward-Perkins, ROl1U1n Imperial Architecture, 21-44, and Wallace-Hadrill,Augustan Rome, 43-62. For a broad overview of the changes in urban Rome in the first century B.C.E., culminating under Augustus, see Patterson, "City of Rome," 186-215. On Roman building in the East, see MacMullen, Romanization, 1-29.

188

HERODIAN JERUSALEM ...OU£OUCT

HIPPODROME

o Figure 41. Caesarea Maritima.

bilitate his stature in the eyes of Jews and pagans alike, who might have viewed his origins, Jewishness, or political leadership with disdain.4 How Herod was able to undertake such a massive building program has intrigued scholars for generations. s Clearly, he either was a very wealthy person in his own right or had access to other sources of income-Dr both. Judging by his final will, in which he bequeathed a half million pieces of silver to his sister, ten million to the emperor, and five million to the empress, Herod's fortunes were indeed great. 6 He had extensive private domains, some of which he inherited from his father, Antipater,7 and when in Rhodes as early as 40 B.C.E., he already

4. For a list of possible motives, see P. Richardson, Herod, 191-195. See also Roller, Building Program, 259-262. On leisure-oriented buildings as a reflection of Roman culture, see Toner, Leisure and Ancient Rome. 5. Jones, Herods of Judaea, 86-92; Schalit, Konig Herodes, 256-298 (Hebrew ed., 134-154); Gabba, "Finances," 160-168, and "Social, Economic and Political History," 118-125; Broshi, "Role of the Temple," 31-37; and Roller, Building Program, 119-124. 6. Ant. 17.7,1,189-190. In addition to his building activities, the king also incurred substantial expenses for the upkeep of an army and court, gifts to important people and foreign cities, loans to other dynasts, and the maintenance of his many private palaces and fortresses.

7. Ibid., 14.14, 1,372.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

189

had the means to help restore the city.8 Once having assumed the kingship, Herod confiscated the Hasmonean estates in the Jezreel Valley, on the coastal plain, and in the Jordan Valley; he also may have appropriated the lands belonging to his aristocratic opponents whom he killed after ascending the throne. Herod's wealth grew enormously with the addition of the many territories awarded to him by the Romans in 30,23, and 20 B.C.E. These vast tracts of agricultural land undoubtedly filled his coffers with large revenues, and especially lucrative were the profits he derived from the balsam plant produced at his Jericho and Ein Gedi plantations. He also accrued income from the copper mines in Cyprus, the proceeds of which he shared with the emperor. 9 Taxation was another important source of revenue. Besides the more conventionalland tax lO (and perhaps also poll tax, although this appears to have been a later Roman innovation), Herod also introduced a purchase and sales levy that was singled out after his death as an especially harsh burden.ll Customs levies were most profitable, and with the building of Caesarea, his control of the Via Maris, the Transjordanian King's Highway, and many Nabataean trade routes in the south, this source of income increased greatly. The imperial family might have occasionally contributed funds to the king's various projects, as in the case of the games held at the founding ceremony of Caesarea. 12 Herod's official connections with Syria (perhaps as procurator or supervisor of the local procurators)13 may well have provided him with considerable funds, as the series of cities for whom he remitted taxes seems to attest. 14 Furthermore, contributions to the Temple from the Diaspora amounted to very substantial sums (see below) and were probably used for a variety of purposes in the city as well. 15 We are in a fortunate position to determine the nature and extent of Herod's refashioning of Jerusalem's landscape. Between Josephus' historical works and the archaeological discoveries over the past 150 years, much is known about the material culture and architectural development of the city. The two prominent buildings that stood at the highest points of Jerusalem's eastern and western ridges 8. Ibid., 14.14,3,378. Josephus notes that, in this case, Herod was spending beyond his means. In fact, just before his trip, Herod was forced to borrow money to ransom his brother Phasae1, who had been captured by Antigonus (ibid., 14.14, 1,370-371). On the other hand, soon after his return from Rome he was able to pay his soldiers and officers their wages (War 1.16, 3, 308). 9. Ant. 16.4, 5, 128. Herod had to pay three hundred talents for this privilege; see the interpretation of this passage by Gabba, "Finances," 163. 10. Herod occasionally reduced this land tax as a gesture of goodwill (Ant. 15.10,4,365). 11. Ibid., 17.8, 4, 205. 12. Ibid., 16.5, 1, l38-l39. l3. War 1.20,4,399, and Ant. 15.10,3,360. 14. War 1.21, 12,428.

15. See M Sheqalim 4, 1-2.

190

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

defmed the city's skyline. The former was the site of the greatly expanded Temple Mount, with its spacious plaza, porticoes, and immense basilica; the latter featured Herod's sumptuous palace. Both these magnificent complexes were given special protection-the three towers on the western ridge just north of the palace, and the Antonia fortress that guarded the Temple. In addition to these structures, Herod introduced the major entertainment institutions of his time into or just outside of the city (theater, amphitheater, and hippodrome) and provided Jerusalem with a sophisticated water system and sewage facilities. He erected several family tombs north and west of the city, in addition to his own grand mausoleum at Herodium. some seven miles south of the city.16 Herod also provided a fa9ade for David's tomb, a task he undertook under somewhat awkward circumstances (see below). Little is known about Herod's activity regarding the city's fortifications. We have already noted the problematics of dating the Second Wall (see Chapter 3); it assuredly belongs to the first century B.C.E. but it is impossible to determine whether it was a late Hasmonean or Herodian initiative. 17 Herod's success in erecting a rather impressive range of structures is similar to that of other client kings, but it is especially reminiscent of Herod's patron, Augustus, who was instrumental in transforming Rome's urban landscape. The emperor was involved in an extensive remodeling program that continued for more than a half century.18 He first completed the projects started by Caesar and then initiated his own agenda, which included the restoration of old temples and the building of new ones (some eighty-two in all).19 In the area of the Roman forum he built the Parthian and Actian triumphal arches, entirely reshaped the Forum Romanum, built the Forum Augusti and its Temple of Mars Ultor,20 and completed the Forum Iulium and Basilica Iulia. In the Campus Martium, Augustus built three structures-his own mausoleum. the Ara Pacis, and the Horologium Solare. Finally, he erected his home (decidedly not a palace!) on the Palatine Hill.21 There is a notable similarity between Herod and Augustus, not only in their building programs but also in their historical roles. Both assumed power after a 16. See Magness, "Where Is Herod's Tomb?" 43--46. 17. On traces of Herod's reinforcement of the already existing First Wall, see below. 18. Augustus, Res Gestae 19-21. See also Ward-Perkins, Roman Imperial Architecture, 21--45; Zanker, Power of Images, 101-166; and Favro, Urban Image. 19. Augustus, Res Gestae 20. The emperor is referred to by Livy (4, 20, 7) as "the founder and restorer of all the temples." 20. Augustus, Res Gestae 19-21, and Suetonius, Augustus 29, 1. 21. No testimony is more pointed in this regard than Ovid, Epistulae ex Ponto 1,33-38: From my own house I am once again visiting the localities of the beautiful city, my mind surveying everything with eyes of its own. Now the fora, now the temples, now the theaters sheathed in marble, now every portico with its leveled ground comes before me; now the greensward of the Campus that looks toward the lovely gardens, the pools, the canals, and the water of Virgo.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

191

period of internal turmoil and civil war and both attempted, at least at the outset, to maintain links with the past as well as to forge a new reality that would bear their own unique stamp for the present and future. Both tried to integrate a number of traditions into their building plans. For Augustus, there was the need to balance old Italic traditions with new Roman styles and incorporate elements of the Hellenistic building patterns and artistic styles as well. Herod, for his part, sought to integrate local Hasmonean tradition (characterized by Hellenistic influences combined with Jewish concerns and emphases) with that of the more recent Hellenistic world (especially Alexandria) while at the same time incorporating the styles, patterns, and innovations emanating from Rome. There was no set pattern for how each ruler determined when and how much of each tradition to adopt. Much depended on the type of building in question and the chronological factor. Moreover, the types of emphases and models used changed over time. What is important to remember is that each of these traditions made its claim, and both rulers sought to find the proper modus vivendi at any given juncture and in every specific case.22 However, there were also significant differences between Augustus and Herod, both in personality and historical circumstances, that in turn affected the building program of each. Augustus was an insider who was committed to work within the system he inherited, changing it only gradually; Herod hailed from outside the former establishment and chose to make changes quickly and decisively. Augustus modeled himself after the fifth-century B.C.E. Athenian leader Pericles and assumed the status of primus inter pares; Herod was an absolute ruler, a Hellenistic basileus, in the tradition of his predecessor Alexander Jannaeus. Therefore, Augustus, for his part, attempted to integrate his buildings into the Roman landscape, as his Roman contemporaries were doing, while gradually developing a style of his own. His home was a relatively modest domus, far from palatial circumstances. Herod, on the other hand, built monumentally; his Jerusalem palace, along with the Temple and its surrounding complex, were on a scale unprecedented in the city's history, or in the entire East for that matter. 23 In Jerusalem, the Jewish component was a major factor in the king's plans. In some areas, however, the Jews' claims were minimal, in others they could be easily accommodated. Thus figural art was eschewed in accordance with the practice of the time, ritual baths (miqva'ot) were built throughout the city, especially near the entrances to the Temple Mount, and there was but one Temple to the God of Israe1. 24 Other than that, Herod had a relatively free rein on how and what he built, and he exploited this freedom to the fullest. 22. In this regard, see the comments of von Hesberg, "Significance of the Cities," 9-25, and Kahn, "King Herod's Temple," 123-14l. 23. This topic has been admirably addressed in some detail by Rocca, "Rome and Jerusalem." 24. See P. Richardson, "Law and Piety," 347-360.

192

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

A decided shift has taken place over the past decades regarding the larger historical context of this period. In the past, scholars emphasized the Hellenistic traditions that the king adopted in his building program, a dimension that certainly remains valid today.25 However, of late there is greater recognition of the degree to which Herod was influenced by developments in Rome. 26 In his building projects (ranging from baths with hypocausts to villas and public edifices such as the new-styled theater, amphitheater, aqueducts, and sewage facilities), building techniques (e.g., the use of concrete, vaults, arches, domes, opus reticula tum, and Italian pozzolana for harbor construction), and decorative forms (the Pompeian style), Herod bypassed the Hellenistic world and went straight to Rome for inspiration. In this respect, he was unique among his contemporaries in the East. In certain areas, however, Greek influence remained strong, but even in these instances it is difficult to assess whether this component was already part of the inherited Hasmonean tradition or whether it was Herod himself who appropriated certain Hellenistic models. There is also the question whether such influences should be considered strictly Greek or whether the Romans had adopted these Greek practices, thereby obliterating all distinctions and differentiations regarding sources of influence. Such may have been the case in regard to funerary monuments, certain types of athletic games and entertainment institutions, as well as villas and palaces, floral and geometric decorations on walls and mosaic pavements, and the use of Ionic and Corinthian capitals. Nevertheless, it should be noted that even within some of the above areas Herod's choices may have changed over time; whereas in his early years he (or his architects)27 may have preferred Greek models, in later years he may have deemed Roman ones more desirable. This last possibility may indeed explain a number of differences between Herod's earlier building models (before 20 B.C.E.) and those later on in his reign (after 20 B.C.E.). His building of a theater out of stone in Jerusalem in the early 20s would have followed Hellenistic patterns, as such stone edifices were practically unknown in Rome itself at this time. 28 Some ten to fifteen years later, when 25. Schalit, Konig Herodes, 403-421 (Hebrew ed., 207-215), and Schiirer, History, II:56-58; and, more recently, Turnheim, "Hellenistic Elements," 143-170, and Netzer, "Palaces Built by Herod," 27-35. 26. One of the first to focus on this dimension was Kenyon, "Some Aspects," 181-191. More recently, it was emphasized, inter alia, by Roller, Building Program, 85-124; see also several of the studies appearing in Fittschen and Foerster, Judaea and the Greco-Roman World. 27. On the question of the extent to which Herod himself was involved in the actual planning and execution of these projects, see the contributions by Netzer, Levine, Broshi, and Tsafrir under the heading "Herod's Building Projects: State Necessity or Personal Need?" in Levine, Jerusalem Cathedra, 1:48-80. 28. The idea that the Jerusalem theater was made of wood-in part owing to Rome's reluctance to use stone-is, at most, an assumption; see Patrich, "Herod's Theater." However, there is no need to assume that Herod followed only Roman models throughout his reign. Hellenistic ones might have

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

193

Figure 42. According to first·century C.L Roman architect Vitruvius, a crane was used to lift large stones. A similar technique was possibly used for Herod's building projects.

constructing Caesarea, Herod built a theater out of stone in Roman style, since by this time stone edifices were already beginning to make their appearance in the imperial capital. Herod's building projects were unique in their grandeur, creativity, and stylistic uniformity. They were also characterized by the ability to overcome the limitations of nature and topographical difficulties, as, for example, at Masada, Caesarea, and the Temple Mount. As a result, his building achievements are a source of amazement-to contemporary and modem observers alike. However, many aspects of Herod's style of construction and the architectural principles that guided him remain enigmatic. While Josephus frequently praises the king's works, often listing them one by one, he sheds no light on the architects themselves-who they were, where they came from, and how and where they were trained. We can simply deduce from what we see that these people were creative professionals, apparently both Jews and non-Jews, who were well trained in Hellenistic as well as Roman building traditions. The Herodian style of construction is characterized by its use of enormous stones with dressed margins (Fig. 42). This construction is evident in the significantly preserved remains from Herod's time-the walls of the Temple Mount and the Citadel in Jerusalem and the Machpelah Cave (Tomb of the Patriarchs) in Hebron. Herod's buildings, the foundations of which were laid on bedrock, served him just as well , including those found in Italy, outside the walls of Rome. Moreover, to assume that Herod preferred wood to stone may belie what we know about construction in Jerusalem at the time: Stone was available and was extensively used; wood was extremely scarce and, to the best of our knowledge, was not imported in significant quantities.

194

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

were constructed without mortar or any other bonding agent. The builders attained constructional stability by meticulously dressing the stones so that they fit together extremely well. He often used very large and heavy stones that could weigh as much as fifty or sixty tons and, in rare instances, even hundreds of tons, such as the immense stone near Wilson's Arch that weighs more than five hundred tons. Such huge stones were also found near the southeastern comer of the Temple Mount, east of the Triple Gate. Herod used local building materials at his various sites (e.g., at Masada and Caesarea). In Jerusalem as well, the stone was quarried right outside the city, primarily to the north, and was hauled to its destination down a moderate slope by means of pulleys and logs, a well-attested method in the Classical world. The import of materials from abroad seems to have been minimal, as Herod's architects used local substitutes that achieved a similar effect. For example, instead of importing vast amounts of marble from Greece, Asia Minor, or Italy, Herod used stucco and painted over it to give the impression of marble. This technique was what Josephus mistakenly refers to in his writings as marble. We will now survey Herod's main building projects in Jerusalem.

The Antonia One of Herod's first projects in Jerusalem was the construction of a palacefortress north of the Temple Mount,29 named the Antonia, after his Roman patron Mark Antony. A pre-31 dating is certain; following the battle of Actium in 31 B.C.E., in which Mark Antony was defeated by Octavius (Augustus), it would have been highly impolitic for the king to so honor Antony. A tower or fortress (e.g., the Baris; see Chapter 3) had traditionally stood on the site from the First Temple period down to Hasmonean times to protect the city and Temple. This location was the city's and Temple's Achilles' heel, as attacks invariably came from the north. A ridge extending toward the northwest offered the enemy a decided topographical advantage not to be found anywhere else. Josephus attests to the importance of the Antonia fortress (Fig. 43): "For if the Temple lay as a fortress over the city, Antonia dominated the Temple, and the occupants of that post were the guards of all three."30 He describes the fortress as a rectangular building with four comer towers, of which the southeastern one was taller than the others; a similar arrangement was implemented by Herod at Herodium as well as the port of Caesarea.

29. War 5.5, 8,238-247. 30. Ibid., 5.5, 8, 245.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

195

Figure 43. The Antonia fortress viewed from the northeast (Holyland Hotel model).

The Antonia was built on natural rock that rose, according to Josephus, about 80 feet above the Temple Mount. A wall about 5 feet high surrounded the fortress, which itself rose to a height of 65 feet The southeastern tower rose to a height of some 115 feet, and the other three stood 80 feet high. Josephus claims that the Antonia was a virtual city that included bedrooms and baths as well as courtyards for quartering soldiers. The Antonia served as Herod's residence for about ten years, until the completion of the royal palace in the Upper City, and only then did it become primarily a military fortress. Throughout this period, the Antonia continued to house the high-priestly vestments, control of which would become a controversial issue in later years (see Chapter 8). One of the purposes of the Antonia fortress throughout this period was to ensure that order would be maintained on the Temple Mount. 31 Therefore, steps were built leading from the fortress to the roofs of the porticoes surrounding the Temple Mount. 32 On holidays, when the area was crowded with pilgrims, soldiers manned these porticoes to prevent outbreaks of violence. Josephus notes that on occasion the soldiers stationed there were a contributing factor in fomenting riots. 31. In an enigmatic statement, Josephus claims that Herod built a secret passageway between the Antonia and the eastern gate of the inner Temple court so that he might escape to safety in the event of a riot (Ant. 15.11,7, 424). 32. See, e.g., War 2.15,6,330; 6.2, 9, 165.

196

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

The precise dimensions of the Antonia are disputable. Some scholars maintain that the fortress was relatively small (about 50 by 130 yards?3 and was confined to the rock cliff that can be seen today in the northwestern comer of the Temple Mount. 34 Others believe that it was a far more monumental structure, covering a much larger area, and that the southeastern tower alone occupied much of the projecting rock. According to the latter theory, the Antonia's dimensions were about 100 by 160 yards. Not only are the physical remains on the site negligible but there is little consensus as to which of them should be attributed to the Antonia and which to the forum later built on the site by Hadrian. Some identify cuttings in the rock, floor pavements, the Struthion Pool, and other possible remains of buildings as being part of the fortress, others do not. Christian tradition maintains that Jesus' trial was held in the Roman governor's praetorium (Matt. 27:27), which is assumed to have been the Antonia. Here, too, there is little agreement. A convincing case is made by Benoit35 that any such trial did not take place in the Antonia, but rather in Herod's palace in the Upper City, which, in fact, had become the procurator's residence in the first century C.E. Paul was presumably sequestered in the Antonia by Roman troops, and on its steps he addressed the Jerusalem populace (Acts 21:40--23:31). When conquering the city in 70 C.E., Titus and his soldiers attacked the Antonia, having broken through the city walls to the north. The Fifth and Twelfth Legions were assigned the task of capturing the fortress, which was accomplished on July 24, after two months of fighting. The fortress was then razed on orders from Titus. 36

The Western Towers Parallel to the Antonia, which protected the Temple, Herod erected three massive towers to defend his palace on the western ridge and the city as a whole (Fig. 44). This has generally been taken to mean that they were built in the middle 20s, when work commenced on his monumental palace immediately to the south (see below). Smallwood,37 however, suggests that these towers, which were integrated into the First (Hasmonean) Wall,38 may have already been built in 33. It is impossible to be precise here. Even assuming Josephus'accuracy in giving a cubit measure (an assumption not always justifiable), we can never be sure which cubit unit he was using, as several competing ones were in vogue at the time. Generally speaking, a cubit was close to a half yard. 34. Benoit, "Archaeological Reconstruction," 87-89, and in more detail, "L'Antonia" 135-167. For a maximalist view, see Vincent, "Le Lithostrotos," 513-530. See also Wightman, "Temple Fortresses. Part II," 11-35. 35. Benoit, "Pretoire, Lithostroton et Gabbatha," 530-550. 36. War 6.2, 1,93.

37. Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 74 n. 43. See also Geva, "Excavations at the Citadel," 160-161. 38. War 5.4,3, 161.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

197

Figure 44. The triple western towers viewed from the west (Holyland Hotel mOdel).

the 30s, when Herod was most likely to have been concerned with reinforcing Jerusalem's fortifications. Moreover, it seems possible that Alexandra, Herod's mother-in-law, was already referring to these fortifications before her death in 28 B.C.E. 39 Whatever the case, Josephus provides us with a detailed description of each tower.40 Herod named them after his brother Phasael;41 an unknown friend Hippicus; and his wife, Mariamme. In addition to their main function of defending the Upper City against attack, the towers had other purposes as well: The Hippicus tower served as a water reservoi~2 and a double-roofed chamber; the Phasael tower had a cloister with parapets and bulwarks; and above them, in an upper tower, were lavish apartments and a bath. This tower was crowned with battlements and turrets and resembled the fabled Pharos lighthouse in Alexandria, one of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The third tower, the Mariamrne, had the most lavish and ornate apartments of all. All three towers were solidly built, rising to heights of 132, 150, and 90 feet, respectively. Given the fact that they stood at the top of the western ridge, the higher of the two ridges in the city, their appearance was fonnidable indeed. So, too, it would seem, was their strategic effectiveness. 39. Ant. 15.7, 8, 247-248: "When Alexandra, who was staying in Jerusalem, learned of his condition, she made an effort to seize control of the fortified places in the city. There were two of these; one (guarded) the city itself, and the other the Temple. Whoever was master of these had the whole nation in his power."

40. War 5.4, 3,161-175. On the caution to be exercised when reading Josephus'descriptions of Herodian buildings, see Foerster, "Hellenistic and Roman Trends," 55-72. 41. Herod also named a town north of Jericho after his brother (War 1.21,9, 418, and Ant. 16.5, 2,145). 42. See War 5.7, 3, 304.

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

198

One of these towers, either Phasael or Hippicus (probably the latter), is identified with the Tower of David, which is incorporated into the walls of today's Citadel. The stones are dressed in classic Herodian style; the remains of its walls include sixteen courses of hewn stones with dressed margins that resemble the stones of the Temple Mount walls. The tower stands intact to a height of about sixty feet and is completely sealed. The problem, however, is that the measurements of this tower do not correspond with those recorded by Josephus; indeed, they fall somewhere between those ofPhasael and Hippicus. While, until recently, it has generally been assumed that the base of the Citadel belonged to the Phasael tower, cogent arguments have been presented of late in favor of it once being part of the Hippicus tower.43 These towers were known for their beauty, size, and solidity. Josephus' description of their magnificence and formidability is reinforced by the Roman siege of Jerusalem, when these towers successfully withstood attack. Moreover, when Titus ordered that Jerusalem be totally destroyed, he left the three towers standing to serve as a testimony for posterity of the massiveness of the fortifications and the strength of the city conquered by Rome. 44

Herod's Palace Much has been written of late about Herodian palaces, especially those at Masada. Even from a cursory review of the literature, it is clear that there is disagreement regarding which influences were dominant and how much can be attributed to local, Hellenistic, or Roman influence in each of the king's complexes. In three studies dealing with Herodian architecture, Netz~5 concludes, "It is safe to assume that these structures [Herodian palaces generally], inter alia, derived from ancient Hellenistic traditions and the palaces of Alexandria, Antioch, Pella and other cities. On the other hand, from an architectural viewpoint, one can clearly detect the drive, daring and the wide scope so characteristic of King Herod." In a somewhat different vein, Foerste~ summarizes his analysis as follows: ''The art and architecture of Masada, as well as other sites of the Herodian period, thus preserve strong Hellenistic traditions of the East, blending them with a marked Roman influence." Fortsch47 takes the emphasis on Romanization one step further, saying,

43. 44. 45. 46. 47.

See Geva, " 'Tower of David,'" 57-65. War 7.1, 1, 1-4. Netzer, "Palaces Built by Herod," 35. Foerster, "Hellenistic and Roman Trends," 63. Fortsch, "Residences of King Herod," 89-90.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

199

Figure 45. Herod's palace (Holyland Hotel model).

"It also becomes clear that Roman villas were in many ways a model for the residencies of Herod .... The scale and some of the forms of villas in early Imperial time are derived from those of late Republican Italy. . . . From here the influences reached the residential architecture of Palestine." Despite these different emphases, there is nonetheless general agreement that both Hellenistic and Roman architectural features were important elements, albeit in varying degrees, in each of Herod's palaces; the Jerusalem palace should be seen in this light as well. Herod's palace and fortifications in the Upper City are described in unusual detail in Josephus ' writings (Fig. 45). As noted, this building and its accompanying towers were situated south of today's Jaffa Gate, in the western part of the Armenian Quarter of the Old City. From Josephus' account in Antiquities, presented chronologically, it seems that that the king undertook this project in the middle 20s, probably around the time of Aelius Gallus' expedition to Arabia in 25 B.C.E.48 Josephus writes the following about Herod's palace: Adjoining and on the inner side of these towers, which lay to the north of it, was the king's palace, baffling all description: indeed, in extravagance and equipment no building surpassed it. It was completely enclosed within a wall thirty cubits high (about twenty feet), broken at equal distances by ornamental towers,49 and 48. Ant. 15.9,3,317-318.

49. The defensive capacity of the palace wall and its towers is hinted in Ant. 15.9, 5,292: "When, there· fore, the city had been made safe for him by the palace in which he lived, and the Temple by the strong fortress called Antonia, which had been built by him."

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

200

contained immense banqueting-halls and bedchambers for a hundred guests. The interior fittings are indescribable-the variety of the stones (for species rare in every other country were here collected in abundance), ceilings wonderful both for the length of the beams and the splendor of their surface decoration, the host of apartments with their infinite varieties of design, all amply furnished, while most of the objects in each of them were of silver or gold. All around were many circular cloisters, leading one into another, the columns in each being different, and their open courts all of greensward; there were groves of various trees intersected by long walks, which were bordered by deep canals, and ponds everywhere studded with bronze figures, through which the water was discharged,5o and around the streams were numerous cots for tame pigeons. However, it is impossible adequately to delineate the palace, and the memory of it is harrowing, recalling as it does the ravages of the brigands' fIfe. 51

Elsewhere, Josephus notes that the palace had two identical wings, one named after Augustus and the other after Agrippa (the Caesareum and Agrippeum).52This is the only time that these two men were so honored in Jerusalem. Elsewhere in Judaea, however, Agrippa had a city (Anthedon) renamed after him,53 while the emperor was showered with many such tributes: the cities of Caesarea and Sebaste; the port ofCaesarea (named Sebaste); temples to the emperorin Caesarea and Sebaste, and games in his honor in Jerusalem and Caesarea. In addition, another member of the royal family, the emperor's deceased son Drusus, was honored by having the large tower in the port of Caesarea named after him. Very little, indeed, has survived of this huge palace complex in Jerusalem. On the western side of the palace, outside the present-day Old City wall, traces of a Herodian outer rampart almost double the thickness of the previous Hasmonean wall, remodeled Hasmonean towers, and a gateway (perhaps to the palace) were found. 54 In excavations conducted in and around the Citadel, the foundations of a large platform, undoubtedly belonging to Herod's palace, were discovered. Assuming they continue southward under the Armenian garden, an area of about 140 by 360 yards would be indicated. Retaining walls built at ninety-degree

50. This seems to constitute the one exception to Herod's studious avoidance of figural art in his residences. The description, if taken literally and not as an exaggerated stereotypical description by Josephus of a typical Hellenistic-Roman palace, indicates that animal-shaped fountains, with water flowing from their mouths, were used. Such was the case, e.g., in the palace of Hyrcanus the Tobiad at 'Iraq e1-Emir in Jordan (NEAEHL, 11:648).

51. War 5.4, 4, 176-182. The account in Ant. 15.9,3,318 adds that the rooms, although varying in size, were large, high, and lavishly decorated with gold, perhaps stones, and colored decorations. On Herodian palaces generally, see Nielsen, Hellenistic Palaces, 181-208, and Netzer, Palaces of the Hasmoneans, 32-122; and at Jericho specifically, Netzer, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 175-330.

52. War 1.21, 1,402, and Ant. 15.9,3,318. 53. Schiirer, History, II: 104. 54. Broshi and Gibson, "Excavations," 151-153, and Broshi, "Archaeology of Palestine," 5-7.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

201

angles in a crisscross pattern to hold land fill in place created a large artificial platform. This was built over the earlier Hasmonean structures and raised the ground level by over 4 to 5 yards. It was on such a foundation that the king erected his palatial quarters. There have been a number of suggestions about what the palace might have looked like. Avi-Yonah (personal communication) assumes that it may have resembled the Herodian villa discovered in Jericho by Pritchard and Bararnki in 1951, and so reconstructed it in Jerusalem's Holyland Hotel model (doubling it, of course, given its two wings). Rollef5 opines that Herod was influenced by the Italian townhouse model that he saw on the Palatine Hill during his visit to Rome in 40 B.C.E.

Entertainment Institutions Herod demonstrated a marked interest in athletics, owing, no doubt, to his own physical prowess. 56 He sponsored the Olympic games in Greece;57 built gymnasia in Damascus, Ptolemais-Acre, and Tripolis;58 subsidized the office of gymnasiarch on COS,59 and sponsored lavish contests in the theater and amphitheater of Caesarea. 60 Josephus provides a detailed description of the quadrennial games that Herod instituted in Jerusalem in the emperor's honor (see below).61 These games included a wide spectrum of contests: wrestling matches, gymnastic tournaments, musical and dramatic performances, chariot races and horse races, and bloody spectacles between men and animals. Established ca. 28-27 B.C.E., they were probably an imitation of the Actium games initiated by Augustus in 28 to commemorate his victory over Mark Antony.62 Herod endowed the city with three entertainment institutions that were popular in the large cities of the Roman Empire-theater, hippodrome, and amphitheater. 63 No sizable Roman city with a 55. Roller, Building Program, 176. 56. War 1.21, 13,429-430. 57. Ant. 16.5,3,149, and War 1.21, 12,426-427. 58. War 1.21, 11, 422.

59. Ibid., 1.21, 11,423. 60. Ant. 16.5, I, 137-141, and War 1.21, 8,415.

61. Uimmer, "Griechische Wettkampfe," 182-227, and "Introduction of Greek Contests," 18-38. 62. Suetonius, Augustus 18, and Schalit, Konig Herodes, 371 (Hebrew ed., 193). The Actium games were also held once every four years and probably followed the Olympic model. Augustus also founded the city Nicopolis, near Actium, to celebrate his victory. 63. On the theater, see Frezouls, "Recherches sur les theatres de 1'0rient," 202-227, and "Recherches sur theatres de 1'0rient syrien," 54-86; and A. Segal, Theaters. On the amphitheater and hippodrome, see G. E. Smith, Guide; Golvin, L 'amphitheatre romain; and Humphrey, Roman Circuses, 438-539. On

202

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Figure 46. The hippodrome, viewed from the southeast (Holyland Hotel model),

modicum of civic pride would be without one or more of these institutions,64 much as any respectable modem city would not be complete without cultural centers, museums, or several types of sports facilities. The theater served as a venue for plays and musicals, the hippodrome for races (Fig. 46), and the amphitheater for gladiatorial and animal spectacles. Josephus describes these events and the institutions that housed them: For this reason Herod went still farther in departing from the native customs, and through foreign practices he gradually corrupted the ancient way of life, which had hitherto been inviolable. As a result of this we suffered considerable harm at a later time as well, because those things were neglected which had formerly induced piety in the masses. For in the fIrst place he established athletic contests every fifth yeat5 in honor of Caesar, and he built a theater in Jerusalem, and after that a very large amphitheater in the plain, both being spectacularly lavish but foreign to Jewish custom, for the use of such buildings and the exhibition of such spectacles have not been traditional (with the Jews). Herod, however, celebrated the quinquennial festival in the most splendid way, sending notices of it to the neighboring peoples and inviting participants from the whole nation. Athletes and other classes of contestants were invited from every land, being attracted by the hope of winning the prizes offered and by the glory of victory. And the leading men in various fIelds were assembled, for Herod offered very great prizes not only to the winners in gymnastic games but also to those the social, cultural, and religious contexts of the Roman amphitheater, see Edmondson, "Dynamic Arenas," 69-112, and Kyle, Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome, passim. 64. On such entertainment institutions in Rome itself, see Kahn and Ewigleben, Gladiators and Caesars. 65. That is, every four years.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

203

who engaged in music and those who are called thymelikoi (actors and musicians). And an effort was made to have all the most famous persons come to the contest. He also offered considerable gifts to drivers of four-horse and twohorse chariots and to those mounted on race-horses. And whatever costly or magnificent efforts had been made by others, all these did Herod imitate in his ambition to see his spectacle become famous. All around the theater were inscriptions concerning Caesar and trophies of the nations that he had won in war, all of them made for Herod of pure gold and silver. As for serviceable objects, there was no valuable garment or vessel of precious stones that was not also on exhibition along with the contests. There was also a supply of wild beasts, a great many lions and other animals having been brought together for him, such as were of extraordinary strength or of very rare kinds. When the practice began of involving them in combat with one another or setting condemned men to fight against them, foreigners were astonished at the expense and at the same time entertained by the dangerous spectacle, but to the natives it meant an open break with the customs held in honor by them. For it seemed glaring impiety to throw men to wild beasts for the pleasure of other men as spectators, and it seemed a further impiety to change their established ways for foreign practices. But more than all else it was the trophies that irked them, for in the belief that these were images surrounded by weapons, which it was against their national custom to worship, they were exceedingly angry. That the Jews were highly agitated did not escape Herod's notice, and since he thought it inopportune to use force against them, he spoke to some of them reassuringly in an attempt to remove their religious scruples. He did not, however, succeed, for in their displeasure at the offenses of which they thought him guilty, they cried out in unison that although everything else might be endured, they would not tolerate images of men-meaning the trophies-for this was against their national custom. Herod, therefore, seeing how disturbed they were and that they could not easily be persuaded if they did not get some reassurance, summoned the most eminent among them, and leading them to the theater showed them the trophies and asked just what they thought these things were. When they cried out, "Images of men," he gave orders for the removal of the ornaments that covered them and showed the people the bare wood. So soon as the trophies were stripped, they became a cause of laughter, and what contributed most to the confusion of these men was the fact that up to this point they had themselves regarded the arrangement as a disguise for images.66

While the picture drawn by Josephus' description is clear with regard to Herod's personal agenda for Jerusalem, it is important to try to assess the reaction of Jerusalemites to this phenomenon. Again, we have only Josephus' account for making such an assessment. Taking his narrative at face value, it seems that 66. Ant. 15.8, 1,267-279.

204

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

the Jews were totally opposed to such institutions and to the events held therein; both were considered anathema to Jewish law and custom. However, such an assertion becomes somewhat compromised later on, when Josephus-or, more precisely, the source on which he draws-spells out some of the Jews' specific objections, which were solely directed at the bloody events held in the amphitheater, described as both immoral and in direct conflict with the basic tenets of Judaism.67 Such reservations with respect to the amphitheater are more than understandable and such sentiments would probably have been echoed by most people in the East who were unfamiliar with this type of institution. As a result, of all Greco-Roman institutions of entertainment, the amphitheater made the least headway in penetrating the East Little wonder, therefore, that of the three structures erected by Herod, the amphitheater alone was located outside the city walls or, as Josephus phrases it: "in the plain."68 In marked contrast to the events at the amphitheater, no specific reservations were reported in regard to the hippodrome or theater-only the sentiment that the events there were alien to earlier Jewish custom. Furthermore, our assessment of the reaction of the Jerusalem populace becomes even more uncertain when we read about the protest organized by some Jerusalemites (referred to by Josephus as "the Jews"). What bothered these people more than anything else was not the games themselves but rather the suspicion that Herod had adorned the theater with statues and images, as was customary elsewhere in the Roman world. 69 Herod proceeded to invite a delegation to the theater and dramatically uncovered the objects in question, which turned out to be panoplies and not statues. We are then told that all laughed at the mistaken suspicion, and that "most were inclined to change their attitude and not to be angry any longer,"70 although Josephus does note that a few continued to resent Herod's innovations and even plotted to murder him.71 It would seem from this narrative, as a whole, that the institutions in question were themselves less of a problem than at first imagined, and that it was the 67. Ibid., 15.8, 1,273-274. 68. Ibid., 15.8, 1,268. On the basis of the latest archaeological evidence from Jericho and Caesarea, there is now a preference anlOng some scholars to assume that the amphitheater and hippodrome mentioned by Josephus at those sites were one and the same building (War 1.21, 8, 415, and Ant. 15.9, 6,341; 17.8,2, 193-194). See Humphrey, " 'Amphitheatrical' Hippo-Stadia," 121-129 n. 8, and MacDonald, Architecture, 112. Whatever the merits of this suggestion, this clearly was not the situation in Jerusalem, unless we are to dismiss Josephus' testimony entirely, which would be rash. He not only mentions three institutions but describes the location of two of them-the hippodrome south of the Temple and the amphitheater in the plain; thus, there is little likelihood that these institutions and their locations were identical. 69. On the use of images in Roman theaters, see Gebhard, "Theater and the City," 113-127. 70. Ant. 15.8, 3, 280. 71. Ibid., 15.8,3-4,280-291.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

205

sensitivity toward figural representations in the holy city that was, in fact, of paramount concern to many Jerusalemites. Whatever opposition continued to simmer appears to have been concentrated in a fringe group. The story of the trophies clearly points in this direction. If this was the case, then the opening statement in Josephus' account-"a sweeping and devastating condemnation of the king's initiative"-is clearly not reflective of most of the city's inhabitants. The fact that by the first century C.E. such institutions (the amphitheater excepted) existed in other Jewish cities, such as TIberias, Sepphoris, Tarichaeae, and Jericho (not to mention Jewish attendance at such performances in the Diaspora), indicates that they were indeed appealing to Jews in Judaea and throughout the empire.72 How, then, can we explain the harsh and critical description of these institutions and of Herod appearing in Josephus? The answer, it seems, is that Josephus drew here on a virulently anti-Herodian, anti-Roman, Jewish source and that he copied the source's description of these institutions along with its negative editorial comments. The location of these three entertainment structures in Jerusalem is unknown, although Josephus does offer several hints. Most explicitly, he notes that the hippodrome was located south of the Temple Mount, and from the context it is clear that it was not far away from iC 3 Our information about the amphitheater is far less precise; Josephus says only that it was located "in the plain."74 There is little to go on besides speculating about which plot of level ground he might have had in mind. One possibility is that he was referring to the relatively flat area north of today's Damascus Gate, just outside Jerusalem's Second Wall; alternatively, it has been suggested that the building was located southwest of the city, near the present-day Emeq Refa'im area of Jerusalem. An argument in favor of the former alternative is that the term "in the plain" appears again in Josephus' account,7S where it seems to refer to the northern part of the city. In any case, it is clear from the context that this is a topographical landmark contiguous with the city itself.16 We know absolutely nothing about the theater. Scholars have searched for traces of large-scale cavities that might indicate the location of the theater's 72. On the attitude of Jews to such Roman games and institutions in antiquity, see Weiss, "Adopting a Novelty," 23-49. 73. Josephus mentions the building in the context of the riots of 4 B.C.E.: One of the three groups of rebels stayed the night in the hippodrome before its surprise attack on the Temple in the morning. The other two groups were camped out just north of the Temple and to the west, near Herod's palace; see Ant. 17.10,2, 254-255. On hippodromes in Roman Palestine generally, see Humphrey, Roman Circuses, 529-533.

74. Ant. 15.8, 1,268. 75. War 2.1,3, 12. 76. In this light, suggestions that the reference is to the Jericho Plain, or even Sultan's Pool southwest of the city, should be rejected; see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 10 n. 18, and Kloner, "Hippodrome! Amphitheater," 75-86.

206

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

cavea, or seating section, following Greek tradition. A number of possible sites have been suggested, one to the south of the city in today's Abu-Tor neighborhood; and very recently, six stones-perhaps fragments of theater seats later reused in an Umayyad palace southwest of the Temple Mount-were discovered. It has been suggested that the building itself may have been located in close proximity to this palace, either to its north or south.77 The generally accepted theory, a position originally adopted by Avi-Yonah, posits that the theater was located in the Upper City. He was probably correct in opting for this alternative on the assumption that such an institution was intended primarily for the city's upper class and thus would have been accessible to their place of residence. From Josephus' description of these entertainment institutions, it seems that Herod had a dual purpose in establishing them in his capital: to introduce GrecoRoman culture into the city and to bring Jerusalem to the forefront of Roman cultural life in the East, placing it on an equal footing with other major Roman cities. As noted, Herod also allotted large sums of money for staging quadrennial games, in which famous athletes from allover took part and valuable prizes were awarded.

Funerary Remains 78 Herod concerned himself with the building of tombs for both his family and himself, as well as for some heroes of the past.79 The two most famous and impressive examples are located outside Jerusalem-Herod's own monumental mausoleum at Herodium and the impressive enclosure over the Machpelah Cave in Hebron that contained the remains of the biblical patriarchs and matriarchs. The former is well attested by Josephus,80 although Herod's tomb has not yet been found, despite intensive excavations at the site during the last three decades. Regarding the cave, however, while Josephus notes that the tombs of the patriarchs were known in his 77. Schick. "Herod's Amphitheater," 161-166, and R. Reich and Billig. "Excavations near the Temple Mount," 350--352, and, more fully, "AGroup of Theatre Seats," 175-184. The absence of archaeological finds, together with the fact that Josephus never refers to these buildings in his narrative of first-century C.E. Jerusalem, has led some scholars to the conclusion that these edifices never survived Herod's era. Either they were abandoned or dismantled, owing to Jewish opposition (see A. Segal. Theaters. 4) or they were originally made of wood and thus did not stand for a long time (see Patrich, "Herod's Theater"). Neither of these suggestions nor the basic assumption that the buildings ceased to exist seems warranted. 78. In this section, we discuss the funerary remains in Jerusalem generally, not just those of Herod. Barring a fortuitously explicit inscription, it is almost impossible to distinguish between the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. 79. On tombs in the Roman Empire generally, see MacDonald, Architecture, 144-167. 80, War 1.33,9,670--673, and Ant. 17.8,3, 196-199.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

207

Figure 47. The Herodian enclosure of the Machpelah Cave in Hebron. Excavations near the Temple wall in Jerusalem demonstrate that the same Herodian masonry techniques used there were also used to construct the enclosure wall of the tomb.

day and were decorated with "really fine marble and of exquisite workmanship,"81 he says no more than this and never mentions Herod in this context.82 The physical remains at the site are indeed impressive and strikingly similar in style and decoration with Herod's construction at the Temple Mount (Fig. 47). The rectangular enclosure (110 by 210 feet) consists of finely hewn ashlars with attached pilasters around the upper part of the exterior. The walls rise to a height of about 60 feet and enclose a large artificial platform built over the traditional site of the six cenotaphs, those of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Sarah, Leah, and Rebecca. 83 On the basis of the architectural similarity to the Temple Mount, there is little doubt that Herod erected this sacred enclosure in Hebron. 84 In regard to Jerusalem, Josephus notes that Herod organized an impressive funeral for his brother Pheroras: "He had the corpse conveyed to Jerusalem, gave orders for a solemn day of national mourning, and honored him with the most imposing funeral."85 It is most likely that Pheroras was indeed buried in the city, and this seems to be confrrmed by references to Herod's monument(s) elsewhere

81. War 4.9,7,532. 82. See also Jub. 36:21. 83. Vincent et aI., Hebron, passim, and Jacobson, "Plan of the Ancient Haram el-Khalil," 73-80. 84. There is also some evidence of a similar, though not as impressive, enclosure north of Hebron at the "Oak or Terebinth of Abraham" (Elanei Mamre). Again, the remains of walls provide the only evidence, although there, too, Josephus seems to allude to some sort of memorial to Abraham at the spot (War 4.9,7, 533). For some thoughts on Herod's possible motivation in constructing such memorials, see P. Richardson, Herod, 184. 85. War 1.29, 4, 581.

208

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Figure 48. The tomb of Herod's family.

in Josephus' account. 86 The location of a Herodian tomb west of the city is mentioned in connection with the Roman circumvallation wall of70 C.E.; it is said to be near the Serpents' Pool, which is undoubtedly to be identified with the Sultan's Pool west of Mount Zion, at the upper end of Hinnom Valley. This tomb, discovered in 1892 and identified as the tomb of Herod's family (located today next to the King David Hotel) may have had a monument rising above the cave, as did other Jerusalem tombs (Fig. 48). The foundations of what may well have been such a structure were found, as were some architectural fragments, including a large rolling stone used to seal the tomb's entrance. The walls of the entrance room are faced with well-cut ashlars, and four other chambers-three square and one rectangular-are arranged around it. Several stone sarcophagi were found inside. North of the city, about 270 yards northwest of the Damascus Gate, remains of an impressive round structure were rediscovered several decades ago (Fig. 49).87 Located on a small hill, elevated about 5 yards above its surroundings, this building boasted an inner as well as an outer circular wall, with diameters of 13 and 31 yards, respectively. Although the function of this building is unclear from the limited remains discovered, this type of round building was often used as a tomb or mausoleum,88 and the Roman building techniques used (opus reticulatum and concrete) can clearly be associated with Herod. As noted, opus reticulatum was a unique Roman style that Herod used in several of his projects at Jericho and Panias. 86. Ibid. , 5.3, 2, 108; 12,2,507. 87. Netzer and Ben-Arieh, "Remains of an Opus Reticulatum Building," 163-175, and Netzer, "Herod's Family Tomb," 52-55. The structure was first noted by Schick, "Herod's Amphitheater," 161-166. 88. As was the case with Augustus himself; see Toynbee, Death and Burial, 144.

209

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

Figure 49. A reconstruction of the

Figure 50. King David's tomb in the Upper

Herodian tomb north of the Damascus Gate. City (Holyland Hotel model).

The only other tomb associated with Herod in Jerusalem is that of King David, and the circumstances of Herod's construction there are unusual (Fig. 50). The king, desperate for money, had learned of John Hyrcanus' successful robbing of this tomb, which had reputedly netted him three thousand talents of silver. Herod broke into the tomb and, although he found no money, made off with gold ornaments and other valuables. But Herod's appetite was whetted: He was intent upon making a more careful search, penetrating farther and breaking open the coffins in which the bodies of David and Solomon lay. But as two of his bodyguards were destroyed, it is said, by a flame that met them as they entered, the king himself became frightened, and as a propitiation of the terror, he built at the entrance (of the tomb) a memorial of white marble, which was a huge expense. 89

The location of this tomb remains a mystery. David, of course, was buried in what became known as the City of David, at the southern end of Jerusalem's eastern ridge (l Kings 2: 10).90 At some point, however, his burial spot became associated (as it is today) with Mount Zion to the west; however, we do not know when this tradition crystallized as there is no hard evidence available. Avi-Yonah assumes it already existed in Herod's and Josephus' day, and thus reconstructed a monumental tomb on Mount Zion in the Holyland Hotel model. Murphy-O' Connor,91on the other hand, dates this tradition to the late tenth century C.E., even though it became 89. Ant. 16.7, 1, 181 - 182. 90. See Shanks, "Is This King David's Tomb?" 62-67. On other tombs in the City of David, see Chapter 9. 91. Murphy-O'Connor, Holy Land, 111.

210

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Figure 51. An ornate ossuary containing the bones of a sixty-year-old man (perhaps Caiaphas) and his family.

widely accepted only since the fifteenth century. In any case, the tomb was a well-known landmark by the first century C.E., as indicated by Peter's remark in Jerusalem: "My friends, nobody can deny that the patriarch David died and was buried; we have his tomb here to this very day" (Acts 2:29). Other than those noted above, we know of only a few tombs dating to the first century C.E. that can be identified with known figures.92 It is quite possible that the tomb of the High Priest Caiaphas and his family was discovered south of the city, in today's North Talpiyot neighborhood, although doubts have been raised as to this identification.93 The tomb had one room with four loculi (kukhim), each with an arched ceiling; the ossuaries inside were richly decorated with rosettes, and one had a fluted colurrm bearing a stylized Ionic capital. Identification of the tomb with this high priestly family is based on several inscriptions (altogether twelve were found), one of which reads: "Jehoseph son of Qafa (Caiaphas)" (Fig. 51).94 The tomb of Nicanor of Alexandria, a major donor to the Temple, was found on Mount Scopus at the tum of the twentieth century (Fig. 52). It contains a courtyard and porch within an eighteen-foot-wide fa~ade and a series of entrances into different burial caves. Both Josephus and rabbinic literature attest to the magnificent gate that Nicanor contributed to the Temple Court. The tomb was easily identified on the basis of a Greek inscription that not only names Nicanor and his Alexandrian origins but also describes his donation to the Temple. Below this inscription is another one in Hebrew or Aramaic that apparently names his two sons. 92. For a more detailed summary of these finds, in addition to an up-to-date bibliography, see NEAEHL, II:747-757. 93. See Horbury, " 'Caiaphas'Ossuaries," 32-48. 94. Greenhut, "Caiaphas Tomb," 219-222, and R. Reich, "Ossuary Inscriptions," 223-225.

211

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

Figure 52. Ossuaries found in Nicanor's

Figure 53. The Tomb of the Kings, north

tomb on Mount Scopus.

of Jerusalem.

The tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene and other members of the royal family was crowned with three pyramids and erected several hundred yards north of the city's Third Wall (see below) (Fig. 53).95 A monumental staircase descending about nine yards into a large courtyard (about thirty square yards) was created by the removal of some twenty thousand cubic meters of rock; a large decorated fa<;:ade fronted the porch, from which there was a single entrance into the tomb. The fa<;:ade was decorated with a Doric frieze depicting grapes, wreaths, and acanthus leaves. These monuments were so impressive that they served as landmarks in the city.96 This tomb has usually been identified with the Tomb of the Kings in east Jerusalem, north of the Old City. An Aramaic inscription found on a sarcophagus refers to "Saddan the Queen" and is usually taken as a reference to Helena's Aramaic name. The tomb is referred to by the secondcentury C.E. Pausanias, who praises the magnificence of her tomb together with that of King Mausolus of Halicamassus, the latter, of course, known as one of the seven wonders of the world: "I know many wonderful graves, and will mention two of them, the one at Halicarnassus and one in the land of the Hebrews.''97 Jerusalem is surrounded by funerary remains, primarily to the north and south, but there are also many to the east (on the Mount of Olives) and west as well (Fig. 54).98 Generally speaking, such remains constitute a large percentage of the archaeological finds from any ancient city, and Jerusalem is no exception. Because graves were usually placed outside the city walls, they were minimal95. Ant. 20.4, 3,95. 96. War 5.2,2, 55; 3, 3, 119; 4, 2, 147.

97. Description a/Greece 7, 16,5. 98. Rounding off the percentages, it would mean 39, 32, 16, and 12 percent, respectively. Numbers are based on Kloner, "Necropolis of Jerusalem." The westerly direction may have been least preferable, owing to its winds that might have carried the stench of decomposing bodies into the city, as well as the fact that the stone there was much too hard to be conveniently used for burial purposes.

212

Figure 54. The main burial sites around Jerusalem.

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

213

ly affected by the ravages of war. Furthermore, being located underground and in caves, they were likely to survive intact over the centuries. As was the case in the Hasmonean era, the city's burial remains from the first century C.E. offer clear evidence of Hellenistic-as opposed to Roman-influence. 99 Among the best known of these tombs are the monumental ones found in the Qidron Valley east of the city. The most impressive and most complete one is Absalom's tomb, standing about twenty-two yards high and comprising two parts-below, a square rock-cut structure decorated with Ionic columns, a Doric frieze, and an Egyptian cornice and, above, a round tho los crowned with a concave conical roof. Absalom's tomb, along with the nearby Zechariah's tomb, are typical of Hellenistic monuments throughout the Roman East (minus any statuary), some striking parallels of which are to be found at Petra in Jordan. Altogether, more than 900 cave tombs have been discovered within a radius of about three miles from the city. Most are small and simple, and half of them have courtyards. As noted in the examples cited earlier, the most characteristic feature of these tombs is the presence of loculi, which have been found in well over 450 caves, and approximately 100 of these tombs have arcosolia.

Water Supply and Installations One of the hallmarks of Roman civilization was the ample supply of water to the cities for use in fountains, baths, and sewage systems. Rome itself boasts no less than nine aqueducts, some originating as far as sixty miles away. While Rome's population of perhaps one million people was unique, the other main cities of the empire, such as Alexandria and Antioch, each boasting populations in the hundreds of thousands,lOo also required aqueducts; Frontius, for example, praised their usefulness in contrast to the monuments of Egypt and Greece. 101 The spectacular growth of Jerusalem during the last two centuries of the Second Temple period required a drastic improvement in the city's water supply system. With the population reaching five and then ten times its size during the Persian and Hellenistic eras (see Chapter 9), new sources of water and new modes of maximizing its conservation had to be found. The old methods relying on the Silwan spring to the east and several others south of the city, as well as the Birket el-Harnra pool at the outlet of the Tyropoeon Valley, were woefully inadequate in the face of the city's greatly increased numbers. Two major projects 99. On the different Roman-type tombs in Italy, see Hope, "Roof over the Dead," 69-88. 100. Diodorus 17,52; Strabo 16,2,5. 10 l. On the Aqueduct I, l.

214

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

<,""M!llhillab POll!

"'"",;1

I ~I Sltl"f)fl'lbl'o. Pool "

Figure 55. The reservoirs of Herodian Jerusalem.

were undertaken at this juncture to ensure an adequate water supply, not only for the city's burgeoning population but also for the large numbers of pilgrims who began frequenting the city on the festivals. One response was to maximize the conservation of the water by building a network of public reservoirs throughout the city, especially in its northern and western parts. These pools were usually strategically placed to catch the runoff rainwater or to take advantage of the aqueducts. 102 The following large-scale pools have been identified to date (Fig. 55): North of the Temple Mount • Birket Isra'il (the Pool of Israel), adjacent to the Temple Mount on the northeast and built at the same time, is the largest of Jerusalem's reservoirs, measuring 41 by 120 yards and up to 30 yards deep . • Bethesda Pool (the Sheep Pool) is actually a pair of large pools with five colonnades, probably identified with the Probatica mentioned in John 5:2-4. 102. Ma'oz, "Hasmonean and Herodian Town-Plan," 48-50, suggested that these reservoirs may have served the encampments of pilgrims who flocked to the city during festivals.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

215

• Struthion Pool, northwest of the Temple Mount, is a large pool later divided into two smaller ones; it is noted by Josephus in connection with the Antonia and Titus' siege. 103 West of the Temple Mouut

• Hezekiah's Pool (the Pool of the Towers) is called Amygdalon by Josephus and is located adjacent to the three towers.l04 • Mamillah Pool is located west of the today's Jaffa Gate. • Birket es-Sultan, southwest of Mount Zion, is probably to be identified with the Serpents' Pool. I05 South of the Temple Mount

• Birket el-Hamra is located near the junction of the Hinnom, Tyropoeon, and Qidron Valleys. • Solomon's Pool, east of the City of David, was located near the First (or Hasmonean) Wall, as noted by Josephus. 106 A second and complementary step involved providing Jerusalem with a greater supply of water. This was accomplished by the construction of an elaborate system of aqueducts and reservoirs south of Jerusalem, a region of higher elevation than the city itself. When the system was finally completed, it comprised four aqueducts of varying lengths and styles of construction, two leading to and two leading from three collection pools (Solomon's Pools), which were located south of Bethlehem. While opinions differ considerably as to how many stages are reflected in this fmal complex and to when they ought be dated, we follow A. Mazar's suggestion that there were three phases of development in the late Second Temple era. 107 The first phase was that of the Hasmoneans, under whose rule Jerusalem began its remarkable expansion. Since the Hasmoneans were building sophisticated aqueducts for their Judaean Desert fortresses, it stands to reason that they had the know-how to initiate such a project, which consisted of an aqueduct that ran from the lowest of Solomon's Pools to the Temple Mount (commonly referred to as the low-level aqueduct). This assumption is confirmed by the discovery of Hasmonean finds at various points along this course.108 The second phase dates to the time of Herod, who added not only the high-level aqueduct 103. War 5.11,4,467. 104. Ibid., 5.11, 4, 468. 105. Ibid., 5.3, 2, 108. 106. Ibid., 5.4, 2, 145. 107. See NEAEHL, II:746-747, and A. Mazar, "Survey of the Aqueducts," 187-189. 108. Amit, "New Data," 22-23.

216

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

that ran from the upper pools to the Upper City but also a conduit from Wadi Biyar, farther southwest, to Solomon's Pools. The former project has been confirmed by recent Herodian finds along this aqueduct and on the basis of the striking similarity between the Biyar extension and Herod's Caesarea aqueduct. Finally, Pontius Pilate, whom Josephus reports as having extended the aqueduct,I09 appears to have completed the system by adding a long conduit from 'En 'Arub farther south to the pools. 110 The technical skills involved in these endeavors were substantial. Parts of the conduit were cut into rock, others passed over raised ducts made of stone and cement and were plastered for waterproofing, while some parts were cut underground. At certain points, tunnels were cut into the rock to navigate a ridge or hill. In all instances, the gradient was practically negligible. From the lowest of Solomon's pools to the Temple Mount is a drop of 32.5 yards, yet the distance traveled by the aqueduct is fifteen miles. This is similar to the conduit from 'En 'Arub, whose drop is only 50 yards but its extent is almost fifty miles. The above-noted projects are undoubtedly far from exhaustive of Herod's actual building endeavors in Jerusalem, but they are certainly among the most impressive and salient. Other public edifices were probably erected by the king during his thirty-three-year reign, but our sources are silent in this regard. II I As noted, Herod's penchant for building public and private buildings and demonstrating his generosity was characteristic of other rulers as well during this period. Client kings built cities, institutions, and monuments to glorify themselves, benefit their subjects, and pay homage to Rome.112 By any measure, Herod succeeded in architecturally reshaping Jerusalem into a Greco-Roman polis. Writing in the second century C.E., Pausanius ll3 declared that there could be no polis, or true Greek city, without the following: public buildings, gymnasium, theater, agora, and water fountains. By these criteria, Herodian Jerusalem easily qualified. I 14 And if another indication of a Roman city lay in its monumental and large-scale buildings, then here, too, Herod's capital boasted impressive and diverse edifices. 109. War 2.9,4, 175, and Ant. 18.3,2,60. A serious discrepancy exists in Josephus'accounts. In War he speaks about an aqueduct four hundred furlongs in length; in Antiquities, it is two hundred furlongs (about twenty-five and thirteen miles, respectively).

110. Later on, after the destruction of the Temple, the soldiers of the Tenth Legion did a great deal of repair work on the high-level aqueduct. Tiles imprinted with the legion's name were used in these repairs. 111. For example, there can be little doubt that Herod was also responsible for the agora located near his palace, but this site is mentioned only two generations later in the context of events in the middle first century C.E. (see below). 112. Another such complex was built by Herod in Sebaste north of Jerusalem; see Barag, "King Herod's Royal Castle," 3-18. 113. See 10, 4. 114. On the Xystus (possibly a gymnasium) in first-century Jerusalem, probably dating earlier, see Chapter 9.

THE URBAN LANDSCAPE

217

We have had occasion to compare Herod's building projects with those of Augustus. According to Suetonius,ll5 the emperor is to be credited with the rebuilding of his city, and during his reign, through his and others efforts, Rome was graced with fortifications, temples, forums, basilicas, porticoes, triumphal arches, theaters, roads, and more. "He found the city built of brick and left it in marble."116 Augustus' proclamation, quoted by Suetonius in this context, undoubtedly reflects Herod's sentiments as well: "May it be my privilege to establish the state in a firm and secure position, and reap from that act the fruit I desire; but only if I may be called the author of the best possible government, and bear with me the hope when I die that the foundations which I have laid for the state will remain unshaken."lI7 Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between Herod's and Augustus' efforts in this regard. For all of Augustus' investment in Rome, for which he received ample credit by contemporary and later writers, he was joined in such initiatives by other wealthy Romans; he was far from alone in his desire and ability to undertake such projects. Herod, in contrast, in the tradition of absolutist Hellenistic monarchs, seems to have acted alone as a public benefactor; we have yet to learn of similar undertakings in the public sphere by other Jerusalernites. To fully appreciate Herod's achievements in this realm, in both his own and others' eyes, one must address the piece de resistance of his architectural careerthe building of the Temple in Jerusalem. It is to this monumental undertaking that we now turn.

115. Augustus 28-30. 116. Ibid., 28. 117. Ibid.

219

Chapter 6

The Temple and Temple Mount

The rebuilding of the Temple and Temple Mount was a project of unparalleled size and magnificence, constituting the crowning jewel of Herod's reign. All sources describing this complex agree that it was an extremely impressive edifice; Josephus concurs with Herod's assessment: "For he (Herod) believed that the accomplishment of this task would be the most notable of all the things achieved by him, as indeed it was, and would be great enough to assure his eternal remembrance."! Even rabbinic literature, which usually either ignores or disparages Herod, is most complimentary about his undertaking: "Whoever has not seen Herod's building (i.e., the Temple) has not seen a beautiful building in his life" (Fig. 56).2 Popular imagination had conjured an aura of sanctity around the construction of the Temple, conferring on it a divine hand that facilitated the project. Both rabbinic literature and Josephus cite essentially the same tradition in this respect. The former preserves the following: "And thus we have from the days of Herod, that when they were constructing the Temple, rains would fall at night. On the morrow, the winds would blow and disperse the clouds and the sun would shine and the people would proceed with their work, and they knew that they were doing God's work."3 In the same vein, Josephus writes: "And it is said that dur1. Ant. 15.11, 1,380. 2. B Bava Batra 4a. Josephus reports that Titus himself commented on the magnificence of the Temple when, on the eve of the final battle over the Temple Mount, the Romans debated whether or not to destroy the building. TItus supposedly said that he would not destroy the building "nor under any circumstances burn down so magnificent a work" (War 6.4,3,241). However, this statement may well have been a Josephan invention; we have a contradictory report from Sulpicius Severus (presumably quoting Tacitus) that Titus himself ordered the Temple's destruction. See GLAJJ, II: 64-67; Schiirer, History, 1:506 n. 115; and Alon, Jews, Judaism, 252-268. 3. B Ta 'anit 23a.

220

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Figure 56. A reconstructed view of the Temple Mount and its vicinity.

ing the time when the Temple was being built, no rain fell during the day, but only at night, so that there was no interruption of the work. And this story, which our fathers have handed down to us, is not at all incredible if, that is, one considers the other manifestations of power given by God. "4 Herod marked the auspiciousness of his undertaking in a most dramatic way. Assembling the people of Jerusalem, he announced his intentions to them: So far as the other things achieved during my reign are concerned, my countrymen, I consider it unnecessary to speak of them, although they were of such a kind that the prestige which comes from them to me is less than the security which they have brought to you. For in the most difficult situations I have not been unmindful of the things that might benefit you in your need, nor have I in my building been more intent upon my own invulnerability than upon that of all of you, and I think I have, by the will of God, brought the Jewish nation to such a state of prosperity as it has never known before.s Now as for the various buildings which we have erected in our country and in the cities of our land and in those of acquired territories, with which, as the most beautiful adornment, we have embellished our nation, it seems to me quite needless to speak of them to you, knowing them as you do. But that the enterprise which I now propose to undertake is the most pious and beautiful one of our time I will now make clear.

4. Ant. 15.11,7,425. 5. Some have detected messianic overtones in this and other statements and actions of Herod; see Schalit, Konig Herodes, 450-482 (Hebrew ed., 223-239), and Horbury, "Herod's Temple," 111-113.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

221

For this was the Temple which our fathers built to the Most Great God after their return from Babylon, but it lacks sixty cubits [over thirty yards] in height, the amount by which the first Temple, built by Solomon, exceeded it. And yet no one should condemn the fathers for neglecting their pious duty, for it was not their fault that this Temple is smaller. Rather it was Cyrus and Darius, the son of Hystaspes, who prescribed these dimensions for building, and since our fathers were subject to them and their descendants and after them to the Macedonians, they had no opportunity to restore this first archetype of piety to its former size. But since, by the will of God, I am now ruler and there continues to be a long period of peace and an abundance of wealth and great revenues, and-what is of most importance-the Romans, who are, so to speak, the masters of the world, are loyal friends, I will try to remedy the oversight caused by the necessity and sUbjection of that earlier time, and by this act of piety (eusebeia) make full return to God for the gift of this kingdom. 6 This speech contains a number of fascinating elements.? First, of course, is Herod's rehearsal of his accomplishments up to that moment, something that one would have expected of a leader on the verge of a major decision that, at best, might prove inconvenient (if not burdensome)8 to the people and, at worst, be highly objectionable. Herod wished to bring to fruition a hope among some circles of restoring earlier glories and even surpassing them with a more imposing structure.9 Second, the king is careful to emphasize that his past achievements were no less for the good of the people than for his own glory, the people's interests being a prime consideration in his plans and calculations. Moreover, he notes on several occasions that whatever he had accomplished in the past was, in fact, the will of God; it is He who had protected Herod, and the latter is now repaying this benefaction by building a magnificent Temple.\O Such statements were certainly shrewd political calculations, but there is no reason to doubt that Herod believed that his rule was divinely ordained and sanctioned. ll The inclusion of such statements in this particular speech served to reinforce the image of piety that 6. Ant. 15.11,1,382-387. 7. It is difficult to assess the authenticity of this speech. If this is what Herod actually said, it would mean that Josephus found a version or detailed summary of it in Nicholas' writings or in some archive (perhaps he had heard an oral version of it from his days in Jerusalem); if this had been invented by him a century later, when in Rome (a well-known practice among ancient historians), it seems likely that he would have striven to be as faithful as possible to the spirit, if not the precise wording, of what had been said. 8. Although Josephus clearly states that Herod intended to fund this project by himself (Ant. 15.11, I, 380), elsewhere he notes that monies were also taken from public coffers (War 5.5, I, 187). 9. 1 Enoch 90:29. See also Sibylline Oracles 5, 420-428. 10. Ant. 15.11, 1,387.

11. See, e.g., the story of Manaemus the Essene predicting his ascension to the throne as God's will (Ant. 15.10, 5, 373-375).

222

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

he wished to convey and of which he would have wanted his listeners to be fully cognizant. Herod's mention of Roman support as well as the peace that now prevailed in the kingdom, along with the prosperity enjoyed by all (repeated twice), were clearly intended to bolster public endorsement of his ambitious plans. Herod may well have viewed this project as a way to neutralize some of the harsh criticism being leveled against him from various quarters. 12 In justifying his usurpation of the Hasmonean dynasty, he could point to the fact that he was doing something that his predecessors had been unable to accomplish: "[H]e recounted all his strenuous efforts on their behalf, and told them at what great expense to himself he had constructed the Temple, whereas the Hasmoneans had been unable to do anything so great for the honor of God in the 125 years of their reign."13 Herod's repeated assertion that he enjoys God's blessing is an important claim, especially in the face of detractors, who may have pointed to his common as well as non-Jewish origins. 14 In addition, by investing vast resources in building the Temple, Herod would be defusing an accusation used against him later on, and quite probably in his day as well, that he was lavishing too much money on pagan cities and not enough on his Jewish subjects. 15 Herod's stated pretext for rebuilding the Temple may not be far off the mark. It was undoubtedly politically and religiously astute to claim that all he intended to do was restore past glories, in this case Solomon's. It will be remembered that the Hasmoneans or their supporters (e.g., the author of 1 Maccabees) had done the same thing a century earlier. This, in fact, was also claimed by Augustus, who speaks of restoring many buildings in Rome, including eighty-two temples as well as Julius Caesar's forum and basilica. 16 Of course, Herod was quick to remind his listeners of the fact that the Temple's diminished edifice for the past five hundred years was no one's fault but the Persians' and the Macedonians'. As might be expected, Herod deftly ignored the Hasmoneans. The truth is, however, that Herod did not merely restore Solomon's Temple but built an even larger one with a somewhat different plan; this, of course, does 12. See Mendels, Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism, 286-287; P. Richardson, Herod, 191-195; and Horbury, "Herod's Temple," 118-120. 13. Ant. 17.6,3,161-162.

14. Ibid., 14.15,2,403; 16,4,491. 15. Ibid., 16.5,4,159; 17.11,2,306; 19.7,3,328-329. 16. In Res Gestae 20; on the temples that Augustus claims to have restored, he writes: "During my sixth consulate, by order of the Senate, I restored 82 temples of the gods in Rome and did not omit a single one which was at that time in need ofrenewal." The importance of temple restoration is poignantly articulated by Horace (Odes 3, 6): "You will pay, Romans, through no fault of yours for the sins of your ancestors, until you have restored the temples and crumbling houses of the gods, and their images marred by the black filth of incense. By humbling yourself before the gods, you rule; with the gods all things begin, and they bring all to an end; neglect of the gods has brought much evil and suffering to Italy." On such restoration in Pompeii, see Zanker, Pompeii, 78-80.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

223

not include the larger Temple Mount area that was an entirely new creation, both conceptually and monumentally. Thus to claim restoration was not only politically safe but also a clever way of legitimizing his grandiose plans. Given the large-scale sacred areas, or temene, that existed throughout the East by the flrst century C.E., and given the temple building throughout the Hellenistic world and in Rome itself at the time, such a project was all too natural for someone such as Herod to have undertaken at some point in his career. Owing to the extreme sensitivity with respect to everything associated with the building of the Temple, especially the thought that the old ediflce might be torn down and not replaced due to the lack of funds, Herod took all possible precautions to ensure widespread support among the populace at large no less than among the priestly leadership. He promised to have all the materials required for the new building in place before the old one was destroyed. He also prepared one thousand wagons and ten thousand skilled workers in advance, and had one thousand priests trained as masons and carpenters so that the actual work on the Temple would be done by them and not by nonpriests who were forbidden to enter this sacred area. Construction of the Temple itself lasted eighteen months, and upon its completion (18 B.C.E.) the king organized lavish festivities.17 Before entering into a more detailed discussion of the Temple and Temple Mount, it is necessary to address a problem encountered when trying to visualize the particulars of the Temple Mount and the Temple itself. The fact that there is no scarcity of sources regarding this complex creates a most unusual situation. In the study of antiquity, the opposite is usually the case, as historians regularly bemoan the dearth of material at their disposal. Although a number of sources describe the physical dimensions of this building complex, the contradictions among them are many and far from trivial. Detailed descriptions of the Temple and Temple Mount area are found primarily in Josephus' War and Antiquities, and in Mishnah Middot, while the archaeological data, as far as it exists, adds concrete information about the western and southern areas of the Temple Mount.'8 The discrepancies among the sources touch on nearly every aspect of the Temple complex: the number of gates leading to the Temple Mount and its outer precincts, the circumference of the Temple Mount, the dimensions of the gates leading into the Temple courts, the size of the stones that were used in construction, and many other details. For example, both literary sources and archae17. Ant. 15.11,2,388-390; 6, 421-423. It is interesting to contrast Herod's initiation and execution ofthis project with the Greek efforts in building the temple at Delphi a number of centuries earlier; see J. K. Davies, "Rebuilding a Temple," 209-229. 18. For a very general description of the Temple Mount, see Philo, Special Laws 1,71-75.

224

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

ological remains address the dimensions of the Temple Mount. M Middot 19 notes that the Temple Mount had a circumference of five hundred cubits, which is roughly the equivalent of 1,048 yards, whereas Josephus records four stades (more than 800 yards)20 and six stades (more than 1,200 yards).21 To further complicate matters, the total circumference of the Temple Mount on the basis of archaeological finds is more than 1,600 yards-considerably greater than what is recorded in any of the written sources. Moreover, not only are there factual contradictions between Josephus, the Mishnah, and archaeology but differences also exist within Josephus' writings and even in tractate Middot itself. Many solutions have been offered, though very few have addressed the entire range of discrepancies. Usually it has been a matter of harmonizing Josephus with the Mishnah (ignoring, for the most part, the internal contradictions within each), although frequently one source (usually Josephus) has been credited as being more reliable than another. Of late, a widespread approach has been to assume that the different sources relate to different time periods, the Mishnah usually being ascribed to a pre-Herodian era. Based on the following considerations, we suggest a somewhat different approach that resolves most, if not all, of the issues involved:22 • Archaeological evidence, when available, takes precedence regarding the Temple in its final middle first-century C.E. stage. • War describes the Temple as Titus viewed it when approaching the city in the spring of 70 C.E. It is precisely at this point in the War account that the historian introduces his detailed survey of Jerusalem, with its special emphasis on the Temple. • The Antiquities narrative is introduced when Josephus describes Herod's original construction in 20/19 B.C.E. and probably reflects this initial stage. • An array of sources attests that the Temple and Temple Mount underwent ongoing construction, including repairs and modifications, over a period of decades: the New Testament (forty-six years, according to John 2:20), rabbinic literature (about sixty years),23 and Antiquities (more than eighty years, until its completion in 64 C.E.).24 19. 20. 21. 22.

At 2,1. Ant. 15, 11, 3,400. War 5.5,2, 192. For a more detailed presentation of these difficulties, see Levine, "Josephus' Description of the Jerusalem Temple," 233-246. 23. At the time ofR. Gamaliel the Elder, who flourished ca. 25-50 C.E., according toT Shabbat 13, 2 (ed. Lieberman, 57). 24. Ant. 20.9,7,219.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

225

Antiquities further informs us that at this time eighteen thousand people became unemployed. 25 • The differences between Antiquities and War may be best explained in light of the repairs, renovations, and additions made over the eightyyear period between the initial construction described in Antiquities26 and the complex's fmal completion described in War. 27 • A substantial portion of tractate Middot is in accord with War, and thus seems to reflect the last years of the Second Temple period. If these assumptions are accepted, one ought to be cautious when speaking of "Herod's Temple" or "The Temple Mount" generally. Literary and archaeological sources in this regard bespeak a complex that underwent a long series of substantial modifications. While relatively few of these changes seem to have affected the Temple building itself, the Temple courtyards and the Temple Mount area were continuously being renovated in the post-Herodian era. However, even here caution must be exercised; such an impression is based largely on the relative paucity of sources regarding the Temple edifice itself. A further comment is in order regarding the dating of this project, which itself is a perplexing issue owing to a contradiction between War and Antiquities. 28 Josephus, in fact, offers two dates for the beginning of construction: War 9 states that it began in the fifteenth year of the king's reign, whereas AntiquitieSJo reports its commencement in the king's eighteenth year. How, then, does one reconcile this contradictory chronology? A rather straightforward solution adopted by a number of scholars maintains that Josephus used two different dating systems, one that reckons the years of Herod's reign from the time of his coronation in Rome in 40 B.C.E.; the other, from his conquest of Jerusalem in 37, when he became king de facto. Both sources would then agree that the building activity commenced in 23/22.31 The problem, however, is compounded by the fact that in Antiquities, Josephus seems to use the year 37-not 4O---for his chronology. He notes at the outset of his description of the Temple: "And it was at this time, in the eighteenth 25. One of the reasons for these continual repairs is that parts of the complex were destroyed in the violent confrontations that broke out from time to time between Jews and Romans; see, e.g., Antiquities 17.10,2-3,261-268. 26. See 15.11,3-7,391-425. 27. See 5.5,1-7,184-237. 28. See the comments of D. R. Schwartz, "Richardson's Herod' (review), 349-350. 29. War 1.21, 1,401. 30. Ant. 15.11, 1,380. 31. See P. Richardson, Herod, 238; presumably Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 91, also came to this conclusion.

226

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

year of his reign, after the events mentioned above";32 correspondingly, the events mentioned beforehand are introduced with the statement, "And when Herod had completed the seventeenth year of his reign, Caesar came to Syria."33 The Roman historian Dio Cassius 34 informs us that Augustus came to Syria in 20 B.C.E., thus not only confirming Josephus' account but also the fact that Antiquities uses the year 37 as the basis for its chronology. The emperor's arrival in Syria therefore coincided with Herod's seventeenth year. Thus one cannot simply harmonize the contradictory dates recorded in War and Antiquities by assuming two different eras; the former refers to 23/22/5 the latter clearly points to 20/19. 36 One is left, then, to choose which of the two accounts seems preferable. In such cases, Antiquities most often has the upper hand, as Josephus seems to be much more concerned there to place events in their proper chronological sequence, something rarely done in War's discussion of Herod's career.3? The only remaining way to validate both dates-an approach adopted by quite a few scholars-is to assume that War refers to the king's festive announcement of his plans and the beginning of preparations, whereas Antiquities speaks of the actual commencement of construction. 38

The Temple Mount: PhYSical Dimensions and Functions Herod's construction plans were indeed ambitious and far reaching.39 Josephus' description of what was involved in building the artificial platform gives us an inkling of the massiveness of this undertaking: 32. Ant. 15.11, 1,380. 33. Ibid., 15.10,2, 354. 34. See Dio Cassius 54, 7, 6.

35. There is no reason to assume that War uses a chronology beginning in 40. This would not only complicate matters further vis-a-vis Antiquities but utterly contradict the chronological framework that Josephus used in the latter work. 36. The only way to get around this dilemma is to assert that Josephus used two different chronologies in relating two consecutive events in Antiquities, which he explicitly linked together as happening in the same year. This is theoretically possible but would require demonstrating the historian's sloppiness in such matters, which seems somewhat far fetched in this case. 37. An ancillary argument in favor of the later date is that Herod began his other mammoth project of rebuilding Caesarea in 22; to undertake two such initiatives at one and the same time might have proven too burdensome, even for someone as ambitious as Herod. 38. This, of course, is not what Josephus says in War. Schiirer, History, 1:292, refers to both options: (I) preferring Antiquities and (2) assuming three years of preparation following the War account. He therefore dates the actual start of construction to 20/19. Schalit, Konig Herodes, 372-373 (Hebrew ed., 194,461 n. 744), simply considers the War date wrong; and Roller, Building Program, 176, opts for the preparation alternative. 39. The most useful surveys of the Temple Mount are Hollis, Archaeology of Herod's Temple; Simons, lerusalem in the Old Testament; Schalit, Konig Herodes, 372-397 (Hebrew ed., 194-206); B. Mazar, Mountain of the Lord; Foerster, "Art and Architecture," 977-984; K. Ritrneyer and L. Ritmeyer, "Reconstructing Herod's Temple Mount"; L. Ritmeyer, Temple and the Rock; and Bahat, "Herodian Temple," 38-58. See also Adna, lerusalemer Tempe~ 3-31.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

227

Though the Temple, as I have said, was seated on a strong hill, the level area on its summit originally barely sufficed for shrine and altar, the ground around it being precipitous and steep. But King Solomon, the actual founder of the Temple, having walled up the eastern side, a single portico was reared on this made ground; on its other sides the sanctuary remained exposed. 40 In (the) course of ages, however, through the constant additions of the people to the embankment, the hill-top by this process of leveling up was widened. They further broke down the north wall and thus took in an area as large as the whole Temple enclosure subsequently occupied. Then, after having enclosed the hill from its base with a wall on three sides, and accomplished a task greater than they could ever have hoped to achieve-a task upon which long ages were spent by them as well as all their sacred treasures, though replenished by the tributes offered to God from every quarter of the world-they built around the original block the upper courts and the lower Temple enclosure. The latter, where its foundations were lowest, they built up from a depth of three hundred cubits; at some spots this figure was exceeded. The whole depth of the foundations was, however, not apparent; for they filled up a considerable part of the ravines, wishing to level the narrow alleys of the town. Blocks of stone were used in the building measuring forty cubits; for lavish funds and popular enthusiasm led to incredible enterprises, and a task seemingly interminable was through perseverance and in time actually achieved.41

Elsewhere, Josephus tells us that Herod doubled the size of the Temple Mount42 and, as noted, prepared a thousand wagons, ten thousand skilled workmen, and a thousand trained priests to carry out these tasks. 43 Archaeological remains amply confirm the monumental nature of this project; Herod increased the area of the Temple Mount by extending it to the south, west, and north;44 only the eastern side, associated with King Solomon's structure, remained in place. When building this massive artificial platform, Herod defied topographical considerations, as elsewhere (e.g., Masada, Herodium, Caesarea). For example, the western wall of the Temple Mount precinct (referred to today as the Western Wall) was, in fact, built westward, across the Tyropoeon Valley, and extended 40. In the parallel account in Ant. 15.11,3,398, Solomon is credited with "great works" and, depending how one punctuates the remainder of the sentence, perhaps much more. Nevertheless, it is clear that whatever credit was given to Solomon, it is Herod himself who is the subject of Josephus' subsequent account (ibid., 399--402). See Hollis, Archaeology of Herod's Temple, 110. 41. War 5.5, 1, 184-189.

42. Ibid., 1.21, 1,401. 43. Ant. 15.11, 1,390. 44. The clearest indication of this expansion is evident on the eastern side of the Temple Mount enclosure, where a "seam" was found some thirty-five yards north of the southeastern corner. North of the seam, the wall is built in a typically Hellenistic style (though there are some who would date it to the Persian era), and south of it in a characteristically Herodian one.

228

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

some thirty-five yards up the eastern slope of the Upper City. On the northern side, the Temple Mount's enclosure was placed on the farther side of Wadi Bezetha (also known as St. Anne's Valley), on the southern slope of the adjacent hill, while to the southeast, the very steep incline of the mountain compelled Herod's architects to build a retaining wall of enormous height. The pressure on these walls created by this difficult topography required a creative solution. Herod used vaults to alleviate the pressure on the exterior enclosure. Some of the stones used here, as well as along the western side, were generally between one and a half and three and a half yards long- and in one case fifteen yards long, one to two yards high-and weighed as much as 120 tons-and in a few cases, even more than 600 tons. 45 The artificial platform (i.e., the Temple Mount) covered over thirty-five acres in a somewhat irregular shape and measured 1,620 feet on the west, 1,050 feet on the north, 1,550 feet on the east, and 930 feet on the south. 46 Extensive excavations along the western and southern walls have revealed the enormous dimensions of the Temple Mount platform. Since the middle of the nineteenth century, archaeologists have been aware of the fact that most of the outer wall of the Temple Mount remained buried underground; during the Six Day War in 1967, only two courses of the Temple Mount wall were visible. Since then, several sections of this wall have been fully exposed-nineteen courses near the southwestern comer of the Temple Mount. One can now appreciate the full magnitude of Herod's undertaking. 47 Remains of a monumental arch, situated about fourteen yards north of the southwestern comer of the Western Wall, were identified by the nineteenth-century American scholar E. Robinson as part of Herod's construction (Fig. 57). It was once assumed that this arch had supported a bridge connecting the Temple Mount with the Upper City. Further excavations revealed the remains of a huge pier that had once supported the western end of the arch. However, nothing else has been discovered to indicate the continuation of this "bridge" westward. On the contrary, a series of smaller arches descending southward was found, which together apparently supported a staircase, of which several steps have survived intact. Thus it became clear that there never was a bridge here but rather a monumental staircase connecting the Tyropoeon Valley and the Temple Mount that functioned as a main entrance to the basilica along the southern part of the Temple Mount. 45. Bahat, "Herodian Temple," 44--46. 46. These figures follow B. Mazar, Mountain of the Lord, 119. Slightly different numbers are offered in EJ, XV:964: west, 1,590 feet; north, 1,025 feet; east, 1,520 feet; and south, 915 feet. See also K. Ritmeyer and L. Ritmeyer, "Reconstructing Herod's Temple Mount," 23-42. 47. See Ben-Dov, In the Shadow, 73-147, and NEAEHL, 11:736-743. On Hellenistic-Roman influences on the architectural plan of the Temple Mount, see Chapter 7.

229

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

Figure 57. The staircase near Robinson's

Figure 58. Inscription found on a stone in

Arch at the southwestern corner of the

the southwestern corner of the Temple

Temple Mount.

Mount excavations; it reads:"Bet Ha-teqi'ah" (House ofTrumpeting).lnsert:The priest blowing a trumpet from the roof of the southwestern corner of the Temple Mount.

It is at this very spot, at the base of the southwestern comer of the Temple Mount, that a remarkable Hebrew inscription was found: ''The place (lit., house) of trumpeting to announce" (Fig. 58). The stone block on which this inscription was incised had evidently fallen from the top of the wall in this comer of the Temple Mount. In describing the internal warfare among the rebels in Jerusalem, Josephus tells of a tower that was built "at a point where it was the custom for one of the priests to stand and to give notice, by sound of trumpet, in the afternoon of the approach, and on the following evening, at the close of every seventh day, announcing to the people the respective hours for ceasing work and for resuming their labors."48 This inscription apparently marked the spot where the priest stood when making these announcements. The main entrances to the Temple Mount were from the west and south. To the best of our knowledge there was no gate to the east, which was the direction of the Qidron Valley and thus relatively inaccessible-unless we assume that there was an earlier gate under the medieval Golden Gate (Sha 'ar Ha-Rahamim).49 The

48. War 4.9, 12,582. 49. The whereabouts of the eastern Shushan Gate mentioned in M Middot I, 3 remains a mystery. It may have been an inner gate or have reflected an earlier period, or have been located under the Golden Gate or it may have been an entirely imaginary one. Whatever the case, several rabbinic sources

230

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

northern entrance(s) remain a mystery. No archaeological evidence is available, and the Mishnah's description is enigmatic.50 Archaeological finds confirm Josephus' description, according to which there were four gates on the western side. One gate (that above Wilson's Arch, north oftoday's Western Wall plaza) was located at the end of a bridge connecting the Temple Mount and the Upper City and presumably was used by priests who lived in the Upper City; this gate led into the Temple courts. The gate at Robinson's Arch, noted above, led into the basilica from the southwestern comer of the Mount below, one of the main intersections of the city. The two other western gates, which are named after two nineteenthcentury archaeologists, Warren and Barclay, were located on the Herodian street level and gave access to the Temple Mount. Finally, there were the two Huldah Gates on the southern side of the Temple Mount; these were named after the biblical prophetess who may have been buried in the vicinity.51 The southern entrances to the Temple Mount are of particular interest, as they apparently were the principal entrance and exit for those entering or leaving the Temple area (Fig. 59). In fact, an underground passageway leading toward the Temple courtyards has been found inside the western Huldah Gate. With its huge columns, high ceilings, and elaborately decorated stone domes, it was indeed an architectural masterpiece in its own right. Since the requirements for ritual purity on entering the Temple precincts appear to have been scrupulously observed, the entrance to the eastern Huldah Gate (the western gate, with its monumental staircase, was used by those leaving the Temple area)52 offered a last opportunity for people to purify themselves (if they had not done so beforehand). 53 assume the existence of a gate to the east transversing the Qidron Valley via a bridge and used in the Red Heifer ceremony (M Middot I, 3; M Parah 3,6). Nothing is known about the gate used in the Scapegoat ceremony on Yom Kippur that was probably located on the eastern side of the Temple Mount as well. On the eastern wall and its gates, see Hollis, Archaeology of Herod's Temple, 37-58. A similar problem existed regarding a western gate, called the Qiponos Gate (M Middot 1, 3), presumably after the first Roman prefect Coponius. Could the Mishnah have confused this gate with the one that Herod named after Agrippa (War 1.21, 8, 416)? On the number of gates west of Herod's temenos, see immediately below. 50. The Mishnah refers to a gate in the north as the Tadi Gate (the origin of the name is unknown); it generally was not used (except by an exiting impure priest who reached the gate via an underground tunnel) and consisted of two stones leaning against one another (M Middot I, 3, 9; 2, 3). Kaufman, Temple of Jerusalem., 61-63, proposes reading taleh (sheep) and suggests that this was the Second Temple Sheeps'Gate (Neh. 3:1,32; John 5:2). 51. This assumption is made by Avi-Yonah, who placed a funerary monument for her near the southern gates at the Second Temple Holyland Hotel model in Jerusalem. He bases this suggestion on the fact that Huldah's tomb is mentioned in rabbinic literature as being located in biblical Jerusalem (i.e., the City of David) and near the Qidron Valley (T Bava Batra I, 11 led. Lieberman, 131]). When taken together with the name of the gates, as mentioned in the Mishnah, he assumed that the tomb was nearby. 52. On the use of stairs in Roman architecture, see MacDonald, Architecture, 66-73. 53. An indication of the direction of this flow of traffic is evidenced by the monumental staircase outside the western Huldah Gate for those who were exiting the Temple at one and the same time, i.e., when the ceremonies or festivities came to an end. On the eastern side, which was used for entry, there was

231

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

Figure 59. The southern passageway

Figure 60. The monumental steps south of the

of the western Huldah Gate, which

Temple Mount appears on the left; a smaller

leads to the Temple courtyards.

staircase, on the right.

Given the fact that it was heavily trafficked by those coming to the Temple precincts, the southern area was also used for religious and judicial purposes. One of the appellate courts of Jerusalem convened there. In several early rabbinic sources54 we read that if someone wished to appeal a verdict in his hometown, he would first tum to the court that sat "atop the steps leading to the Temple Mount." The precise site of this court is unknown, but clearly it was located in the area of the Huldah Gates (Fig. 60). B. Mazar speculates that the Hebrew word "zeqenim" (elders) may be referred to in several fragmentary inscriptions (one found in the nineteenth century and the other in his Temple Mount excavations, both near the eastern Huldah Gate) and may possibly designate members of this court. 55 However, this reading is speculative. Second, we read about the Pharisaic leader R. Gamaliel the Elder who would sit with his colleagues on these steps and issue letters to various regions in Judaea and the eastern Diaspora, informing the people of these regions about when tithes should be paid, when sabbatical year laws were to be observed, and when to intercalate a given year with an additional month. 56

no need for a wide staircase, as people arrived intermittently and would not have stopped to congregate and socialize on their way in. The interpretation of these archaeological finds accords well with M Middot's statement regarding the flow of traffic onto the Temple Mount: "They entered from the right and exited to the left" (2, 2). 54. T Hagigah 2, 9 (ed. Lieberman, 383), and T Sanhedrin 7, I (ed. Zuckermandel, 425). 55. B Mazar, Mountain of the Lord, 146--148. 56. T Sanhedrin 2, 6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 416).

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

232

Figure 61. The Caesareum

at Cyrene.

It has been convincingly demonstrated that Herod was following a wellknown Hellenistic architectural model, adapted under Rome, when conceptualizing the Temple Mount as a whole (Fig. 61).57 The model called for an artificial platform surrounded on three sides by porticoes and on the fourth by a basilica (royal stoa, from the Greek "basileos," meaning "king"). In such complexes, a temple stood in the center or, at times, off to one side. Such sacred precincts, or temene, were found throughout the East, North Africa, Asia Minor, and especially Syria. The temples of Jupiter in Damascus and of Bel in Palmyra have been relatively well preserved, both offering an idea of what such a setting might have looked like. Herod, however, constructed his platform and buildings on a far grander and more elaborate scale than did his contemporaries.58 Those entering the Temple Mount found themselves surrounded on three sides by porticoes, about thirty feet high, and on the fourth by an immense basilica hall, the largest known in the East at the time. It is probably these buildings that were decorated with the barbarian and Nabataean spoils donated by Herod. 59 This entire area, i.e., the Temple Mount exclusive of the sacred Temple precincts, functioned 57. See Ward-Perkins and Ballance, "Caesareum at Cyrene," 186: "There, in epitome, is the story of the transition from the architecture of the Hellenistic Age to that of Rome and of the Roman provinces. Somewhere in midstream stands the Caesareum at Cyrene." See also Sj~qvist, "Kaisareion," 86-108; Boethius and Ward-Perkins, Etruscan and Roman Architecture, 121-127,459-461; Yegiil, "Memory, Metaphor, and Meaning, 142-144; and Adna, ferusalemer Tempe~ 32-71. A forum and basilica dating to Hadrianic times were found at Cremna, but no temple. For an updated plan of that complex, see Mitchell, Cremna, 56-69. See also B. Mazar, "Royal Stoa," 145-146. 58. Herod's temenos was three to five times larger than the temple of Jupiter Heliopolitan at Baalbek or the temples of Bel and Baalshamin at Palmyra, all built within a century of each other; see Harding, Baalbek, 33-39; Ragette, Baalbek, 27-39; Bounni and AI-As'ad, Palmyre, 40-57; and Collart and Vicari, Le sanctuaire de Baalshamin, 25. For more sweeping comparisons with the temples of Syria and Nabataea, see Busink, Der Tempel, II: 1252-1358.

59. Ant. 15.11,3,401.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

233

Figure 62. The Temple Mount viewed from the east (Holyland Hotel model).

Figure 63. The Royal Portico on the southern side of the Temple Mount (Holyland Hotel model).

as an agora (in Greek), or forum (in Latin), in Jerusalem; the vast courtyard area is referred to as the Court of the Gentiles, for only here were they permitted to enter (Fig. 62).60 The basilica built by Herod along the southern part of the Temple Mount included 162 colossal pillars arranged in four rows and decorated with Corinthian capitals (Fig. 63). This basilica, together with the Temple Mount and Temple precincts, formed the very heart of Jerusalem, as such edifices often did in most other Roman cities. The basilica was often not only the most prominent building in the forum but also served as a counterpoint of the local temple(s), representing the focal institution of wban autonomy while, at the same time, complementing the religious dimension represented by the nearby temple.61 Such was the case in Jerusalem as well. Josephus describes the grandeur of this building in detail: 60. It may be this pavement that it is referred to in an inscription found on a stone slab in the Temple Mount excavations. It notes the contribution of a resident of Rhodes to the Temple; see Isaac, "Donation, " 86-92. 61. See Adna, lerusalemer Tempel. 72-90, and Zanker, "City as Symbol," 33-37.

234

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

[T]he Royal Portico [i.e., the basilica], which had three aisles, extending in length from the eastern to the western ravine. It was not possible for it to extend farther. And it was a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun. For while the depth of the ravine was great, and no one who bent over to look into it from above could bear to look down to the bottom, the height of the portico standing over it was so very great that if anyone looked down from its rooftop, combining the two elevations, he would become dizzy and his vision would be unable to reach the end of so measureless a depth. Now the columns (of the portico) stood in four rows, one opposite the other all along-the fourth row was attached to a wall built of stone62-and the thickness of each column was such that it would take three men with outstretched arms touching one another to envelop it; its height was 27 feet, and there was a double molding running round its base. The number of all the columns was 162, and their capitals were ornamented in the Corinthian style of carving, which caused amazement by the magnificence of its whole effect. 63 Since there were four rows, they made three aisles among them, under the porticoes. Of these the two side ones corresponded and were made in the same way, each being 30 (Roman) feet in width, a stade [i.e., about 600 feet] in length, and over 50 feet in height. But the middle aisle was one and a half times as wide and twice as high, and thus it greatly towered over those on either side. The ceilings (of the porticoes) were ornamented with deeply cut wood-carvings representing all sorts of different figures. The ceiling of the middle aisle was raised to a greater height, and the front wall was cut at either end into architraves with columns built into it, and all of it was polished, so that these structures seemed incredible to those who had not seen them, and were beheld with amazement by those who set eyes on them. 64

As was the case throughout the Greco-Roman world, such buildings were multifunctional; there must have been many times when the basilica hummed with activity. One of its functions may have been to serve the city's political agenda, although Jerusalem's city council (boule) met in its own building (bouleuterion) just west of the Temple Mount and meetings of smaller groups (e.g., members of a sect) and ad hoc assemblies of the people at large were inevitably held in the Temple Mount's outer court. An example of the latter is when Herod convened the people upon returning from one of his trips abroad to report the results and announce the order of accession to the throne among his sons after his death. 65 Following the mourning ceremonies for his father in 4 B.C.E., Archelaus heard the 62. The other side of the building opened onto the Temple Mount, thus resembling a stoa. 63. On Herod's use of the Corinthian style, see M. Fischer, Marble Studies, 37. 64. Ant. 15.11,5,411-417. See B. Mazar, "Royal Stoa," 141-147. For comments on Josephus'description-its accuracies as well as its exaggerations-see R. Reich, "Virtual Model," 48-52. 65. War 1.23, 5, 457-466, and Ant. 16.4,6, 132-135.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

235

greetings, acclamations, and grievances of his subjects in the Temple precincts while seated on a golden throne placed on a high platform.66 Often packed with pilgrims during the festivals, the Temple court also served as a convenient venue for the exchange of political views and the airing of declarations, criticisms, and grievances. Sometimes a particularly fervent speech would be delivered, inflaming passions and sparking violence. On more than one occasion, Josephus depicts riots that erupted among the crowds gathered on the Temple Mount, as in 4 B.C.E. after the death of Herod, during the procuratorship of Cumanus, and under the last procurators (see Chapter 8). It is not surprising, then, that the Antonia fortress was designed to provide military units with direct access to the porticoes of the Temple Mount. From Herod's reign onward, soldiers were posted on the roofs around the Temple Mount during festivals to establish their presence and, it was hoped, to prevent trouble (though, in fact, some soldiers at times incited it). Judicial bodies met on the Temple Mount and possibly also in the basilica hall. The supreme court (also referred to in rabbinic literature as the sanhedrin)67 met in the Chamber of Hewn Stone within the Temple precincts. One rabbinic tradition68 reports that at some point before the destruction of the city (the forty years listed are most likely a symbolic number), the supreme court moved from its previous location to (the) "Hanut" (or "Hanuyot"; lit., "shop[s]"), the identity of which eludes scholars. B. Maz~9 suggests that this term may refer to this basilica at the southern end of the Temple Mount that served, inter alia, as a court setting. In addition to this court and the one that sat at the entrance to the Temple Mount near the Huldah Gates (see above), a third court met on the hel, an area just outside the Women's Court. Thus the Temple Mount witnessed a great deal of traffic for judicial activity. The economic transactions that took place on the Temple Mount focused on the needs and requirements of the Temple and most probably centered in the basilica. This activity was substantial and carefully supervised: Animals were supplied for sacrifices and grain for meal offerings, while Jews coming from foreign lands exchanged their native money for local currency or tokens. This activity increased incrementally during the three pilgrimage festivals, when people thronged to the city in large numbers. This lively commercial life, which was undoubtedly accompanied by great commotion (and possible confusion), seems to have been at odds with the spiritual aura associated by many with this area. The description of Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers in 66. War 2.1,1-2,1-7, and Ant. 17.8,4-9, 1,200-209.

67. On the nature of this institution, see below. 68. B Shabbat 15a; B Rosh Hashanah 31a; and B 'Avodah Zarah 8b. 69. B. Mazar, Mountain of the Lord, 126, and "Royal Stoa," 143.

236

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Mark 11:15-17 (and parallels) may be somewhat exaggerated and theologically biased but it should also be remembered that the cultic activity associated with the Temple had a distinctly materialistic side, one with which not everyone was comfortable.70 If indeed there is a historical kernel of truth, the Jesus incident may have taken place in the basilica hall to the south. The Mishnah offers a description of what kinds of transactions were involved: Anyone who required a libation offering would go to Yohanan who was in charge of the seals (i.e., tokens). He would give him money and receive a seal from him. He would go to Ahiyah, who was in charge of the libations, give him a seal, and receive from him libations. And in the evening, they (these officials) would come together and Ahiyah would bring out the seals and receive coins for them. If there was a surplus, it became Temple property; if there was less, Yohanan would pay from his own' pocket (lit., his own house), since Temple property always has the advantage. 7!

An important function of the Jerusalem Temple, as indeed was the case with many other temples in the ancient world, was its role as a bank for both personal and public funds. The reason for this rather widespread practice is obvious; such funds would be safe because they were protected by the gods and enjoyed the security of a carefully supervised sacred institution. In speaking of the temple of Artemis in Ephesus, Dio Chrysostom remarks: You know about the Ephesians, of course, and that large sums of money are in their hands, some of it belonging to private citizens and deposited in the temple of Artemis, not alone money of the Ephesians but also of aliens and of persons from all parts of the world, and in some cases of commonwealths and kings, money which all deposit there in order that it may be safe, since no one has ever yet dared to violate that place, although countless wars have occurred in the past and the city has often been captured.72

Similarly, private monies were deposited in the Jerusalem Temple (2 Macc. 3:10-12)/3 as were the annual half-sheqel contributions. Votive offerings were common,74 including the golden chain given by Gaius Caligula to Agrippa I, who in tum donated it to the Temple,15 and the golden lamp, given by Queen Helena, that hung over the entrance of the hekhap6 Several Alexandrians are noted in 70. See Eppstein, "Historicity of the Gospel Account," 42-58; see also Adna, Jerusalemer Tempel, 96-118.

71. M Sheqalim 5,4. 72. Dio Chrysostom 31, 54-55. 73. See also M 'Arakhin 9, 4, and War 6.5, 2, 282. 74. M Sheqalim 5,6; 6, 5-6, and T 'Arakhin 3, 1 (ed. Zuckermandel, 545).

75. Ant. 19.6, 1,294. 76. MYoma 3, 10. On donations of gold, the use of gold in the Temple, and the goldsmiths functioning in the city, see Chapter 9.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

237

this regard: Nicanor donated a most impressive gate located between the Court of the Women and the Court of the Israelites; Alexander, brother of Philo, plated the other nine Temple gates with gold and silver. 77 Provisions were also made in the Temple for donations intended for the poor.78 Thus, taken together, there is no question that the sums of money deposited there were enormous; Josephus claims that at the time of Pompey's conquest, the Temple had about two thousand talents. 79 It is no wonder, then, that these treasures were often plundered.80 No less ubiquitous in these precincts was the religious activity (instructional and otherwise). It was here that the religious leaders congregated, taught their disciples, and preached to the masses. With respect to the earlier, Hasmonean, era, Josephus mentions the presence of Judas the Essene on the Temple Mount together with "his disciples."81 Several centuries later, Luke speaks of teaching on the Temple Mount, and Jesus preached there, as did some of the apostles (Luke 2:46-47, 21:37; Acts 2-3). The early Christians appear to have favored Solomon's Portico to the east for their gatherings (John 10:23-30; Acts 3:11-26, 5:12-16). Rabbinic literature knows of many Pharisees who frequented the area. R. Gamaliel the Elder responded to the questions of Yo'ezer Ish-Habirah from the School of Shammai when standing by the Eastern Gate,82 and R. Yohanan ben Zakkai "taught in the shadow of the sanctuary."83 Many debates and discussions between the Pharisees and Sadducees most likely took place on the Temple Mount as well. 84

The Temple and Its Courts In the middle of the Temple Mount was a raised mound on which the Temple and its sacred courts stood. This complex was not exactly in the Mount's center, at least according to the Mishnah, which states that the open spaces surrounding this complex varied. The largest area was to the south, then the east, north, and west, 77. M Middot 1.4, and War 5.5.3.205. 78. M Sheqalim 5, 6.

79. War 1.7, 6, 152, and Ant. 14.4,4,72. 80. War 1.8, 8, 179, and Ant. 17.10,2,264.

81. Ant. 13.11,2,311. 82. M 'Orlah 2, 12. 83. B Pesahim 26a. 84. It is tempting, though admittedly quite speculative, to assume that different sects had their favorite area for gathering. If the Christians seem to have preferred the eastern portico, the Essenes may have favored the northern area, as perhaps hinted at by Judas the Essene's prophecy in the time of Aristobulus, when he spoke of a tunnel in that area (Ant. 13.11,2,311-313). As for the Pharisees, the only place specifically associated with them is the southern steps leading to the Huldah Gates (T Sanhedrin 2, 6 led. Zuckerrnandel, 416]), but clearly this was not their only gathering place.

238

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

in descending order.85It is not absolutely certain where the Temple stood in relation to the large rock at the highest point of the Mount (probably the "Foundation Stone" [iT"n~Ti1 PX] referred to in rabbinic literature).86 Was the rock beneath the Holy of Holies the westernmost room in the Temple building? Was it below the hekhal? Or was it located under the outside altar? Rabbinic literature is unclear, though it opts for one of the two former altematives. 87 However, several considerations weigh against this view. For one, placing part of the Temple itself over the rock would mean that the remaining sacred area of the Temple and its courts to the east would have been flush against the eastern portico. Such a situation would be awkward in terms of architectural planning and prove most inconvenient for visitors, given the fact that the eastern entrance was by far the most frequented one. Moreover, such a location would contradict the Mishnaic text cited above, i.e., that east of the Temple was a large area, second only to the one on the south side. It would seem that, despite the claim of later rabbinic tradition regarding the Holy of Holies or hekhal atop the Foundation Stone, the Temple complex was located farther west on the Temple Mount, with the outside sacrificial altar situated above the rock. 88 The sacred precincts were surrounded by a stone balustrade that featured plaques bearing Greek and Latin inscriptions warning gentiles not to enter the Temple area (Fig. 64).89 The warning, also noted by Josephus,90 has been preserved in several Greek inscriptions discovered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. One such inscription has remained fairly intact: "No foreigner is to enter within the forecourt and the balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his subsequent death.''9l Beyond this balustrade, one ascended a stairway of fourteen steps to the elevated area on which the Temple and its courts stood. At the top of the stairs 85. M Middot 2, 1. 86. MYoma 5, 2; T Yoma 2, 14 (ed. Lieberman, 237-238); and parallels. 87. On the one hand, these sources claim that the rock was under the Holy Ark during First Temple days, i.e., under the Holy of Holies; on the other, they state that the incense altar stood directly above the rock and that the latter was located in the hekhal (T Yoma 2,14 led. Lieberman, 237-238]). The confusion is further compounded because this source locates the incense altar in the very interior of the Temple (O')!]? ')!]?), i.e., the Holy of Holies; see Lieberman, TK, IV:772. 88. For an alternative suggestion locating the Temple slightly northward, see Kaufman, "New Light upon Zion," 63-69, and Sporty, "Location of the Holy House" [Part 1],194-204, and "Location of the Holy House" [Part 2], 28-35. 89. According to M Middot 2, 3, this balustrade was 2.5 feet high; Josephus almost doubles the height (War 5.5, 2, 193). 90. War5.5,2, 194,andAnt. 15.11,5,417. 91. The translation follows P. Segal, "Penalty of the Warning Inscription," 79. See also Hollis, Archaeology of Herod's Temple, 156--157; Iliffe, "9ANOTOI: Inscription," 1-3; and Bickerman, "Warning Inscription," 387-405 and the comments of Zeitlin, "Warning Inscription," 111-116, and Fry, Warning Inscriptions. The fact that such a warning was to be taken seriously is illustrated in the incident

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

Figure 64. The Temple warning inscription.

239

Figure 65. The Women's Court east of the Temple viewed from the southwest;note the room in each corner (Holyland Hotel model).

was a flat area, the hel (rampart), which was the site of a second appellate court on the Temple Mount. 92 Beyond the hef was a wall that encompassed the Temple courts; the main point of entry was from the eastern gate, perhaps that referred to in Acts 3:2 as the "Beautiful Gate." Secondary gates for entry were located to the north and south. Inside this gate, one reached the Women's Court. According to M Middot,93 four chambers occupied the four corners of this court, two of which served Nazirites and lepers and the other two as storage areas for wood and oil. Despite the term "Women's Court," the area was not used by women alone (Fig. 65). In fact, every man, woman, or child who came to the Temple entered this precinct. Those without sacrifices would remain there, and those offering sacrifices, including women after childbirth and on other occasions,94 would proceed to the Court of the Israelites. 95 The Women's Court was used for nonsacrificial ceremonies and rituals, such as the high priest reading from the Torah on Yom Kippur; the Raqhel ceremony, which likewise involved reading from the Torah at the end of every sabbatical year; and, finally, Simhat Bet Rasho 'evah (the WaterDrawing Festival) that was held annually on the intermediate days of Sukkot.% involving Paul and his non-Jewish companion Trophimus the Ephesian, who allegedly tried to enter these forbidden precincts and was almost killed (Acts 21:26-31). Such a tradition prohibiting gentiles from entering the Temple precincts is also reflected in B Pesahim 3b. 92. M Middot 2, 3. 93. At 2,5. 94. T 'A rakhin 2, I (ed. Zuckermandel, 544). 95. Another indication that women would bring sacrifices is the presence of a Women's Gate, allowing access to the inner courts of the Temple from the north (M Middot 2, 6). 96. This description interprets the term "azarah" here, used in regard to the Torah-reading ceremonies, as referring to the Court of Women and not the inner Court of the Israelites. Since all were required to hear these readings (as emphasized in Deut. 31: 10-12) and since the Court of Women was far larger, it would seem that this was the logical setting for the Torah reading . The Bavli also locates these readings in this court (B Yoma 69b, B Sotah 41b). Compare, however, EJ, XV:966.

240

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

The Mishnah makes it quite clear that generally there was no separation between men and women in the Women's Court; this is indicated by the statement that for Simhat Bet Hasho' evah festivities a special balcony would be erected to separate the sexes owing to the extreme levity and merrymaking of the occasion.97 Thus on the other 360 or so days, there was no such balcony and therefore no division between men and women. It should be pointed out, however, that in War,98 Josephus notes that "a special place was walled off for the women" in this court, a general statement standing in contradiction to the Mishnah and to his own account, however brief, in Antiquities. 99 As we have suggested elsewhere, Josephus' War may well be referring to a time at the very end of the Second Temple period, in the middle first century C.E., when a stricter code vis-a-vis women and gentiles was introduced into Jerusalem's religious life. 100 Why, indeed, was this area called the Women's Court? We may suggest three possibilities: (1) The name might reflect the very last stage before the destruction of the Temple, when, as just noted,101 women were indeed separated from men; (2) women who came to the Temple remained in this court most of the time; and (3) women may have constituted a large majority of those who frequented this court, which thus became their main gathering place. West of the Women's Court were fifteen semicircular stepS/02 on which the levites stood when they sang the Songs of Ascents (ps. 120-134) (Fig. 66). In the chambers under the raised platform, the levites stored their musical instruments. Those offering sacrifices ascended these steps, to an elevation of some twelve feet, and passed through the Nicanor Gate,103 which was considered the most magnificent of the Temple gates. They then entered the Court of the Israelites, a relatively narrow area (about seventy-three yards wide by five yards deep) from where those bringing sacrifices watched as the priests conducted the sacrificial ritual in silence (see Lett. of Aristeas 92, 95).104 The priests officiated in the adjacent Court of the Priests, where the outside sacrificial altar, laver/05 and place of slaughter were located (Fig. 67). There is some confusion in our

97. M Middot 2, 5. 98. War 5.5, 2, 198-199. 99. Ant. 15.11,5,418-419.

100. See Levine, "Josephus' Description of the Jerusalem Temple," 233-246. 101. War 5.5,2,198-199. 102. M Middot 2, 5. 103. This gate is also referred to as the Corinthian Gate, perhaps because of its Corinthian-style bronze plating (War 5.5,3,201,204). There were two chambers on either side of the Nicanor Gate, that of Pinhas, keeper of the vestments, and that of the makers of the cakes used by the high priest daily (M Middot 1,4; M Tamid 1, 3). 104. Knohl, "Between Voice and Silence," 2()"'23. 105. On the water mechanism connected with this laver, see n. 114 to this chapter.

241

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

Figure 66. The fifteen semicircular steps

Figure 67. The altar in the Court of the

that lead to Nicanor's Gate on the western

Priests; the Temple stands to the right.

side of the Women's Court.

sources as to what separated these two courts. Josephus states that "a low stone parapet . . . separated the laity outside from the priests,"I06 whereas the Mishnah offers two other options: a different type of floor paving and a series of stairs. IO? There is no way at present to verify which description is correct. Perhaps all are, with each referring to a different time frame. According to the Mishnah, between these two courts the levites would stand on a raised platform and recite psalms during the daily sacrificial offering. 108 Around this inner courtyard, between its many gates,l09 was a portico with columns described by Josephus as being "exceedingly beautiful and 10fty."11O A series of chambers ran along this portico; Josephus speaks generally of treasury chambers, II I while the Mishnah mentions six rooms.1I2 On the north were the Salt Chamber (for salting the sacrifices), the Parvah Chamber (for salting the hides of the sacrificial animals), and the Rinse Chamber (for cleaning the innards of the sacrifices); on the south were the Wood Chamber,1I3 the Golah (probably refer106. War 5.5, 6, 226.

107. M Middot 2, 6. According to Ant. 13.13,5, 373, Alexander Jannaeus had ~uilt a "wooden parapet" there. 108. M Middot 2, 6; M Tamid 7,3 ; see also I Chron. 23:30; 2 Chron. 29:25-29. 109. There is a discrepancy among the sources as to whether there were seven or eight gates; see M Middot I, 4-5 and perhaps Ant. 15.11, 5,418, compared to MMiddot2, 6 (=M Sheqalim6 , 3) and War 5.5, 2,198. 110. War 5.5, 2, 200. 111. Ibid., and 6.5, 2, 282. 112. M Middot 5, 3-4. 113. There is some confusion about the function of the Wood Chamber, since a room of the same name existed in the Women 's Court (M Middot 2, 5). Thus, commenting on the chamber mentioned in M Middot 5, 4, R. Eliezer b. Jacob admits that he did not know its purpose, and Abba Shaul claims that it was for the high priest.

242

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

ring to a wheel, ,"In) Chamber (where an apparatus for drawing water for the Temple precincts was located) ,114 and the Chamber of Hewn Stone (the meeting place of the highest court). To the west, on a raised platform above the Court of the Priests, stood the Temple itself, which was reached via a flight of stairs. The Temple was about two hundred feet high, although it had reportedly sunk by the middle of the first century and required restoration by Agrippa II. 115 One of the most enigmatic issues has been the attempt to determine the appearance of the Temple. The range of suggestions is enormous, from a simple fas;ade to the most ornate. The problem, of course, is that, while the sources furnish dimensions, they do not describe how the fas;ade actually looked. Over the past decades, however, Avi-Yonah's interpretation has gained a great deal of support. 116 Basing it on a representation of the Temple on Bar-Kokhba coins and a similar depiction appearing on a wall painting in the third-century Dura Europos synagogue, he suggests that the fas;ade had four columns, two round and two square (the latter functioning as pilasters in the comers), a large rectangular opening, and a cornice and a series of spikes (against birds) at the top. The marble fas;ade had many gold-plated parts and featured, inter alia, a golden vine with large grape clusters.1I7 The Temple itself was divided into three central rooms. 118 The first one, called the ulam (porch) was entered from the east; it had no door and was wider than the other two rooms. Beyond the ulam was the sanctuary (hekhal), in the middle of which stood the golden altar for incense. To the altar's right, upon entering the sanctuary, stood the Showbread Table, and to its left, the golden menorah. Beyond the hekhal to the west, and separated from it by two curtains, was the Holy of Holies. In the First Temple period, the Ark of the Covenant housing the two tablets ofthe Ten Commandments stood there (Exod. 25:10-22). The Ark disappeared when the First Temple was destroyed, and the room remained empty

114. See M 'Eruvin 10, 14. On other water-related mechanisms in the Temple courtyards, see MYoma 3, 10; M Tamid I, 4; 3, 8; and Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 177-179, who believes that here, as elsewhere (T Yoma 2, 4--6 led. Lieberman, 230--232]; T 'Arakhin 2, 3 led. Zuckermandel, 544n, mechanics from abroad were employed to construct these devices. 115. Ant. 15.11,3,391, and War 5.1, 5, 36.

116. Avi-Yonah, "Fa<;:ade of Herod's Temple," 327-335. See also Renov, "View of Herod's Temple," 67-74. For a different reconstruction, see Patrich, "Structure of the Second Temple," 32-40. 117. War 5.5,4,210; Ant. 15.11,3,395; Tacitus, Histories 5, 5; and M Middot 3,8. See Patrich, "Golden Vine," 56-61. 118. In addition, there were three stories containing thirty-eight compartments built into the walls of the Temple building for use by the priests. A mesibbah (ir::l'OY.l), or ascending corridor, ran from the floor of the bottom story of the building in the northeast to its roof in the northwest. See M Middot 4,3-7; see War 5.5,5,220; Busink, Der Tempe~ 11:1130-1135; and Patrich, "Mesibbah," 215-233.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

243

throughout the Second Temple period;1l9 only the high priest entered this chamber, and then only on Yom Kippur. 12o

Temple Functionaries The most important figure, who was in charge of all activities relating to the Temple, was the high priest. 121 He was aided in his various ritual duties by an assistant or deputy, referred to as a segen or strategos. By virtue of his position in the Temple, the high priest was considered the most prominent religious and-with the exception of Herod's rule-political leader of the Jews throughout the Second Temple period. He officiated on all major holidays, such as Yom Kippur and festivals, and on other days he generally conducted the sacrificial service; however, others could do so on his behalf, if necessary. Only the high priest wore gold vestments (those of ordinary priests were made of cloth), and he would conduct the rather infrequent Red Heifer ritual on the Mount of Olives and almost always the reading of the Torah on Yom Kippur and during the Haqhel ceremony. The administration of the Temple required a large staff.122 Given the vast sums of money involved, it seems that the treasurers, together with the seven administrators who managed the finances and property, held important posts. The treasurers were in charge of storing the holy vessels and priestly vestments; distributing funds, flour for meal offerings, and wine for libations; and handling any monies paid in lieu of these items. They were also charged with the half-sheqel donations and with supplying wood, animals, flour, and oil to those wishing to make such offerings. Many of the specific tasks performed in the Temple were divided among fifteen officers listed in rabbinic sources. 123 It is not entirely clear whether these functionaries were the first to hold these positions in early Second Temple days, or the last, in which case, the Mishnah was able to recall their names. The responsibilities mentioned include caring for the seals, libations, lots, bird offerings, water sources, cymbals, and the showbread; making announcements; tending to intestinal maladies among the priests; locking the gates; singing; and preparing strips of cloth or leather (the use of which is debated), frankincense, curtains, and vestments. 119. War 5.5,5,219.

120. See M Kelim 1,9, and Lauterbach, Rabbinic Essays, 51-83. 121. On the priest and other functionaries in a temple of the goddess Engo in Comana, Asia Minor, see Strabo, Geography 12,2,3, C535. 122. See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 147-221; Safrai, "Temple," 874-876; and K. C. Hanson and Oakman, Palestine, 139-146. 123. M Sheqalim 5, 1; MYoma 3, 11; and T Sheqalim 2, 14 (ed. Lieberman, 210-211).

244

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Alongside its pennanent officials, the Temple evolved a remarkable participatory system that included all priests, wherever they happened to live. As noted in Chapter 3, this system was known as the twenty-four priestly courses (mishmarot), each of which served for one week (from Sabbath to Sabbath) twice a year. The first mention of such an arrangement appears in 1 Chron. 24, although it is only rabbinic literature that spells out what appears to have been the practice later on in the Second Temple period: The early prophets established twenty-four courses, and for every course there was a representation (or section: rna 'arnad) in Jerusalem of priests, levites, and Israelites. When the time came for the course to go up to Jerusalem, priests and levites would go up to Jerusalem and the Israelites of that course (i.e., hailing from the same place) would assemble in their towns and read the Creation story.l24

Another source discusses the organization of these courses in greater detail. The heads of each course were divided into patriarchal houses (batei avot). There could be anywhere between five and nine houses in each course, depending on its size. At Qumran, interestingly enough, the priests were divided into twenty-six courses. 125 The levites were distinctly inferior to the priests 126 and are virtually ignored by Hellenistic and Hasmonean sources such as Ben Sira and 1 Maccabees. 127 They, too, were supposedly divided into twenty-four courses and were in charge of security and music (singing and musicians) during cultic ceremonies.128 In the Bible, they are described as the guards of the Tabernacle (Num. 31:30,47), who functioned in the same capacity in the Second Temple as well. 129 Philo notes that the levites were charged with maintaining the Temple's purity and would patrol the area regularly to make sure that nothing had been violated,130 as well as with opening and closing the Temple gates. 131 In addition, during the daily services, as noted, levites would perform musically from a platform placed between the Court of the Priests and the Court of the Israelites. At the Simhat Bet Rasho'evah ceremonies on Sukkot, for example, a choir of levites would recite psalms from the steps leading to the Court of the Israelites. The levites were charged with 124. 125. 126. 127.

M Ta'anit4, 2. Talmon, World o/Qumran, 153-163. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 207-213, and M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 596--600. Although they seem to be noted in Antiochus Ill's decree when he mentions Temple singers (Ant. 12.3,3, 142). 128. Ant. 7.14,7,367, and M Ta'anit 4,2.

129. M Middot I, 1. 130. See Milgrom, JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers, 343-344. 131. Special Laws I, 156.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

245

humbler tasks as well: assisting the high priest with his vestments and during his reading of the Torah, and preparing the lulavim and ethrogim for the Sukkot ceremony. It would appear that the levite singers were considered of a higher status than those charged with more administrative tasks.132 Above all, the Temple's personnel were charged on a regular basis with caring for the needs of those coming to the Temple to offer sacrifices. This required an enormous amount of administration and coordination, as each day, throughout the year, the Temple required large quantities of incense, salt, and wood to be on hand. The burning of incense on the golden altar in the hekhal accompanied the daily morning and evening rituals. Some of the plants used for incense grew in the Jerusalem area, and others were brought from farther afield. Salt ("Sodom salt," brought from the Dead Sea region) was sprinkled on all of the sacrifices, and a special chamber was set aside in the inner courtyard for its storage. Wood was needed not only for sacrifices but also for the perpetual light in the ''hearth chamber." The fire for the altar was taken from here, as well as the fire for cooking the priests' food. Wood supplies were contributed by ordinary people who brought them to Jerusalem on specific days (according to Josephus, on the fourteenth and fifteenth of Av) or by certain families who also brought them on fixed dates each year. 133 The custom of donating wood began in the Persian era and apparently continued uninterrupted throughout the Second Temple period.

The Temple as a Religious Focus As much as the Temple functioned in many ways as Jerusalem's urban center, it also was the religious focal point for Jews in Judaea and the Diaspora throughout the Second Temple period.134 Before addressing the obvious topic of the Temple serving as the exclusive Jewish cultic center, it should be noted that other important religious functions took place in the Temple precincts and elsewhere in Jerusalem. 135 For example, rabbinic literature attests to the fact that an authoritative copy (or copies) of Scriptures was kept in the Temple archives, and people were hired to validate the accuracy of copies brought to them. 136

132. B 'Arakhin llb. 133. M Ta 'anit 4, 5. 134. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that there were individuals and groups-such as the Essenes, the adherents of Onias' temple in Leontopolis, the Samaritans, Stephen (Acts 7), and the author of the Sibylline Oracle 4-who had serious reservations about the Temple's legitimacy and religious value. 135. See M Rosh Hashanah 2, 1-7 for testimony relating to the New Moon. 136. See Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 21-22.

246

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Although far from the modem western mentality, the offering of sacrifices was the quintessence of religious piety for most people in antiquity. As Josephus noted: "Whoever was master of these (Jerusalem fortifications) had the whole nation in his power, for sacrifices could not be made without (controlling) these places, and it was impossible for any of the Jews to forgo offering these, for they would rather give up their lives than the worship which they are accustomed to offer God."137 This sacred dimension is reflected in the various privileges granted Jews by foreign rulers from Cyrus through Julius Caesar and Augustus; the Temple's very existence was often the raison d'etre for privileges accorded Jews by foreign rulers. In descriptions of the city written by non-Jews, the Temple's centrality is underscored: For Hecataeus (or a Jewish Pseudo-Hecataeus of the second century B.C.E.), the Temple was situated in the center of Jerusalem (religiously as well as topographically); Polybius described the Jews as dwelling around their Temple.138 However, recognition of the Temple's sanctity among non-Jews is only an echo of the importance it held for the Jews. By the late Second Temple period, Jerusalem's Temple had come to symbolize the Jewish locus sanctum par excellence. Here was where God dwelled,139 this was the cosmic center of the universe (axis mundi), the navel (omphalos) of the world that both nurtured it and bound together heaven and earth as well as past, present, and future. l40 For Judaism, no less than other religions of antiquity, space was not a homogeneous entity. There is the sacred in the midst of the profane (i.e., ordinary) and the former, of course, is directly related to the presence of the divine. This was Jacob's experience in Bet El (Gen. 28:17) and Moses' at the burning bush (Exod. 3:5); later on, this sacredness was embodied in the Jerusalem Temples from Solomon's time onward. For the Jews, with their exclusive focus on only one Temple, this sanctity was even more enhanced. A poignant expression of this attitude in a halakhic context is found in the Mishnah: There are ten degrees of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than any other land.... The walled cities (of the Land of Israel) are more holy.... Within the wall (of Jerusalem) is yet more holy.... The Temple Mount is even more holy.... The hel is more holy.... The Court of Women is even holier.... The Court of Israelites is more holy.... The Court of Priests is more holy.... Between the ulam (outer porch of the Temple) and the altar is more holy.... The hekhal is

137. 138. 139. 140.

Ant. 15.7,8,248.

Hecataeus: AgainstApion 1.22, 198 (GLAJJ, I: 39), and Polybius: Ant. 12.3,3,136 (GLAJJ, I: 113). G. I. Davies, "Presence of God," 32-36. See Eliade, Sacred and the Profane, 20--67; "Sacred Architecture," 105-129; and Eliade, Cosmos and History.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

247

yet holier.... The Holy of Holies is more holy than all of them, for only the high priest on Yom Kippur at the time of the 'Avodah service can enter therein. 141 One means of demonstrating loyalty and support for the Temple was by contributing a half sheqel annually. 142 This donation was intended to help pay for the maintenance of the Temple, the purchase of animals for the required daily offerings, the renovation of the walls and towers, the water supply systems, and other municipal needs. Philo describes this process in some detail from a Diaspora perspective: The revenues of the Temple are derived not only from landed estates but also from other and far greater sources which time will never destroy. For as long as the human race endures, and it will endure forever, the revenues of the Temple also will remain secure, co-eternal with the whole universe. For it is ordained that everyone, beginning at his twentieth year, should make an annual contribution .... As the nation is very populous, the offerings of first fruits are naturally exceedingly abundant. In fact, practically in every city there are banking places for the holy money where people regularly come and give their offerings. And at stated times there are appointed to carry the sacred tribute envoys selected on their merits, from every city those of the highest repute, under whose conduct the hopes of each and all will travel safely. For it is on these first fruits, as prescribed by the Law, that the hopes of the pious rest. 143 A great deal of evidence regarding these Diaspora contributions can be found in our sources. Almost a dozen imperial and local decrees mention this practice, recognizing it as valid and legitimate; 144 in one case, the Jews of Asia Minor took the local Roman governor Flaccus to court (with none other than Cicero serving as the latter's defense lawyer) when he refused to allow the continuation of this privilege. 145 The sums enumerated at the trial were substantial-twenty pounds of gold from Laodicaea and one hundred from Apamea (estimated at more than $1 and $5 million U.S., respectively).146 These sums indicate what Diaspora communities would and could give. Josephus notes that in 88 B.C.E., when Mithridates raided the island of Cos, he found eight hundred talents of gold belonging to the Jews of Asia Minor that were intended for Jerusalem. 147 No less impressive an effort may be evidenced by 141. M Kelim 1,6-9. See Sperber, Midrash Yerushalem, 54-61. 142. This was not an inconsequential sum, equivalent to two days'labor for an ordinary person. 143. Special Laws 1,76-78. 144. For example, Ant. 16.6,1-7,160-172.

145. Cicero, On Behalf of Flaccus 28-68. 146. See Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 126-127. 147. Ant. 14.6,4, 112-113.

248

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

the Jews of Babylonia, who designated two cities, Nehardea and Nisibis, as collection centers for their Temple contributions. According to Josephus, each year tens of thousands (sic!) of Jews would accompany the caravans transporting these monies to the Holy City for fear of Parthian raids. l48 Herod even relocated a military contingent to Trachonitis, on the road from Babylonia, to provide protection for these caravans. 149 Wealthy Diaspora Jews would also make their own personal contributions to the Temple, at times in the form of a specific donation. Such was the case with Helena and other members of the royal Adiabene family, Nicanor of Alexandria, and a Rhodian Jew. ISO These efforts did not go unnoticed by the Romans; Tacitus lSI himself comments on the enormous wealth accumulated by the Jerusalem Temple. In contrast, we know very little about the scope of contributions made by the Jews of Judaea or the amounts involved. However, we do possess a great deal of information about other kinds of religious observances that demonstrated their loyalty and generosity toward the Temple and city. As noted, an important link between Judaean Jewry and the Temple was the institution of the rna 'amado Many brought their first fruits to Jerusalem annually, a ritual often accompanied by pomp and ceremony,IS2 and tithes were given to the priests, the levites, and the poor. Following earlier practice (see Chapter 3), the giving of the Second Tithe became widespread and so did the fourth year's fruits, both of which were to be eaten in Jerusalem or their monetary value spent there. All this activity was in addition to the bringing of sacrifices to the Temple for festive and personal reasons. The latter may have included a Nazirite vow, those who were obligated to bring guilt and sin offerings, mothers after childbirth, and lepers on the conclusion of their infirmity. Converts were also required to offer sacrifices; such people were probably not a rare sight in Jerusalem, given the fact that conversion was a not uncommon phenomenon at this time. IS3 Jews also streamed to the Temple not necessarily to fulfill a particular obligation but rather to visit the holiest site of the Jewish people and to take part in its ceremonies with large numbers of their fellow Jews the world over. Jerusalem was invariably fIlled with pilgrims during the three festivals: Passover, Shavu 'ot, and Sukkot. As the "the navel of the world," one could actually sense the religious essence of the city as tens of thousands of pilgrims from 148. 149. 150. 151. 152. 153.

Ibid., 18.9, 1,312-313. Ibid., 17.2,2,26-27. See MYoma 3,10; M Hallah 4,10-11; and Isaac, "Donation," 86-92. Histories 5.8, 1 (GIAll, II: 28). M Bikkurim 3. See Feldman, lew and Gentile, passim.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

249

Judaea and the Galilee and from Transjordan and the Diaspora gathered there for a few days or several weeks, thus playing a significant role in forging the city's character and economy. One can appreciate Philo's enthusiasm when he wrote: "Countless multitudes from countless cities come, some over land, others over sea, from west and east and north and south at every feast. They take the Temple for their port as a general haven and safe refuge from the bustle and great turmoil of life, and there they seek to find calm weather."IS4 Jerusalem became the hub of all Jewish life on these occasions, and many languages and dialects commonly spoken by Jews at the time could be heard in its streets. Luke may have exaggerated somewhat in his description of Shavu'ot in Jerusalem but not by much: The day of Pentecost had come, and they were all together in one place.... Now there were staying in Jerusalem devout Jews drawn from every nation under heaven. At this sound a crowd of them gathered, and were bewildered because each one heard his own language spoken; they were amazed and in astonishment exclaimed, "Surely these people who are speaking are all Galileans! How is it that each of us can hear them in his own native language? Parthians, Medes, Elamites; inhabitants of Mesopotamia, of Judaea and Cappadocia, of Pontus and Asia, of Phrygia and Pamphylia, of Egypt and the districts of Libya around Cyrene; visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes; Cretans and Arabs-all of us hear them telling in our own tongues the great things God has done (Acts 2:1-11).155 Large sums of money were spent on sacrificial offerings and charity. Other aspects of the city's economy served to accommodate the influx of people three times a year, and currency from allover the world flowed into the city's treasury.IS6 Most pilgrims, as might be expected, came from Judaea. IS7 It is reported that whole towns were almost emptied of their inhabitants during the three pilgrimage festivals; when the Roman army was advancing along the coast at the outbreak of the revolt in 66, it reportedly found the entire city of Lydda deserted, except for some fifty people. The remainder had gone to Jerusalem for the Sukkot holiday.ls8 The Galilee, too, was a major contributor to the pilgrimage traffic to Jerusalem on the holidays. Luke 2:41 relates that "it was the practice of his parents to go to Jerusalem 154. Special Laws 1,69. 155. A similar listing of Diaspora communities is found in Philo, Embassy 36, 281.

156. Meshorer speculates that, under Herod and with the building ofthe Temple, Jerusalem began minting silver coins for use by the pilgrims. He assumes that the mint of Tyre was transferred to Jerusalem; see Meshorer "One Hundred Ninety Years," 171-179, and Treasury, 72-78. As interesting as this possibility may be, it is considerably problematic; see Levy, "Tyrian Shekels and the First Jewish War," 267-274, and "Tyrian Shekels: The Myth," 33-35. 157. See Josephus'comment with respect to the place of origin for most of those who came to the city following Herod's death (War 2.3, 1,43). 158. War 2.19, 1,515.

250

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

every year for the Passover festival; and when he was twelve, they made the pilgrimage as usual."159 He also informs us that Galileans were killed by Pontius Pilate when they were in Jerusalem (Luke 13:1). Josephus tells of Galilean pilgrims being attacked and many killed in Samaria on their way to Jerusalem; a riot ensued when the perpetrators went unpunished. '60 Finally, rabbinic literature as well has preserved stories about pilgrimage from the Galilee. 161 Extensive preparations were made in Jerusalem and throughout the country for the pilgrims' arrival. In the month of Adar (around March), roads and streets were repaired, cisterns cleaned, ritual baths refurbished, and cemeteries and tombs clearly marked for those wishing to arrive in the city without becoming defiled. '62 Moreover, measures were taken to ensure the safe passage of pilgrims from the Diaspora. As noted, Herod had settled Zamaris and his contingent of soldiers in Trachonitis to protect the money-laden caravans arriving from Babylonia. '63 The residents of Jerusalem were encouraged to welcome the visitors and offer them food and lodgings. When the pilgrims reached the city, they found accommodations in hostels and inns, in the homes of city residents, in nearby villages such as Bethpage and Bethany, or in tents on the outskirts of the city.'64 Landlords were forbidden-at least in theory-to charge money for lodging the city's visitors, but in recompense received the hides of sacrificed animals. Pilgrims also stayed in synagogues established in part to serve members of the same Diaspora communities (as attested by the Theodotos inscription and probably Acts 6:9).165 According to one rabbinic tradition, which may be more fantasy than fact, the laws of purity were relaxed during the three pilgrimage festivals to enable people to interrelate more easily.'66 The numbers of visitors arriving in Jerusalem on the festivals must have been enormous. Josephus writes in one place of 2.5 million pilgrims who came to the city during Passover and in another of no less than 3 million. '67 One rabbinic

159. According to John, Jesus often went to Jerusalem and the Temple for festival celebrations (John 5:1, 7:2-10,1O:22-23).

160. Ant. 20.6, 1, 118-121. 161. For example, Y Ma'aser Sheni 5,2, 56a. Safrai, "Temple," 901; Schiffman, "Was There a Galilean Halakhah?" 153-155; and Goodman, "Galilean Judaism and Judaean Judaism," 601. 162. M Sheqalim 1, 1. 163. Ant. 17.2,2,26-27. 164. Ibid., 17.9,3,217. 165. See also T Megillah 2, 17 (ed. Lieberman, 352-353). See below. 166. M Hagigah 3, 6-7, and Y Hagigah 3, 6-7, 79d. 167. War 6.9, 3 423-425 and 2.14, 3, 280, respectively. To further complicate matters, Josephus also seems to indicate that during the final siege in 70, there were some 1.1 million people in the city for the Passover holiday (War 6.9,3, 420-421).

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

251

source calculates 12 million people. 168 While these figures are incredibly exaggerated,169 Jeremias bases his estimate on a Mishnaic tradition, where it is noted that the people who brought the Passover sacrifice filled the Court of the Israelites near1y three times over.170 By calculating the court's area and estimating its maximum capacity, tripling it, and then multiplying it by ten (according to Josephus and rabbinic literature, there were at least 10 people per sacrifice), Jeremias estimated the number of pilgrims to have been about 125,000. 171 E. P. Sanders posits the number of visitors between 300,000 and 500,000, and Reinhardt, following others, opts for a figure of 1 million for each festival. 172 These higher estimates of many hundreds of thousands of pilgrims appear exaggerated, and even Jeremias' figure is mere conjecture; we cannot be sure of the area he includes in his calculations, the precise population density to be assumed, or the exact number of participants per sacrifice. If we estimate the permanent population of Jerusalem at the time to have been 60,000 to 80,000 (see Chapter 9), then doubling, tripling, or perhaps even quadrupling the number for the pilgrimage festivals may be entirely reasonable. We would thus be talking about a group of between 125,000 and 300,000; the total probably depended on the specific holiday and the political-religious climate at the time. 173 Without a doubt, feelings of joy and exultation permeated the pilgrimage experience to Jerusalem, as they did in pilgrimage settings from time immemorial. Both Philo and Josephus have described that moment and its attendant feelings. In the context of discussing the biblical injunction of pilgrimage, Josephus says the following, with an obvious eye on the late Second Temple scene: Let them assemble in that city in which they shall establish the Temple, three times in the year, from the ends of the land which the Hebrews shall conquer, in order to render thanks to God for benefits received, to intercede for future mercies, and to promote by thus meeting and feasting together feelings of mutual affection. For it is good that they should not be ignorant of one another, being members of the same race and partners in the same institutions; and this end will be attained by such intercourse, when through sight and speech they recall those

168. T Pesahim 4, 15 (ed. Liebennan, 166). 169. Philo, for his part, refers to "countless multitudes from countless cities" who carne to the city (Special Laws 1, 69). 170. M Pesahim 5, 5-6. 171. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 83. Altogether, there were some 180,000 people who offered sacrifices, but this number includes Jerusalem's pennanent residents, which he calculates to have been around 55,000. Safrai, "Temple," 902, and Pilgrimage, 71-74, notes Jeremias'approach but declines to estimate the precise number. 172. E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 127-128, and Reinhardt, "Population Size of Jerusalem," 261-262. 173. On some political and religious ramifications of pilgrimage in the East within pagan culture generally, see Elsner, "Origins of the Icon," 178-199.

252

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

ties to mind, whereas if they remain without ever coming into contact, they will be regarded by each other as absolute strangers. 174

Josephus certainly struck home in noting the religious component, but he especially focuses here on the social aspect of pilgrimage, i.e., the unity and camaraderie fostered by being together with masses of seemingly different but essentially like-minded coreligionists. Philo, however, true to form as a philosopher and religious thinker, emphasizes a somewhat different perspective: There is also the temple made by hands; for it was right that no check should be given to the forwardness of those who pay their tribute to piety and desire by means of sacrifices either to give thanks for the blessings that befall them or to ask for pardon and forgiveness for their sins. But he provided that there should not be temples built either in many places or many in the same place, for he judged that since God is one, there should also be only one temple. Further, he does not consent to those who wish to perform the rites in their houses, but bids them to rise up from the ends of the earth and come to this Temple. In this way he also applies the severest test to their dispositions. For one who is not going to sacrifice in a religious spirit would never bring himself to leave his country and friends and kinsfolk and sojourn in a strange land, but clearly it must be the stronger attraction of piety which leads him to endure separation from his most familiar and dearest friends who form, as it were, a single whole with hirnself.175

In the latter part of this quote, Philo commends the courage and commitment behind a pilgrim's decision to leave house and home and endure the trials and tribulations of a long journey as well as the inconveniences of a sojourn in a foreign land. In the first part, however, he focuses on a cardinal distinction that set pilgrimage to Jerusalem apart from similar phenomena throughout the ancient world. In general, as we have noted, participants were usually drawn from nearby areas, as was the case in the sanctuaries of Asc1epius at Pergamon or Artemis at Perge. 176 The reason for this is that each deity had many shrines, and his or her worship could take place in one of countless locales throughout the empire. Judaism, however, had but one God, and this God had but one shrine. Therefore, those wishing to visit His earthly abode and participate in public sacrificial ceremonies in His honor had to go to Jerusalem. The city thus became the pilgrimage site par excellence in the first-century Roman Empire. Josephus phrases this idea rather succinctly: "In no other city let there be either altar or temple; for

174. Ant. 4.8,7,203-204. 175. Special Laws I, 12,67-68. 176. MacMullen, Paganism, 125-129.

THE TEMPLE AND TEMPLE MOUNT

253

God is one and the Hebrew race is one."177 There was one mother city for the Jews or, as Philo notes, the far-flung Diaspora Jewish communities are as colonies to their mother city.178 Only Jerusalem could provide for the most complete worship experience to the God of Israel, and the centripetal pull of the city was a significant bonding factor for Jews everywhere, perhaps the most significant. Much as Rome functioned as the urbs par excellence for the empire as a whole, so, too, did Jerusalem bind together the various disparate Jewish communities of Judaea and the Diaspora. 179

177. Ant. 4.5,5, 201. A similar idea is articulated by Eusebius in regard to Contantine: one God and one king; see Eusebius, Oration at the Tricennalia of Con tan tine 3, 6 (J. Stevenson, ed., New Eusebius, 392). 178. Philo walks a very fine line between his claim for the absolute centrality of Jerusalem for Diaspora Jews and their allegiance to local communities: For so populous are the Jews that no one country can hold them, and therefore they settle in very many of the most prosperous countries in Europe and Asia both in the islands and on the mainland, and while they hold the Holy City where stands the sacred Temple of the most high God to be their mother city, yet those which are theirs by inheritance from their fathers, grandfathers, and ancestors even farther back, are in each case accounted by them to be their fatherland" (Against Flaccus 7, 45-46). 179. A somewhat different type of sacredness in a city dominated by a temple (in this case, Artemis) is found at Ephesos; see Rogers, Sacred Identity, 136--151. More generally on geography and sacredness in the Roman world, see Edwards, Religion and Power, 72-81.

255

Chapter 7

Jerusalem in the Greco-Roman Orbit: The Extent and limitations of Cultural Fusion1 We have already had occasion to note the profound impact of the Greco-Roman world on Herod's building projects in Jerusalem as well as the influence of Hellenistic culture on his court life. Herod's non-Jewish advisers (some of whom were accomplished savants in their own right), the use of Greek names in his family, and the Greek education he gave his sons are only a few examples of his deep commitment to Greco-Roman civilization. This was no less powerful a force in shaping his priorities than his loyalty to its political system, and both were undoubtedly interrelated. There are many other indications of Jerusalem's acculturation to the surrounding Greco-Roman world and, taken together, these accommodations played a major role in shaping the city's life during the next hundred years. 2 Evidence of outside influence is apparent in the material (residential buildings of the Upper City, funerary remains), institutional (sanhedrin, polis), and cultural (language and religious pursuits) spheres; together they attest to Jerusalem's active participation in the larger Greco-Roman cultural world. 3

1. In this chapter, we shall address both the Herodian and the post-Herodian eras down to the destruction of the city in 70 C.E. While the adoption of Hellenistic models was already evident in the Hellenistic and Hasmonean eras, it is quite clear that Herodian rule provided this process with an additional and significant impetus. In many ways, this process continued down to the destruction, fueled later on by other forces as well (see below). For a general survey of this topic, see Avi-Yonah, "Jewish Art and Architecture," 250--263. 2. On the phenomenon of acculturation and its complexities, see the discussions of Wachtel, "L'acculturation," 124-146, and Bee, Patterns and Processes, 94-119. 3. What follows is to be balanced by the realization that many facets of Jerusalem society remained largely Jewish, intentionally or unintentionally avoiding emulation of Hellenistic mores. On some of the relatively unaffected components of Jewish society in late Second Temple Jerusalem, see below. Herod himself placed clear limitations on outside influences; with rare exception, he avoided figural art on his coins and public edifices (the main deviation being the eagle incident at the end of his life

256

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

The Jewish response to outside influence, as alluded to already on several occasions, was invariably complex-a mixture of adoption, adaptation, imitation, and rejection. Some Hellenistic models were introduced into Jerusalem with minimal adaptation, often involving only the removal of any traces of figural art. Thus, for example, the complaint by some Jerusalemites against Herod's theater lay in their opposition to images, and the protesters peacefully dispersed upon learning that none indeed existed there. Moreover, Jerusalem's residential quarters contained many examples of Hellenistic-Roman decorative models, to the exclusion of images. The adaptation of Hellenistic cultural tools, such as language and forms of exegesis, is likewise in evidence, thus enabling the city's inhabitants to communicate within the wider Roman context (language) while enhancing their opportunity to plumb their literary and religious traditions (from biblical to oral) in greater depth (exegesis). Other forms and patterns were borrowed and subjected to similar adjustments (e.g., funerary customs and political institutions) so as to render them appropriate for a Jewish context. Examples of these processes are presented below, with an eye toward tracing the nature and extent of HellenisticRoman cultural penetration into Herodian and post-Herodian Jerusalem. Just as these influences reconfigured the city, so they were revamped to meet the needs and religious sensibilities of the local Jewish population. Both Hellenistic and Roman culture affected Judaea at one and the same time. Examples of the former include the widespread use of Greek, the introduction of the theater and hippodrome, adoption of the polis model, funerary monuments, and a plethora of Greek architectural styles. The influence of the latter, Roman, world is reflected in the appearance of the amphitheater with its gladiatorial and animal spectacles;4 the Roman-type theaters, baths, basilica, and forums; as well as the widespread use of aqueducts, vaults, arches, concrete, ossuaries, and the opus reticulatum building style. The influence of Roman material culture on the East is not unusual in and of itself. What is unique in the case of Herodian Jerusalem is its timing, fully a century or two earlier than elsewhere. That such influence is so abundant before the late first and second centuries C.E. can be accounted for only by Herod's intense commitment to integrate his kingdom into the Roman world and by his strong ties to [Ant. 17.6.2. 149-154]). There are no traces of human or animal images in any of his many palaces and fortresses (with the exception of animal-shaped fountains in his Jerusalem palace, as noted in War 5.4,4, 181; see above), nor are there any traces of idolatry. The temples he built to glorify the emperor (e.g., in Sebaste and Caesarea) were intended for a gentile population. Moreover, Herod was equally strict when it came to intermarriage; when his sister Salome wished to marry Syllaeus the Nabataean, Herod insisted that the latter first convert to Judaism, i.e., become circumcised (Ant. 16.7,6,225). On the possible Nabataean influence on Jerusalem's architecture, see Barag, "New Developments," 38-47.

4. On these contexts as reflections of Roman values and identity, see Wiedemann, Emperors and Gladiators, 1-54.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

257

Rome itself. In general, Romanization of the East was less far-reaching and disruptive than in the West. The East had already been Hellenized and thus there was little or no cultural vacuum on any level. As a result, Romanization proceeded at a much slower pace, always taking into account Eastern mores, e.g., the regnant Greek language and the indigenous religious sensibilities, as was the case with the Jews. Indeed, much has been written on the dual influence of Hellenism and Romanization at this time. The relative impact of these two cultural streams on the Greek East has fascinated historians for generations and the debate continues up to the present.5 However, such a distinction is not always clear-cut, as the Romans themselves adopted Hellenistic culture and allowed it to flourish, as, for example, in the continued use of Greek throughout the East.6 The Greeks cities of the East, for their part, were not adverse to utilizing Roman material techniques and institutions.? In Jerusalem, as elsewhere, we find-rather than a clash of cultures-a coexistence of Greek, Roman, and local elements. Furthermore, each of these components was far from monolithic. There were many different forms of Romanization, and the same holds true for the Hellenistic as well as Jewish components.8 Herod used this mixture of styles, patterns, and institutions to reconfigure Jerusalem as an invigorated Jewish political and religious center integrally related to the Hellenistic East and the pax Romana. Local traditions and cosmopolitan practices coalesced to give the city a distinct Jewish character and a marked universal dimension. 9

The Temple As noted in Chapter 6, Herod used a well-known Hellenistic model when constructing the Temple Mount. Temene with artificial platforms, porticoes, basilicas, and temples are known from North Africa, Syria, and Asia Minor; this type of com5. See, e.g., the studies of Levick, Roman Colonies, and Woolf, "Becoming Roman," 116-143, and "Beyond Romans and Natives," 339-350, and the bibliographies in each. 6. The complexity of acculturation is likewise evident in the fact that Rome itself was "colonized" by foreign influences-at first by Greek culture, then by Eastern cults, and finally by the imposition of the Syrian Baal into the city by the emperor Elagabalus in the third century. 7. The literature on this topic is of epic dimensions. See, for example, Dodge, "Architectural Impact," 108-120; Woolf, "Becoming Roman," 116-143; Yegiil, "Memory, Metaphor, and Meaning," 133-153; and the studies focusing on Greece and Asia Minor in Macready and Thompson, eds., Roman Architecture in the Greek World. On Herodian Judaea, see the contributions in Fittschen and Foerster, eds.,

Judaea and the Greco-Roman World. 8. In addition to the references inn. 7, see also Millar, "Greek City," 232-260; and for a comparison with Gaul in the West, see Woolf, Becoming Roman, 1-23,238-246. On the Roman influence on Herod, see Geiger, "Herodes Philorhomaios," 75-88, and "Language, Culture, and Identity," 237-239. 9. Ward-Perkins'comment about Augustan Rome seems equally applicable to Herodian Jerusalem: "At no moment in the history of Roman architecture was the Roman genius for adopting, adapting, and taking creative possession of the traditions of others to playa larger part than in the Augustan Age"

(Roman Imperial Architecture, 28).

258

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

plex, sometimes referred to as a Caesareum, is described by Philo and other GrecoRoman authors of this period.lO Other aspects of the Temple complex likewise reflected Hellenistic influence. Architectural components found in archaeological excavations around the Temple Mount conform to regnant Greek usage; the columns, capitals, basilica plan, lintels, and gates all follow Classical or Hellenistic models. The "service" rooms, or cells, in the Temple edifice, along with a connecting corridor (mesibbah), are elements found in other temples as welP Indeed, there should be nothing particularly unusual about such borrowing. As mentioned, Jews never possessed an independent architectural tradition of their own, and their public structures repeatedly imitated models then in vogue in the wider contemporary world. It is well known that Solomon's Temple was patterned after a typical Phoenician temple plan. 12 The fact that Herod's Temple Mount functioned as the city's forum or agora, where a plethora of judicial, political, social, economic, and cultural activities took place, is also similar to other Greco-Roman temene. Moreover, there are a number of specific parallels between pagan temple areas and the Temple Mount. For instance, in many sacred pagan precincts a variety of objects were placed on the roof (disks, spikes, etc.) to keep birds away; the Jerusalem Temple also had a "raven-scarer" for the same purpose (Josephus describes them as sharp golden spikes).13 Furthermore, the Temple Mount was planned so that the main approaches to the sacred precincts were designated for one-way traffic, and this was frequently the case in pagan contexts as well. 14 In Jerusalem, the access points to the Temple's courts were via the two southern Huldah Gates; the Mishnah relates that the one <m the right, i.e., the eastern gate, was used for entering, while the one on the left, the western gate, was for exiting,15 and archaeological finds seem to confirm this arrangement. As noted, a monumental thirty-step staircase was found in front of the western Huldah Gate and another, narrower, set of stairs came to light in front of its eastern gate. The latter gate was for entry and thus its stairs were not very wide, while the western gate, used for leaving at the end of an event or ceremony, required a much wider set of stairs (Fig. 68). Certain religious customs and practices known to have been conducted in Greek and Roman temple precincts also appear in the Jerusalem Temple and pre10. See Ward-Perkins and Ballance. "Caesarewn at Cyrene," 137-194, and Adna, lerusalemer Tempel, 32-50. II. See Patrich, "Messibah," 226-229. 12. Isserlin, "Israelite Art," 38-40. 13. War 5.5,6,224, and M Middot 4,6. See Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 172-177.

14. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 166-167. On the organization of a stairway on the Temple Mount similar to stairways in pagan temples by introducing smaller, intermediate steps to facilitate ascent and descent, see Jacobson and Gibson, "Monumental Stairway," 169. 15. M Middot 2, 2.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

259

Figure 68. The Temple Mount viewed from the south. showing the two Huldah Gates and their accompanying staircases (Holy land Hotel model).

sumably were influenced by them. For instance, the weaving of temple-related fabrics by virgins was a known practice in non-Jewish sanctuaries as well as in the Jerusalem Temple. 16 Moreover, the ceremony of bringing the first fruits (bikkurim) to Jerusalem involved a festive procession into the city with the decorated horns of animals, particularly oxen-a practice well known in pagan contexts as well:17 Those living near [Jerusalem] brought fresh figs and grapes, and those living far away brought dried figs and raisins. Before them went an ox, with its horns overlaid with gold and a wreath of olive-leaves on its head. The flute was playing before them (i.e., the procession) until they came near the city. IS Another example of parallels between the Jerusalem Temple and pagan temples is that of the postbiblical Simhat Bet Hasho'evah (the Water-Drawing Festival) held during the Sukkot holiday. These festivities, characterized by all-night merrymaking that lasted for several days, included singing and dancing, juggling and acrobatics; mass processions (often with torches) of people carrying an assort16. T Sheqalim 2, 6 (ed. Lieberman, 207), and Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 167-169. See also IIan, Mine and Yours, 139- 143. 17. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 144-146. 18. M Bikkurim 3, 3.

260

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Figure 69. Architectural and artistic details from the Royal Stoa and Temple walls.

ment of items, including branches (willows); and water libations. Many of these elements have striking parallels in contemporary pagan holiday celebrations; clearly some sort of borrowing had taken place here. '9 Thus even Jerusalem's most sacred edifice exhibited influences from the outside world. While this was most pronounced in its physical and material dimensions, it was nevertheless present in its ceremonies and customs as well. Even the particularistic practice in the Jerusalem Temple, such as the exclusion of the "other" (i.e., non-Jews) from the sacred precincts, was similar in many pagan settings. In Egypt, for example, Phoenicians, Greeks, and Bedouins, among others, were forbidden to enter certain temple precincts.

Residential Quarters Not only was Herod attracted to the domestic material culture characteristic of the wider Hellenistic-Roman world when building his palaces, so, too, were the wealthy classes of Jerusalem. Excavations in the city's Jewish Quarter conducted after 1967 revealed remarkable evidence of the extent to which this stratum of Jerusalem society imported and adopted the regnant artistic styles and material goods from the surrounding world (Fig. 69). Many parallels have been drawn to Italian prototypes, especially the Second Style.20 Among the remains most indicative of outside influence are monumental Corinthian and Ionic capitals; large bases and column drums; mosaic floors featuring geometric and floral designs, often with rosette patterns; frescoes resembling those found at Pompeii and featuring rectilinear, geometric, curvilinear, and floral (a garland motif with leaves, pomegranates, and apples) patterns; architectural designs (e.g., imitation 19. Rubenstein, History ofSukkot, 145-148. 20. See, e.g., Laidlaw, "Tomb of Montefiore," 33-42.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

261

Figure 70. Terra sigillata ware found in the Upper City.

windows); colored panels (including one depicting fluted Ionic columns and a schematic Doric frieze); imitation marble striations; and stucco moldings made to resemble ashlar blocks. Also found were a glass decanter with the Greek inscription "Ennion made it" (a reference to a famous glassmaker from Sidon), imported Western and Eastern terra sigillata (the former produced in Italy, the latter in the eastern Mediterranean), very fine (or thin-walled) ware exemplified by an exquisite painted bowl, Italian amphorae (wine jars inscribed with Latin "trademarks") and other wine flasks, and perfume bottles (Fig. 70).21 It should also be noted that Herodian pottery remains from Jericho, from Herod's desert fortresses, and from Jerusalem are strikingly different from their Hasmonean predecessors in the quantity and quality of imported wares. Whereas Hasmonean society had relied, for the most part, on local production, it seems that Herod and his upper classes preferred foreign-made ceramics. Thus the material evidence clearly indicates that the wealthy residential neighborhoods of the Upper City of Jerusalem were well ensconced in the wider GrecoRoman material culture (see below).

Funerary Remains The tombs that dotted the Jerusalem landscape are invariably of Hellenistic design but without figural depictions. The tholos of Absalom's tomb and the pyramid of Zechariah's tomb are classic Hellenistic architectural components. To these should be added the Tomb of the Kings, associated with Helena of Adiabene, the suggested reconstruction of which also follows Hellenistic patterns.22 The smaller, less grandiose, tombs in the vicinity of Jerusalem likewise boast impressive fa<;ades (e.g., the so-called Sanhedrin tombs, Umm el-' Amed, and the Eshkolot tomb) pat21 . Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 81-202. On the evidence from Herod's Masada, see Cotton and Geiger, "Economic Importance," 163-170. 22. See Kon , Tombs of the Kings , and Finegan, Archeology of the New Testament, 314-318.

262

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Figure 71 . The fa<;ade of the Sanhedrin tombs in northern Jerusalem.

terned after Hellenistic models (Fig. 71).23 All of these sites use the Greco-Roman style of columns, capitals, friezes , cornices, and architraves; and similar monuments have been found in abundance in Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Asia Minor?4 As noted, the widespread use of burial cavities (kukhim or loculi) in this period had its origins in Egypt and reached Judaea during the Hellenistic era.25 The decorati ve motifs of these tombs, as well as those adorning the limestone sarcophagi discovered in some of them, include grapevines, clusters of grapes, rosettes, and a variety of geometric patterns and resemble motifs found elsewhere in the East and in Rome. 26 Focusing on the scroll ornamentation found on many Jerusalem sarcophagi (the Nazirite tomb on Mount Scopus, the Dominus Aevit necropolis on the Mount of Olives, the Tomb of the Kings, and Herod's tomb west of Mount Zion), Mathea-Fortsch 27 identifies several styles and motifs that already appear in first-century B.C.E. Italic art. She thus postulates that ''the finds in Palestine are comparable in use, and due to this and to the chronological similarity, an influence of funerary architecture of late Republican and early Imperial Rome seems probable." Klonef8 suggests that the amphora motif on ossuaries may well derive from Hellenistic models. On a broader scope, Foerster notes certain structural resemblances between Roman and Jerusalem sarcophagi (e.g., a recess and ledge, or "cushion," for the head); he further remarks that decorative motifs such as the rosette, garland with flowers and fruit, acanthus scroll, and wreath have

23. See NEAEHL, II:750--756. 24. Even some of the decorative elements. such as the rosette, may have their roots in the GrecoHellenistic world; see Elderkin, "Architectural Details," 518-525. 25 . See Peters and Thiersch, Painted Tombs, 81-85. Many of the above-noted components were also to be found at funerary sites in western Samaria and southern Judaea.See Magen, "Tombs," 28-37. 26. Avi-Yonah, Art in Ancient Palestine, 125-145. 27. Mathea-Fortsch, "Scroll Ornamentations," 177-196; quote from p. 179. 28. K1oner, "Amphorae with Decorative Motifs," 48-54.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO·ROMAN ORBIT

263

Figure 72. A decorated ossuary from Jerusalem.

their roots in Classical and Hellenistic funerary art. Nevertheless, in summarizing his findings, Foerster states, "[I]t may be said that the funerary art in Judea of the first half of the first century CE is firmly rooted in Hellenistic art and architecture, though some Roman connections can complement the picture."29 Our discussion here focuses on another type of funerary remains, one that first appeared under Herod and dominated the Jerusalem scene down to the city's destruction. It is generally agreed that the most unusual-as well as the most ubiquitous-of burial finds from this period are ossuaries, small stone coffins that were used for secondary burials (Fig. 72). First, the corpse was placed in a kokh or on a shelf; about a year later, when the flesh had decayed, the bones were gathered and placed in an ossuary. Special burial customs were developed for this occasion, and a society for the gathering of bones was said to have existed in Jerusalem. 30 Secondary burial in ossuaries was unique to the Jerusalem region; it was practically unknown elsewhere in the Roman East and in other parts of Judaea as well. Introduced during the Herodian era, in the last third of the first century S.C.E. and peaking in the first century C.E., this custom began to disappear after the destruction of the Temple, leaving only scattered remains of ossuaries from the second to third centuries C.E. This type of secondary burial cannot be associated with anyone particular group or class in Jerusalem society, but appears to have been adopted by a broad spectrum of the city's residents. Ossuaries were found in every part of the city's necropolis, and in the elaborate as well as the simple burial caves. Well over two thousand ossuaries have been found to date, in contrast to less than a few dozen sarcophagi. About one third of the ossuaries were decorated, while most were plain, devoid of 29. Foerster, "Sarcophagus Production," 295-310; quote from page 309. 30. Tractate "Mourning" (Semahot) 12,5 (ed. Zlotnick, 81). It is not clear whether this association (havurah) served the city generally or only the local Pharisaic community. On secondary burial customs, see Tractate "Mourning" (Semahot) 12-14 (ed. Zlotnick, 158-169). On a number of Greek parallels to Jewish burial customs in general, see Zlotnick, Tractate "Mourning, " 17-27, and Lieberman, "Some Aspects of After-Life," 495-530. See also the extensive, though somewhat outdated and idiosyncratic, discussion of Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, I: 110-133.

264

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

any kind of ornamentation. The more lavishly decorated ones were usually embellished with geometric patterns, and less frequently with other depictions such as doors, a building fa~ade, columns, goblets, or a tree. In not a few cases the name or names of the deceased were engraved on the ossuary, and in many instances the ossuary contained the bones of several individuals. Given the popularity of ossuaries for secondary burial in Jerusalem, questions arise regarding the origin and significance of this custom. Two very different approaches have been suggested. One posits that ossuaries were essentially an internal, Pharisaic, development; their use in secondary burials evolved in response to the growing belief in the resurrection of the body and that a deceased person's fate was ultimately decided after twelve months, when the flesh decomposed and the bones were ready for final interment. Ancient sources-especially later rabbinic literature-attribute these two beliefs to the Pharisees and later to the rabbis, and it is thus posited that the practice attests to the dominant influence of the Pharisees in late Second Temple Jerusalem. 31 This suggestion, however, is problematic on a number of counts. It would have us assume that all (or almost all) Jews during this period were Pharisees, or at least had accepted this central Pharisaic doctrine, an assumption that has generally been rejected by historians over the last generation. 32 Moreover, this theory does not account for the dating of the appearance and disappearance of this custom: Why was it introduced only under Herod (one hundred years after the first appearance of the Pharisees!) and, more crucial, why did ossuaries disappear precisely at the time when Pharisaic (now rabbinic) influence was on the rise (i.e., following the destruction ofthe Temple). Moreover, if this practice is to be associated with the belief in individual resurrection and immortality, as is claimed, why do many ossuaries contain more than one set of bones?33 An alternative explanation posits that the use of ossuaries originated in a nonJewish context. The Romans used similar small stone boxes-along with umsfor their secondary burials; following cremation, the ashes were placed in these receptacles. 34 Although the use of such ossuaries in Jerusalem for secondary burials most certainly required some adaptation, viewing this Roman practice as the inspiration for the introduction of ossuaries into the city can best explain the timing of the burial custom. As noted, the practice first appeared in the Herodian 31. Rahmani, "Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs (1)," 171-177; 229-235; "Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs (2)," 43-53; "Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs (3)," 109-119; Catalogue, 53-59; and "Ossuaries and Ossilegium," 191-205. 32. See E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 380-412; Goodblatt, "Place of the Pharisees," 12-30; and see below. 33. See E. M. Meyers, Jewish Ossuaries, 85-89; Rubin, "Secondary Burials," 248-253; and Regev, "Individualistic Meaning of Jewish Ossuaries," 39-49. See also Fine, "Why Bone Boxes?" 38-44. 34. Toynbee, Death and Burial, 50. See also Lieberman, TK, V:1235.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

265

era, when a range of Roman practices, mediated through Herod, had a significant impact on the city. The use of ossuaries is likewise attested for Ephesos in the first centuries B.C.E. and C.E. and reveals the influence of western artistic motifs.35 This explanation regarding Jerusalem also accounts for the timing of this practice's disappearance. Once Jerusalem was destroyed, so, too, were the social and cultural contexts that had nurtured it, not to mention the stone industry that had sustained it. Moreover, in the course of the first and second centuries C.E., as Rome began moving from cremation to primary burials in sarcophagi, the Jews also eschewed ossuaries and adopted a single primary burial, as evidenced in the remains from the Bet She'arim necropolis in the Lower Galilee.36 If the above line of argument is granted, then the introduction of ossuaries may be construed not as a statement of a particular set of Pharisaic religious beliefs but as a Roman practice that Jerusalem society borrowed and adapted. It may be assumed that this process commenced with the upper classes but soon filtered down into other social strata as well. 37 Adopting this pagan model required several adjustments: the depositing of bones and not of ashes, waiting about twelve months for the flesh to decompose before transferring the remains, and accompanying this act with a number of burial customs appropriated, inter alia, from the primary Jewish funerary setting. It is interesting to note that a number of ritual practices associated with Jewish secondary burial find parallels in Rome, including wrapping the ashes in a shroud, using perfumes and fragrances, preparing a meal, and creating special burial societies. 38 Thus, if our explanation regarding the origin of ossuaries is granted, it would provide further evidence for the influence of Roman practices on what was to become a very central Jewish funerary custom in late Second Temple Jerusalem.

Political Institutions Besides the Herodian kingship, the Jerusalem political scene under Rome appears to have been significantly influenced by other Greco-Roman frameworks as well-namely, the polis fonn of city government and the Hellenistic synedrion. Although the implications of their presence in Jerusalem are notable, assuming their very existence requires some explanation. 35. See Cormack, "Funerary Monuments," 148. 36. NEAEHL, 1:241-248. See also B. Mazar, Beth She'arim, and Avigad, Beth She'arim. 37. On the correlation between the use of ossuaries and the upper classes, with their high standard of living, see Rubin, "Secondary Burials," 248-269, esp. 262-269; as well as Fine, "Note on Ossuary Burial," 69-76. 38. Toynbee, Death and Burial, 43-55. See Zlotnick, Tractate "Mourning," 80-88, 158-169, and generally Lieberman, "Some Aspects of After-Life," 506-513.

266

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

A wide range of sources-rabbinic literature, Josephus, the New Testament, and the Roman historian Cassius Dio--allude in one way or another to the presence of polis-related political offices such as archons (rulers) and a boule (city council) in Jerusalem. Josephus also speaks of a demos, the citizens of the city. The single most telling source in this regard is an official letter from the emperor Claudius, quoted by Josephus, in which he addresses ''the archons, boule, and demos of Jerusalem."39 Another Jerusalem institution associated with the polis is the "ten leading men" (dekaprotoi),40 and several sources note the existence of a bouleuterion (council building) in the city,41 together with members of a boul~2 and a boule secretary.43 A polis-like municipal structure was not, of course, new to Hellenistic-Roman Palestine. Most pagan cities were probably organized as poleis (Gaza, for example, as early as the second century B.C.E.),44 as well as at least one Jewish city, TIberias,45 and quite likely Sepphoris as well. It is not clear when the polis system was introduced into Jerusalem; opinions range from the time of Herod to that of Agrippa 1 46 The scholarly consensus regarding the existence of a Jerusalem polis was challenged by Tcherikover,47 who claims that each of the above-noted sources is flawed in one way or another and, if indeed any of the these institutions existed, they were a far cry from the Greek polis model. He assumes that the authority of the Jerusalem sanhedrin was broad, incorporating many of the functions associated with the polis, and that its jurisdiction extended far beyond the Jerusalem city limits. Moreover, Tcherikover notes that there is no indication in any first-century source of an election, change of officials, or regular meetings of the demos, all of which were customary in a Greek polis. None of the educational institutions usually associated with a polis, such as the gymnasium or ephebium, is ever referred to, nor does there seem to have been a distinction between the functions of the boule and the priesthood. Josephus, for his part, appears inconsistent in his use of terminology, thus raising serious doubts regarding his overall reliability in this regard. Tcherikover suggests that Josephus may have used the Greek terms solely for the benefit of his Greco-Roman readers and thus concluded that Jerusalem had traditional Jewish institutions (a sanhedrin, priesthood, etc.) dressed, at most, in a Hellenistic garb, i.e., bearing the labels of Greek institutions. 39. Ant. 20.1,2, 11. 40. Ibid., 20.8, 11, 194; see also War 5.13, 1,532, where fifteen are noted. 41. War 6.6, 3, 354, and Y Yoma I, 1, 38c. 42. War 2.17, 1,405; Y Ta 'ani! 4, 5, 69a; Mark 15:43; and Cassius Dio, 66, 6, 2. 43. War 5.13, 1,532. 44. Ant. 13.13,3,364. 45. Life 12,64, and War 2.21, 9, 641. 46. See, e.g., Zucker, Studien, 76-79. 47. Tcherikover, "Was Jerusalem a 'Polis'?" 61-78.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO·ROMAN ORBIT

267

Despite this critique, the case for the existence of a Jerusalem polis cannot be easily disregarded. Not only does a wide variety of sources use specific terms that relate to a polis, but Claudius' letter cannot be dismissed as an error on the part of the emperor, as a Josephan misinterpretation, or as the latter's willful misrepresentation. Josephus' critics would have lambasted him for such a misrepresentation. Some of Tcherikover's assumptions conceming the existence of traditional Jewish institutions in the first century, which supposedly stood behind these Greek labels, are far from self-evident. We suggest that the sanhedrin at this time was most probably a very different institution from what has often been assumed, having nothing whatsoever in common with a boule or any other civic body (see below). The most problematic link in Tcherikover's argument, however, lies in his methodology. Implicit in his analysis is an assumption that one measures the evidence for city government in the first century on the basis of what is known about the Classical Greek polis. The fact remains, however, that by the first century C.E. few, if any, poleis resembled the classic Greek model. Centuries of Ptolemaic and Seleucid rule, followed by Roman hegemony, had radically altered the status and functioning of Greek cities. Most prerogatives of the polis had been usurped by the Hellenistic kingdoms, and the Roman tendency to rely on trustworthy local oligarchies, polis related or not, had become a cardinal element in imperial policy. By the first century, in short, most poleis of the Roman East had evolved into something far different from their Greek prototypes, exhibiting an amalgamation of both Greek and Eastern institutions, with limited local autonomy and functioning in the context of the Roman provincial administration. Thus the Jerusalem polis was unlike the classic Greek model but probably would not have been all that unusual in the landscape of the Roman East. In Roman eyes-as per Claudius' letter-it seems to have resembled other contemporary Greek poleis. The likelihood that Jerusalem had such an institution is a significant statement regarding the penetration of Greek models into the city.48 Its introduction would signal a notable measure of civic Hellenization. One has only to remember the events of 175 B.C.E., when the High Priest Jason converted Jerusalem into a polis. As noted, there was no resistance or negative response to his move; nothing to this effect is recorded in 2 Maccabees, a source that, given its tendentiousness, probabl y would not have ignored such opposition. Chances are that such a change 150 or 200 years later, in Roman Jerusalem, likewise proceeded smoothly. A second political institution in first-century Jerusalem was the synedrion (or sanhedrin). The vast literature dealing with this institution is due in part to its presumed importance and in part to the sharply contradictory descriptions 48. See also Alan, Jews, Judaism, 51-52, as well as McLaren, Power and Politics, 211-213.

268

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

it has received in various sources. 49 According to rabbinic literature, on the one hand, the sanhedrin was an independent, Pharisee-led body guided by Pharisaic halakhah that dealt with a wide range of political and religious issues. Greek sources (Josephus and the New Testament), on the other hand, describe the sanhedrin as a politically oriented ad hoc body controlled by a Herodian ruler or high priest and governed by a halakhah often quite different from that recorded in rabbinic literature. Its composition was much more diverse than that assumed in rabbinic literature and included Sadducees, Pharisees, and members of the Jerusalem aristocracy. There have been many attempts to resolve this dilemma. Some scholars have been inclined to accept the testimony of one source and dismiss the other as untrustworthy, while most have assumed the historicity of each, at least in part. The latter approach, in tum, has given rise to a plethora of theories claiming that there were two institutions called sanhedrin (a political one following Josephus and the New Testament, and a religious one as per rabbinic literature), three (the above two as well as the Jerusalem boule), or one all-encompassing institution under the high priest, with a committee on religious affairs led by the Pharisees. According to this approach, each source describes a different facet of one complex reality. Finally, there are some scholars who assume that the conflicting sources refer to different time frames. Faced with this array of theories, what can be said about the actual operation of the sanhedrin from the Second Temple period? When and in what contexts did it function, who headed it, what was its authority, and what was its composition? In other words, the actual activities of the sanhedrin are far more important in determining its place and status in society rather than general or theoretical statements describing its prerogatives. Josephus mentions a synedrion on a number of occasions. Gabinius created five councils (synedria) when he divided Judaea in 57 B.C.E.;5o Hyrcanus IT convoked such a body in 46 B.C.E. to try Herod for Hezekiah's murder;51 and Herod summoned a synedrion to gain an official seal of approval for his plans to execute Hyrcanus IT, his own sons Aristobulus and Alexander and, later, Antipater, as well as his brother Pherora's wife. 52 Ananus, a Sadducean high priest, summoned a 49. TDNT, VII:860-867, and ABD, V:975-980. For a review of the literature through the 1950s, see Mantel, Studies, 54-101. The conclusions presented here were already anticipated by Bickennan, "On the Sanhedrin," 356-359, and subsequently adopted by Levine, "From the Beginning of Roman Rule," 200-202, and Judaism and Hellenism, 87-90; Efron, Studies, 287-318; and Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 103-130. See also the comments of M. Stern, GLAJJ, II: 376, Goodman, Ruling Class, 114-116; McLaren, Power and Politics, 213-217; and E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 472-490.

50. Ant. 14.5,4,90-91. 51. Ibid., 14.2-5, 158-184. 52. Ibid., 15.6,2,173; 16.11, 1,357; 17.3, 1,46; 5, 3, 93.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

269

synedrion to try Jesus' brother James,53 while Agrippa II convened a synedrion to deal with the levites' grievances. 54 ill all these instances, the synedrion appears to have been a council of eminent figures summoned by the ruling power to deliberate specific cases. Of no less importance to this discussion are the many occasions when the synedrion is not mentioned by Josephus. It never represents the people vis-a-vis Rome, neither in the rebellion of 4 B.C.E. nor later on, in the course of the many events that preceded the outbreak of hostilities in 66. Nowhere do we read of the synedrion functioning as an autonomous legislative-judicial body, nor is it ever mentioned in any of the crises concerning the various procurators. Moreover, it appears that the synedrion did not function under Agrippa I or in Agrippa II's dispute with the Temple authorities over the wall they buiW5-an issue for which it would have been natural for such a body, had one existed, to have been convened, at least according to rabbinic claims concerning its prerogatives. In the New Testament, the synedrion appears as an arm of the high priesthood as, for example, before Jesus' trial (Mark 14-15 and parallels); on other occasions, a synedrion was convoked to try James and Peter (Acts 5), Stephen (Acts 7), and Paul (Acts 22-23). The body mentioned in these cases, which dealt with matters of religious and political import, was convened by the ruling power and was composed of priests (mostly Sadducees), the aristocracy, and Pharisees. The synedrion does not appear as an independent, authority-wielding, body. Thus the weight of evidence from the more contemporary sources-Josephus and the New Testament-appears to point in the same direction. 56 Finally, an institution such as the one described by Josephus and the New Testament was well known in the Hellenistic and Roman worlds. An advisory council, often referred to as a synedrion (similar to the Latin concilium), was often convened by a ruler to take counsel on a major issue at hand. 57 Thus it would appear that, with the development of a strong central monarchy in Judaea in the late Hasmonean and Herodian eras, the earlier gerousia had disappeared, only to be replaced by a synedrion that functioned in an advisory capacity under the direction, and by the discretion, of the ruling power.58

53. Ibid., 20.11, 1,200. 54. Ibid., 20.9, 6, 216. 55. Ibid., 20.9, 6, 216-218. 56. Rabbinic literature, specifically Mishnah and Tosefta Sanhedrin, seems to reflect an idealized picture of an institution that, in fact, never existed in Second Temple Jerusalem. It is blatantly unhistorical in listing such issues as an idolatrous tribe, tribal courts, and an apostate city, all of which had long since disappeared from the Jewish scene. 57. See Millar, Emperor, 110-122,234-238,268-269. 58. See H. J. Mason, Greek Terms, 123-124.

270

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

Language Four different languages could be heard in Jerusalem throughout the year: Aramaic, Greek, Hebrew, and Latin. They are all attested in epigraphical remains, and we know of literary works from Second Temple Jerusalem that are written in at least three of these tongues. Much of Jerusalem's population was probably familiar with, if not fluent in, the first two of them. Archaeological remains from Qumran and other parts ofthe Judaean Desert (those relating to Bar-Kokhba and Babatha), as well as several rabbinic traditions,59 clearly indicate the complex linguistic situation in Palestine at the beginning of the second century C.E. 60

Latin Latin was the least common of the four languages mentioned and was largely restricted to Roman soldiers and imperial officials. It was used only in certain places in the city and at certain times, as, for example, in the Antonia fortress on pilgrimage festivals, when large contingents of soldiers were present, and in the procurator's residence when he visited the city. There is always the possibility that some Jews from Rome, Italy, or the western provinces of the empire who visited Jerusalem on pilgrimage spoke Latin. However, their numbers were probably quite small, and even then many-if not most--Df them were probably Greek speakers. Of the approximately six hundred Jewish catacomb inscriptions from Rome in the later empire, only 21 percent are in Latin, whereas 78 percent are in Greek. Other than the specifically mentioned populations, occasions, and settings, it seems safe to say that the use of Latin in Jerusalem was close to negligible.

Hebrew Relative to Latin, Hebrew was more commonly used in the city, although it is impossible to gauge its extent. Other than funerary inscriptions, we have little evidence for its use, and even the inscriptions are only partially helpful. It is often difficult to distinguish between Hebrew and Aramaic, as most inscriptions consist of names only. Moreover, even when we have a Hebrew inscription, it does not nec59. Y Megillah I, 11, 71b. and Sifrei Deuteronomy 343. 60. Fitzmyer, "Languages of Palestine," 501-531 (= Wandering Aramean, 29-56). See also Grintz, "Hebrew," 32-47; Gundry, "Language Milieu," 404-408; Sevenster, Do You Know Greek?; Treu, "Die Bedeutung des Griechischen," 123-144; Wacholder, Eupolemus, 259-306; Rabin, "Hebrew and Aramaic," 1007-1039; Mussies, "Greek," 1040-1064; Rajak, Josephus, 46-58, and "Location of Cultures," 1-14; Barr, "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek," 79, 114; Hengel, "Hellenization," 7-18; Schtirer, History, 11:20-28,74-80; Rosen, Hebrew at the Crossroads, 5-39; Waldman, Recent Study of Hebrew, 79-135; Cotton et aI., "Papyrology," 227-231; and Millard, Reading and Writing, 84-153.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

271

essarily indicate that Hebrew was spoken, but only that it was used for identification in a funerary context. The reference to "Hebrews" in the early Jerusalem church in Acts 6: 1 is likewise ambiguous; it is not clear whether the term refers to the language spoken or to the group's Semitic-Palestinian origins. Furthermore, even if the word does refer to a language, it may be used generically and, in fact, refer to Aramaic, as is most often assumed. 61 Only scattered traces of spoken Hebrew have surfaced in Jerusalem. The statements ascribed to pre-70 Pharisaic sages as preserved in later rabbinic literature are often in Hebrew, but these may well be, in all or in part, secondcentury C.E. tannaitic formulations. The first chapters of Mishnah Avot are a case in point. The few Aramaic statements found there, attributed to Hillel,62 are striking exceptions in this regard and may indeed highlight, if not prove, the rule, namely that Hebrew was used primarily in limited circles, such as the Pharisaic and Essene sects. Of more direct relevance are references in the New Testament and in Josephus' writings to the speaking of "Hebrew" in Jerusalem, as, for example, when Paul addresses a crowd before being taken to the barracks and when Josephus speaks to the city's inhabitants (Acts 21:40, 22:2).63 If Paul's remarks were indeed in Hebrew, this may be understood, at best, as a demonstration of his Jewish origins. However, in light of other evidence that seems to point to the predominance of Aramaic in the city (see below), most scholars have interpreted this word as designating a Semitic language, with the reference in fact being to Aramaic. Other than a number of works written most probably in Jerusalem during the early Hellenistic-Hasmonean era, i.e., Ben Sira, Jubilees, Judith, Psalms of Solomon, and possibly several other books in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, the most telling evidence for the use of Hebrew comes from outside Jerusalem. The written material found in the Judaean Desert, both from Qumran and that relating to the Bar-Kokhba era, attests to the use of Hebrew not only in a literary context but also, in the case of Bar-Kokhba, as a living tongue used in letters and documents. However, the relevance of this second-century evidence stemming from these revolutionaries to the question of languages spoken in Jerusalem almost a century earlier is unclear. Mishnaic Hebrew has often been invoked as evidence of a spoken language, but even if this be granted, and it is by no means certain, any direct con61. See, e.g., Arndt and Gingrich, Greek-English Lexicon, 212, and Fiensy, "Composition of the Jerusalem Church," 230-236. For a broader perspective on the use (and non-use) of Hebrew in antiquity, see S. Schwartz, "Language, Power and Identity," 3-47. 62. M Avot 1, 13; 2, 6. 63. See also War 6.2,1,96.

272

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

nection with Jerusalem is tenuous. Mishnaic roots may have been in the Galilee or in rural Judea in this earlier period. In fact, it was rural Judea, in contrast to Jerusalem and the Galilee, that was the geographical context associated with a Hebrew clause in the ketubah, the marriage contract. 64 At least one document preserved in the Mishnah, purportedly describing a Second Temple situation-the prozbol, giving the court the right to collect debts during and after the sabbatical year-was in Hebrew. 65

Greek We are on somewhat more secure ground in trying to assess the use of Greek in Jerusalem. The epigraphical evidence is clear in this regard. More than one third of the inscriptions found in and around the city are in Greek. Of the 233 inscriptions published by Rahmani,66 73 are in Greek only and another 14 are in Greek and either Aramaic or Hebrew, together about 37 percent. Thus we can safely set this figure as the minimum percentage of those inhabitants in the city who preferred Greek in this context. Undoubtedly, there were many others who used Greek regularly yet wished to have Hebrew names recorded in a funerary setting-much as is the case in the Diaspora today. Since most of these inscriptions were found on ossuaries and sarcophagi for the practical purpose of identification, it is likely that the families and relatives of the interred were most familiar with this language. 67 Diaspora Jews who had settled in Jerusalem may well have been responsible for some of these Greek inscriptions. The most salient example of a Diaspora Jewish family having taken up residence in Jerusalem is reflected in the monumental Theodotos inscription that records three generations of archisynagogoi (heads of a synagogue). This family appears to have come to Jerusalem from Rome and established a synagogue there. Such an institutionalized Diaspora 64. M Ketubot 4, 12. 65. M Shevi'it 10,4. 66. Rahmani, Catalogue, 12-13. 67. Although, at first glance, epigraphical statistics appear to constitute hard data, they are nevertheless problematic when used as a basis for generalizations regarding the languages spoken in a given society. The issue, of course, is just how representative such evidence is. What percentage of the popUlation had inscriptions made (referred to by MacMullen as "the epigraphic habit," in his "Epigraphic Habit," 233-246) and what percentage of these inscriptions has been discovered? Obviously, there is no way of ascertaining these numbers. No less important are those strata not represented in these data or at least woefully underrepresented. Nevertheless, epigraphical evidence should not be summarily dismissed, as it provides a significant quantity of data (over 250 inscriptions from Second Temple Jerusalem alone), and these inscriptions come from all parts of the Jerusalem necropolis as well as from simple and elaborate tombs. This spread, it would seem, should provide a sample of important strata within the city, at least regarding the middle and upper classes.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

273

presence in Jerusalem is likewise reflected in Acts 6 which, in addition to identifying one wing of the nascent Jerusalem church as Hellenists (i.e., Greekspeaking Jews from the Diaspora), refers, as noted above, to a series of Diaspora synagogues in the city, serving Jews from Alexandria, Cyrene, Asia, and Cilicia, as well as freedmen (perhaps from Rome).68 However, most of the Greek funerary inscriptions noted probably originated in Jerusalem's native middle and upper classes. We have no way of knowing if, and to what extent, the lower classes knew Greek. Other than a smattering of isolated terms, this seems doubtful, as reflected in the Roman tribune's question to Paul: "Do you know Greek?" (Acts 21:37). Having just rescued Paul from a threatening crowd, this official may well have regarded him as a local rabble-rouser. The fact that many Jerusalemites had some command of Greek may be indicated by Josephus in an intriguing, though somewhat enigmatic, passage in which he takes pride in his Jewish learning, adding that to know Greek was so common among his fellow Jews that it was of no particular significance: For my compatriots admit that in our Jewish learning I far excel them. I have also labored strenuously to partake of the realm of Greek prose and poetry, after having gained a knowledge of Greek grammar, although the habitual use of my native tongue has prevented my attaining precision in the pronunciation. For our people do not favor those persons who have mastered the speech of many nations, or who adorn their style with smoothness of diction, because they consider that not only is such skill common to ordinary freemen but that even slaves who so choose may acquire it. But they give credit for wisdom to those alone who have an exact knowledge of the law and who are capable of interpreting the meaning of Holy Scriptures.69

Other than Josephus himself, however, the only other Jew in first-century Judaea who wrote in Greek was Justus of Tiberias, who composed two histories in that language. 7o Mention should be made of a rabbinic tradition that notes a halakhic controversy between Sadducees and Pharisees (presumably in Jerusalem) wherein the works of Homer were invoked as an example of not defiling the hands. 71 To account fully for the Greek spoken in Jerusalem, one must also consider the thousands of visitors who spent time in the city during pilgrimage festivals and on other occasions. Of those coming from abroad, except those from Mesopotamia and Babylonia, the overwhelming majority's mother tongue was

68. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 52-58. 69. Ant. 20.12, 1,263-264.

70. Schiirer, History, 1:34-37. 71. M Yadaim 4, 6.

274

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

assuredly Greek. Some 70 percent of the entire corpus of Jewish inscriptions from the Greco-Roman and Byzantine periods, in both the Diaspora and Palestine, are in Greek. Even within the Temple precincts, certain chests set aside for donations were marked with Greek letters.72 Moreover, the number of non-Jews who frequented the city and Temple-and who assuredly spoke either Greek or Latin-was not negligible, as is attested by the Greek and Latin inscriptions placed on the parapet (soreg) surrounding the Temple's sacred precinct designed to prevent gentiles from entering. 73 While it is difficult to assess what percentage of the population spoke Greek, or even understood it, the presence of Greek in Jerusalem appears to have been far more widespread than either Latin or Hebrew. The fact that some rabbis sought to ban the teaching of Greek in the early second century and, in contrast, that some were active in facilitating a Greek translation of the Bible by one Aquilas, are further indications of its widespread use. 74

Aramaic There can be little question that the most Ubiquitous language of first-century Jerusalem was Aramaic. Evidence for its extensive use comes from a number of sources. In the first place, many funerary inscriptions are in Aramaic, including one attesting to the reburial of King Uzziah's bones in the later Second Temple period.75 As noted, Greek references to "Hebrew" by Josephus76 and in the New Testament (Acts 21 :40, 22:2) may well refer to Aramaic; but the use of Aramaic phrases by the populace at large, reflected either in the name of a place (Gabath Saul)77 or in phrases ascribed to Jesus (Talita kumi, Mark 5 :41; lama shabaktani, Matt. 27:46), is striking testimony to the widespread use of Aramaic at the time. Three types of evidence may well be considered decisive in according Aramaic primacy among the languages used in the city. The first is the almost certain use of Aramaic translations of the Scriptures in this period-in synagogue settings, at the very lease 8 This custom is well known from rabbinic literature ofthe second century C.E., but it clearly existed beforehand as well. It should be noted parenthetically that Greek translations of biblical books, as well as a kind of expanded Aramaic midrash of the text known as the Genesis Apocryphon, have been 72. M Sheqalim 3, 2. 73. War 5.5,2, 193-194.

74. M Satah 9, 14, and Y Megillah 1, 11, 71c. 75. See Kutscher, "Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions," 349-350. 76. War 6.2, 1,96-97. 77. Ibid., 5.2, 1,51.

78. Kutscher, "Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions," 147-151.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

275

discovered at Qumran. Rabbinic tradition as well speaks of an Aramaic translation of Job that was found on the Temple Mount in the time of R. Gamaliel the Elder (ca. 30-50 C.E.) and of another that came to the attention of R. Gamaliel II in Tiberias (ca 100 C.E.).79 The fact that such translations existed and may well have played a role in the synagogue liturgy of the time indicates the degree to which the populace at large did not understand Hebrew and thus required a translation. A second indication of Aramaic's predominance in the city at this time can be found in the literary works written in this language. The last part of the book of Daniel was composed in Aramaic in 165 B.C.E. and thus serves as a case in point from the middle second century. As noted above, a number of apocryphal and pseudepigraphal books were presumably composed or translated into Aramaic during the Hasmonean era; 1 Enoch, Tobit, and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs seem to fit this category. Moreover, some of Alexander Jannaeus' coins-those with dates-bear Aramaic inscriptions: "King Alexander, Year 25." From the first century C.E., we have a list of holidays during which mourning was prohibited, with a brief indication of their origin; this list, written in Aramaic, became known as Megillat Ta 'anit. Last, but far from least, is a series of public and private documents in Aramaic relating specifically to Second Temple Jerusalem. Aramaic versions of the marriage contract (ketubah), with at least one explicitly associated with Jerusalem, are quoted in the Mishnah. BO Moreover, letters sent by R. Gamaliel the Elder from the Temple Mount area to Jews throughout Palestine and the eastern Diaspora regarding tithes and the intercalation of the year were likewise written in Aramaic. BI Among the many ancillary considerations pointing to the prominence of Aramaic in first-century Jerusalem is the well-documented reality of the third century C.E. on, when Aramaic reigned supreme in the Galilee-in synagogue inscriptions, the Yerushalmi, early midrashim, and, of course, in the continually evolving targumic literature. It can be assumed with some confidence that the prominence of Aramaic in the later empire was but a continuation from earlier centuries. One further caveat should to be noted. There is no question that many Jerusalemites were familiar (in different degrees) with a number of languages. B2 This 79. T Shabbat 13, 2 (ed. Lieberman, 57). 80. M Ketubot 4,7-12. 81. T Sanhedrin 2,6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 416). Evidence from the Judaean Desert documents further confirms the widespread use of Aramaic in daily life (loan deeds, marriage contracts, inheritance issues, debts, etc.). See Benoit et al., Les grottes de Murabba 'at, 67-205, and Fitzmyer and Harrington, Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts, nos. 40-64. 82. The polyglot dimension of Palestinian society, even after 70, is vividly reflected in a document dealing with an inheritance dispute from the Judaean Desert; the Greek text is followed by the signatures of seven witnesses: four signed in Aramaic, one in Greek, and two in Nabataean (Lewis, Documents from the Bar-Kokhba Period, no. 20).

276

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

would have been necessary for accommodating the hundreds of thousands of pilgrims and others who visited the city each year. Some Hebrew was undoubtedly known by many, especially from ritual and ceremonial contexts. We find Hebrew and Aramaic as well as Greek and Aramaic side by side on ossuaries, and the mixture of Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic names is widespread. 83 In summary, the two prominent languages of first-century Jerusalem were by far Aramaic and Greek. Thus, except for Hebrew (which appears to have been limited to highly defined circles), the languages of Jerusalem were those common to peoples throughout the East generally. Just as Greek could have easily been used throughout the empire, and even beyond its borders, so, too, written Aramaic could have served as a bond between a Buddhist emperor, a Parthian dynast, and a Jewish high priest in Jerusalem. Throughout the Roman East, these two languages were the most important channels of communication from the time of Alexander until the Arab conquest.

Pharisaic Exegesis According to the third-century C.E. Tosefta, Hillel (fl. toward the end of the first century B.C.E.) introduced seven hermeneutical rules into Pharisaic circles.84 These rules were identical to those in vogue in Hellenistic rhetorical circles for interpreting Classical Greek literature and included inferences a minori ad maius, inferences by analogy, and so on. Hillel rendered into Hebrew terms that had already been in use for generations among the Greeks. What are we to make of this parallel between Greek and Jewish intellectual circles or, to put the question differently, what was the extent of borrowing in this case? In the middle twentieth century, Daube85 and Lieberman86 addressed this issue and reached very different conclusions. The issue was not whether the rabbis borrowed the terms themselves, which they patently did, but whether they also appropriated the actual hermeneutical methodology associated with the terms. Lieberman acknowledges that the terminology itself was borrowed, but no more than this. Daube assumes that the rules themselves, and not just the terminology, were first introduced into rabbinic circles under the influence of Greek models. Moreover, he proposes a possible tie between Hillel and Alexandria, citing a tradition in which Hillel deals with a halakhic issue 83. See Millard, Reading and Writing, 132-153. 84. For a more skeptical approach to the question of attributing these rules to Hellenistic influence, see Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems," 101-135. 85. Daube, "Rabbinic Methods," 239-264, and "Alexandrian Methods," 27-44. 86. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 47-82.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO-ROMAN ORBIT

277

involving Alexandrians. 87 This, however, would not necessarily account for Hillel's adoption of the sophisticated henneneutics employed by contemporary Alexandrian rhetors. Daube instead uses a later Babylonian tradition, claiming that Hillel's predecessors and teachers, Shemaya and Avtalion, were converts from Alexandria88 and that they provided the conduit through which such Hellenistic practice reached Jerusalem and, in particular, Pharisaic circles.89 Liebennan, in denying that the rabbis were beholden to the Greeks for the method itself, asserts that it is impossible to imagine any serious midrashic activity that did not employ such methods. He further holds that such activity had been going on throughout the Second Temple period: The early Jewish interpreters of Scripture did not have to embark for Alexandria in order to learn there the rudimentary methods of linguistic research. To make them travel to Egypt for this purpose would mean to do a cruel injustice to the intelligence and acumen of the Palestinian sages. Although they were not philologists in the modem sense of the word, they nevertheless often adopted sound philological methods. 90

Despite Lieberman's disclaimer, the prior existence of such methods is precisely the issue at hand. Was this type of henneneutical activity practiced within Pharisaic (or any other Jewish) circles before the first century B.C.E.? In fact, there is no indication of this in any earlier source, either biblical or postbiblical. Nor do we encounter any indirect evidence. There is no exegesis that might be best explained by assuming the existence of such henneneutical rules. Later biblical books have some material that appears to be based on a midrashic interpretation of earlier sources, as do a number of books from the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Qumran scrolls. However, in none of these instances have traces of these particular rules been detected. 91 Thus Liebennan's assertion that midrashic methods similar to those of the Greeks were to be found among Second Temple exegetes remains an assumption only. Whatever midrashic activity took place among the early Pharisees was probably intuitive and strictly ad hoc, with no self-conscious theoretical underpinnings as the later henne87. T Ketubot 4,9 (ed. Lieberman, 68). 88. B Gittin 57b, and B Yoma 71b. 89. This last point is a weak link in Daube's argument. By accounting for the way in which such ideas were transferred to Jewish society, Daube would certainly help close the circle and strengthen his argument. However, he has not done this; the above-mentioned Babylonian traditions are too distant chronologically from the events they purport to describe and too nonhistorical in nature to be of any value here. If these two sages were, in fact, responsible for such a transmission, why, then, are they not so credited by later rabbinic tradition? And why only Hillel? 90. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 53. Compare also Weiss Halivni, Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara, 9-37. 91. See Fraade, "Interpretive Authority," 66-67.

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

278

neutical rules provided.92 It is, therefore, possible that this revolutionary stage in the development of midrash among Pharisees began to develop significantly and dramatically only in Hillel's time and only with the aid of well-defined Greek hermeneutical rules; these not only widened the parameters of such inquiry but also, by their very crystallization, enabled others to function in a similar fashion. If this is granted, then, given the subsequent development of Pharisaic rnidrash in the schools of Hillel and Shammai, Hillel himself may have appropriated both the methodology and terminology heretofore unknown among Jews. In fact, at one point in his argument, Lieberman himself seems to hedge about the possibility of a more substantial Hellenistic influence: Hillel the Elder and the Rabbis of the following generations used to interpret not only the Torah but also secular legal documents. Most likely general standards for the interpretation of legal texts were in vogue which dated back to high antiquity. But it was the Greeks who systematized, defined and gave definite form to the shapeless mass of interpretations .... Literary problems were solved in a similar way in the schools of Alexandria and those of Palestine. The methods of the rhetors and their discussions had at least a stimulating effect on serious treatment of legal texts. 93

Defining the limits of Acculturation Tertullian once asked, "Quid Athenis et Hierosolymis?" ("What has Athens in common with Jerusalem?"). On the basis of our examination of the city, its practices, composition, and institutions at the end of the Second Temple period, we would have to answer: A great deal! Jerusalem was affected by Hellenistic and Roman culture as was Athens. Hellenism was clearly in evidence throughout the city by the first century C.E. The question now is whether we can be more specific and pinpoint certain areas of city life or certain elements of the population that were particularly affected. The answer, I believe, can be guard92. See Kugel and Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, 27-102; Fishbane, "Use, Authority and Interpretation," 339-377; Dimant, "Use and Interpretation," 379-419; and Fraenkel, Darchei Haaggadah, 464-480.

93. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 62,67-68. Towner, "Hermeneutical Systems," 109, who adopts a position quite similar to that of Lieberman, also makes allowance for some sort of common awareness: "It seems highly probable that the learned rabbinical interpreters of Hebrew Scripture were at least aware that explicit interpretive methods similar to their own were in use among those intellectuals of the Greek-speaking world who studied Homer and the classics in the hope of extrapolating from them lessons for their own time." See also Alexander, "Quid Athenis?" 101-124. Compare, however, the reservations of Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 31-38, on this as well as other issues related to Greco-Roman culture and the sages.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO·ROMAN ORBIT

279

edly affirmative. Let us begin from the most solid evidence at our disposal and then turn to the less certain data. There can be little question that the upper classes of the city's population were appreciably Hellenized. Their residential quarter in the Upper City, the impressive funerary monuments, and the widespread use of Greek (including Greek names) all point in this direction. Moreover, the presence of a theater in the city offered them exposure to cultural performances enjoyed by their counterparts in other parts of the empire. On an official level, a number of institutions functioning in the city reflected general Roman provincial usage. The presence of a polis-type government, with its boulelbouleuterion and sanhedrin, operating in Jerusalem as elsewhere in the empire, provided the city with a Hellenistic stamp that existed side by side with the Temple and priesthood. The physical and functional prominence of the Temple Mount basilica, not to speak of the Herodian temenos generally, constituted yet another link with civic institutions of other cities. To the above we may add the many other public buildings in the city, as noted in Chapter 5, that were patterned after Hellenistic models and likewise lent a cosmopolitan aura to Jerusalem. In this regard, we can mention the Antonia, Herod's palace, the three towers adjacent to it, and probably the Hasmonean palace, Xystus, and archive building (on the latter two, see below). The city's entertainment institutions-the hippodrome and amphitheater, as well as the theater-were also part of Jerusalem's landscape. The last-mentioned institutions lead us to inquire about the impact of Hellenism on yet another component of city life-the middle and lower classes, which constituted the bulk of Jerusalem's popUlation. Here, admittedly, the evidence is meager. We may assume that several of the entertainment institutions (i.e., the hippodrome and amphitheater) catered to more popular tastes. The use of Hellenistic and Roman funerary customs was widespread among the city's entire population, and not just the wealthy. This last assumption is based on the fact that funerary remains were discovered around the entire city, with a special concentration in the north and south. These tombs, ranging from the more elaborate, ostentatious monuments to the very simply hewn cave arrangements, appear to represent a wide spectrum of socioeconomic groups. A similar range is also evident with respect to the contents of these tombs and the ornateness of their ossuaries and sarcophagi. Finally, as the overwhelming majority of Second Temple inscriptions comes from this funerary setting, the epigraphical evidence may well be representative of a large portion of society and not only of the wealthy class. There is little more that we can say about these social strata in this regard. Given their generally recognized disinclination for cosmopolitan fashion, either for ideological, nostalgic, or economic reasons, we must be careful not to

280

HERODIAN JERUSALEM

posit what the evidence clearly does not sustain. We should take note of the distinction between conscious and subconscious borrowing. 94 Obviously, there is a difference between deliberately adopting a foreign mannerism or custom, or at least being conscious of this action after the fact, and merely internalizing a practice prevalent in one's surroundings that may have stemmed at some point in the past from non-Jewish origins. However important such a distinction may be in regard to measuring conscious acculturation, whether on the individual or societal level, the bottom line in describing social and cultural orientation is what, in fact, the daily practice was and what resemblance it bore to other parts of the empire. In measuring the urban dimensions of this interplay-from material culture, to institutions, languages, and diverse social and religious practices-the impact of Hellenism on Jerusalem was significant. Indeed, Jerusalem had a great deal in common with its pagan neighbors of the first century. The influence of Hellenism on Jerusalem has thus proved to be rich. Having focused on this aspect of Jerusalem's cultural life, we have been able to assess the extent to which these influences were absorbed into the local Jewish setting. Nevertheless, there were also many instances when such influences were ignored, radically altered, or entirely rejected because they were found to be either unsuitable or offensive to Jewish religious sensibilities. Moreover, we know of instances in which strong Hellenistic proclivities existed side by side with distinctly Jewish behavior. The hippodrome seems to have been located not far from the Temple, and most homes of the wealthy contained Hellenistic-Roman decorations alongside their ritual baths. Even Herod, for whom such influences were welcome, was careful to avoid any figural representations in his palaces and public buildings (within Jewish Judaea), and he also demanded circumcision before allowing female members of his family to marry non-Jews. All these factors were at play in the city at one and the same time and in a variety of areas. Thus, it is important to underscore the need for a comprehensive, balanced picture of the cultural currents in Jerusalem to fully appreciate the totality of this phenomenon.95 How does one account for this rather significant influence? The influences that we described earlier stemmed to a large extent from the fact that Jerusalem was part of the Roman Empire and that Herod actively encouraged and facilitated such integration. While the pax Romana created the circumstances that 94. See Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 16-32. 95. For a similar instance in southern Italy and North Africa, where Greek and Roman influences were fused with local culture and traditions in a variety of ways, see Lomas, "Urban Elites," 107-120, and Benabou, "Resistance et romanisation," 367-375.

JERUSALEM IN THE GRECO· ROMAN ORBIT

281

enabled a flow of ideas and norms in all parts of the empire, Herod clearly accelerated the process. But there was another important ingredient in this process-Diaspora Jewry. Jewish communities throughout the Roman world were immersed in Greco-Roman culture and, as we have seen, kept in close touch with Jerusalem. The frequent visits by Diaspora Jews to the city on the holidays, and especially the existence of many Diaspora communities there on a permanent basis, contributed mightily to its absorption of outside influences. Nevertheless, Jerusalem remained in many respects a uniquely Jewish city in the early Roman period-in its population, calendar, holidays, forms of religious worship, historical memories, etc. Walking through its streets in the late Second Temple period, a visitor would in all probability be struck by the absence of idols, statues, and figural art that distinguished Jerusalem from every other non-Jewish urban center in the empire. Moreover, the number and variety of ritual baths were unique to the city and attest to the marked emphasis on ritual purity among many of its inhabitants, some on a regular basis (such as the priests) and others complying with the need to be in a state of ritual purity before entering the Temple's holy precincts. The extensive use of stone tables and eating utensils within the city likewise attests to punctilious Jewish observance of ritual purity, certainly by the priests but probably by others as well. The fact that rabbinic tradition mentions a dramatic increase in the Red Heifer sacrifice (for purifying corpse impurity) may be a further indication of a greater concern with purity issues at this time. 96 Jerusalem occupied a most unusual position within Jewish Palestine. On the one hand, it was the most Jewish of all its cities, given the presence of the Temple, the priesthood, and the leadership of almost all sects and religious groups, not to mention the many religious observances associated with this city in particular. On the other, Jerusalem was also the most Hellenized of Jewish cities, in terms of its population, languages, institutions, and general cultural ambience. Jerusalem's Janus-type posture made it truly remarkable, for Jewish society in particular and within the larger Roman world in general.

96. M Parah 3, 5.

Part III

The First Century c.E.

285

ChapterS

The Historical Dimension

Direct Roman Rule:The Earlier Period (6-41 C.E.) With the assumption of direct Roman rule over Judaea in 6 C.E., Jerusalem's status was bound to change as well. l As part of the process of inclusion within the Roman provincial system, Caesarea Maritima, built by Herod less than two decades earlier, was now designated the new capital of Judaea. 2 How this affected Jerusalem is difficult to assess. On the one hand, it is clear that many political, judicial, administrative, and military decisions now emanated from Caesarea, and not Jerusalem; this is especially true of issues relating to Judaea's non-Jewish population. On the other hand, even with this change, Jerusalem continued to function as the main city in the region of Judea as it had under the Hasmoneans and Herod, and it seems to have retained much of its centrality for the Jewish population of the entire province as well. Given the extensive autonomy enjoyed by the Jews, it was only natural that they would continue to regard Jerusalem as their center for religious, juridical, social, and in some cases political matters. The I. Much has been written about the inadequacies of the equestrian prefects-procurators sent to govern Judaea: Schiirer, History, 1:357-398; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 144-156; and M. Stem, "Province of Judaea," 308-554. Whatever else might be said, governors drawn from this Roman middle class were generally far from the Roman ideal, i.e., men who represented the Roman virtue of humanitas that included both philanthropia and paideia (culture). Because of such training, it was assumed that these officials would have been influenced by such virtues in the exercise of power and authority over their provincial subjects (see Erskine, Hellenistic Stoa, 192-200). Such ideals are articulated by Pliny the Younger (Letters 8, 24 [in theory], and throughout Book 10 [in practice]). 2. On the changes wrought by the introduction of this provincial system and the resultant organization of the province, see Schiirer, History, 1:357-381; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 144--156; M. Stern, "Province of Judaea," 308-346; Lemonon, Pilate, 33-37,60-97; and Paltiel, Vassals and Rebels, 55-72.

286

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

leadership that functioned on a "national" scale-such as the high priesthood, the Jerusalem aristocracy, and the Herodian dynasty-resided for the most part within the city. In this sense, Jerusalem appears to have maintained its status as the de facto capital of Jewish Palestine. Although Caesarea was the official capital of the province, Jerusalem remained its largest urban center. Thus, while the governors normally resided in Caesarea, they would visit Jerusalem frequently. The procurator Festus, for example, came to Jerusalem just three days after he had arrived in the province, staying there for over a week (Acts 25:1). Rome maintained a permanent presence in the city by stationing a cohort of soldiers in the Antonia fortress (Acts 21 :34-37),3 while larger contingents were introduced on specific occasions, especially around holidays.4 For the first time in several centuries, Jerusalem, as sous-prefecture, was not the exclusive focus of political power in the country but it nevertheless maintained its primacy and importance as a religious center. Even without the trappings of political power, the city maintained its religious sanctity, continuing to serve as a magnet for Jewish religious-ethnic yearnings. Moreover, local autonomy in Jerusalem was no longer a thing of the past; Roman policy granted cities as much self-rule as possible via their wealthy oligarchies, although it still kept them under surveillance. 5 The period of direct Roman rule preceding the outbreak of hostilities in 66 C.E. may be divided into two distinct periods (6-41 and 44-66) separated by the brief reign of Agrippa I (41-44). The first period appears to have been generally uneventful and calm. Summing up the situation in the province during the reign of Emperor Tiberius (14-37 C.E.), Tacitus wrote: "Under Tiberius all was quiet."6 Josephus reports very little about events of this time and relates only a number of disturbances in the city at the beginning and end of the period. It would appear that the overwhelming majority of Jerusalem's (and Judaea's) citizens were willing to give direct Roman rule a chance. Those in leadership positions, such as the Herodians and their priestly and aristocratic allies, were committed, as before, to forging a close and cooperative relationship with Rome; now, however, with but one exception, even those who were opposed to-or at least reserved about-Herodian rule do not seem to have been inclined to resist this alternative. 7 3. See also War 5.5, 8, 244 and elsewhere. 4. Ant. 18.3, 1,55. 5. See de Ste. Croix, Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World, 518-537. 6. Histories 5.9, 2 (GIAll, II: 29). 7. See Barnett, "Under Tiberius," 564-571. On the brief uprising of Judah and Saddok in 6 C.E., see the sources listed in n. 11 to this chapter.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

287

One might suspect, nevertheless, that Josephus may have simply misled us by ignoring many events of this era, which, in fact, differed in no substantial way from the turbulent one that followed. However, this appears unlikely. If there had been important events, and especially disturbances and crises, it would have been in Josephus' interest to record them, as he was keen to document the course of events that led to the final confrontation with Rome. Moreover, it is entirely possible that Jewish-Roman affairs were distinctly different in these two time frames. One could account for heightened tensions in the later period given the series of conflicts and disappointments that marked the decade and a half from the late 20s to middle 40s of the first century. Jewish apprehensions and opposition to Roman rule might well have stiffened over this fifteen-year period. Thus it is conceivable that the relations between the Jews of Judaea and the Roman authorities had deteriorated enough by the middle 40s to create an entirely different atmosphere and set of relationships in the latter period. The accuracy of Tacitus' description of the fonner period is therefore quite plausible, although it is possible that he, too, may have had an ax to grind by emphasizing the deterioration of the latter decades, from Caligula onward. Tacitus was highly critical of the nonsenatorial Roman leadership of his time. In any case, we can be certain that during much of the latter period, turmoil prevailed and Jerusalem became a constant focus of clashes. 8 One of the first acts of the Roman provincial administration in Judaea was to conduct a census and register the properties of the local population for tax purposes, a practice initially introduced by Augustus. Thus in 6 C.E. the newly appointed prefect of the province,9 Coponius, together with Quirinius, governor of Syria, undertook such a census. lO This act, we are told, sparked an uprising, as it was viewed as a frrst step toward enslavement and total subjugation to foreign rule. Josephus reports that one Judas from Gamla in the Golan, also referred to as "the Galilean," together with a Pharisee by the name of Saddok, interpreted submission to this census in religious tenns as a betrayal of the God of Israel. ll 8. It is noteworthy that most governors during the fIrst period were of Italian origin; in the latter era, they were mostly drawn from the Greek-speaking world and eastern provinces. See M. Stern, "Province of Judaea," 318-319. 9. On the titles of the Roman governor of Judaea, whether prefect, procurator, hegemon, or epitropos, see SchUrer, History, 1:358-360. See also M. Stern, "Province of Judaea," 315-324, and Lemonon, Pilate, 43-48. 10. On the problem of dating Quirinius' census, especially in light of the fact that it conflicts with the account in Luke 2:1-5, see SchUrer, History, 1:399-427; M. Stern, "Province of Judaea," 372-374; and Grabbe, Judaism, 11:383-386, and the literature cited in each. 11. On Judas, see Hengel, Zealots, 330-337; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 47-60; and Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 568-571. See also Kennard, "Judas of Galilee," 281-286, and Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus, 24-44. One of the vexing issues related to these events is the relationship between this Judas and Judas son of Hezekiah, who led the revolt in the Galilee following Herod's death ten years earlier. Were

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

288

They called for a revolt, presumably in the now more narrowly defined area of Judea, but were opposed by the High Priest Joazar son of Boethus, who urged the people to heed Rome's orders and declare their assets. 12 Most seem to have done so, and we hear nothing more about this revolt. The revolt advocated by Judas thus never fully materialized, and presumably he was killed (Acts 5:37); his sons and grandson, however, continued the struggle in the coming generations. Joazar, on the other hand, seems to have successfully contained the uprising and dissuaded many from joining; nonetheless, he was soon removed from office by the Roman governor of Syria, Quirinius, for not exercising enough control over these events from the outset and for allowing them to get out of hand. 13 An interesting line of authority thus emerges at the very start of this period; while the Romans exercised control over the high priesthood, the latter was held responsible for the affairs of the Jewish population and therefore was answerable to the authorities on these matters. Josephus further notes that the Samaritans desecrated the Temple at this time. '4 On the first evening of Passover, the Temple gates were customarily thrown open in preparation for the first day of the holiday, and it was on such an occasion that the Samaritans scattered bones around the Temple Mount to desecrate the site's sanctity. The reactions of the Jews and Roman officials to this provocation are not reported, apart from the fact that the priests closed the gates on Passover eve from then on. Despite his short term of office as prefect of Judaea, Coponius was apparently liked well enough by the Jewish authorities to have one of the western gates on the Temple Mount named after him (the Qiponos Gate).'s Our information regarding Jerusalem leadership during the next few decades is limited to the names of high priests appointed and dismissed by the various Roman prefects. '6 Quirinius chose Ananus son of Seth, who seemed to have been thought of rather highly by his Roman superiors because he served as high priest during the terms of three prefects (6-15 C.E.). In contrast, Valerius Gratus, prefect from 15 to 26 C.E., appointed three high priests for one year each at the outset of his term of office-Ishmael son ofPhabi (15-16 C.E.), Eleazar son of Ananus (16-17 C.E.), and Simon son ofCamith (17-18 c.E.)-before settling on someone with whom he was fully comfortable. The first high priest to retain his they one and the same person? For a summary of the various considerations, see Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 50-51. 12.

W'ar 2.8,1,117-118; Ant. 18.1,1,1-10.

13. Ant. 18.2, 1,26. 14. Ibid., 18.2, 2, 29-30. 15. M Middot 1, 3. 16. Ant. 18.2, 1-2,26,34-35. A Roman governor was called "prefect" until the time of Claudius, when the title was changed to "procurator"; see M. Stem, "Province of Judaea," 315-316.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

289

Figure 73. A relief from Trajan's Column in Rome depicting Roman legionnaires holding standards.

post for an extended period, eighteen years, was Joseph Caiaphas. Whether this was because he was especially cooperative with the Roman authorities (see his relationship with Pilate as evidenced in the gospels; e.g., Mark 14:53-15:1), owing to the dominant position of his family within the priestly oligarchy, or simply because he carried out his duties effectively, we have no idea. Whatever the case, it is of interest that a tomb discovered in southern Jerusalem contained ossuaries bearing the names "Kafa" and "Kifa," possibly belonging to the family of this high priest (see Chapter 5). A major shift in the relations between the Jews and the Roman administration occurred under Pontius Pilate (26-36/37 c.E.)17in light of a series of incidents that took place in Jerusalem and the reactions of the local populace:18 First, by introducing Roman military standards bearing images of the emperor into the city, Pilate flouted the strictly observed prohibition in contemporary Jewish society against the use of statues and images (Fig. 73). He also clearly deviated from what seems to have been standard Roman practice to desist from the use of such symbols when in Jerusalem;19 presumably, if insignia had ever been used in the city before, they bore no images. Pilate's act was apparently deliberate and 17. On the problems of this traditional dating, still used by most scholars, see Schiirer, History, 1:382-383 nn. 130-131, and D. R. Schwartz, "Pontius Pilate," 396-397 (and more fully in his Studies, 182-217). Schwartz suggests that Pilate's term of office was from 19 to 37 C.E. See also Smallwood, "Date of the Dismissal," 12-21. 18. War 2.9,2-4, 169-177; Ant. 18.3, 1-2, 55-{)2; Philo, Embassy 299-305; and Luke 13:1. See the detailed discussion of Lemonon, Pilate, 131-239. See also Bond, Pontius Pilate, passim, who focuses on the representation of Pontius Pilate in various first-century sources. On the reactions of Rome's urban crowds to provocative and controversial proclamations or dictates, see Yavetz, Plebs and Princeps, 9-37, 103-129. 19. For example, when Vitellius specifically ordered his troops not to march through Judaea with their image-bearing standards (Ant. 18.5, 3, 121-122). See below in this chapter.

290

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

calculated; Josephus reports that the standards were brought into the city surreptitiously at night. Upon learning what the governor had done, the Jews of the city vigorously protested and immediately sent a delegation to Caesarea to plead with Pilate to remove the offensive standards. When the Roman governor realized the extent of their determination (they had evinced a willingness to die rather than see their laws and city violated), he relented and ordered that the standards be removed from Jerusalem. 20 Somewhat later, Pilate again provoked Jerusalem's residents, this time by appropriating Temple funds for the construction of an aqueduct leading into the city. The impropriety of such an action is not as clear as in the previous incident. While the use of sacred funds for secular or municipal purposes might at fIrst glance appear to be problematic, the Mishnah states that Temple funds could be used precisely to this end, i.e., for constructing an aqueduct.2! However, the Mishnah may, in fact, reflect a more liberal interpretation of how such funds might be dispensed than what was operative in Jerusalem under priestly rule. The Sadducees might very well have believed that Temple funds could not be used for such "secular" purposes, and thus whether the Mishnah's statement was normative at this time remains a moot question. Assuming that such use was permissible, the action may have been acceptable only if carried out by recognized Jewish authorities, and not by a foreign ruler. There can be little question that Pilate's credibility was not very high with the masses after the standards incident,22 The Jerusalem population protested against this act not only with entreaties but also by shouting insults and abuses at the procurator. Pilate ordered his soldiers to wear civilian clothes and mingle with the public; when the signal was given, they were to attack the demonstrators. However, his soldiers exceeded their orders, using their swords and punishing both bystanders and active protesters, ultimately killing and wounding many of the city's residents. A third incident in Jerusalem, this time reported by Philo, seems to have transpired somewhat later in Pilate's term of office and involved the placing of gilded shields bearing inscriptions inside Herod's palace. Once again, the inappropriateness of this action is not clear. It is difficult to understand why gilded shields or the use of dedicatory inscriptions would have been particularly offensive. On 20. Kraeling, "Episode," 263-189. On these standards as objects of worship for Roman soldiers, see Nock, "Roman Army," 239-240. See also Maier, "Episode," 109-121, and McLaren, Power and Politics, 81-87 (including the aqueduct incident; see below). 21. M Sheqalim 4, 2. 22. Moreover, they may have feared that this action would open the door to the use of Temple monies for other purposes. It is also possible that the opposition stemmed from the fact that the funds were not taken from the Temple treasury but rather from an allocation earmarked for the purchase of sacrificial offerings (according to the version of the incident provided in War 2.9,4, 175). In any event, the tension increased and the hatred of Pilate grew even more bitter.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

291

the face of it, such accoutrements seem neutral enough. In fact, Philo himself reports that a major synagogue in Alexandria contained such shields honoring the emperor.23 Once again, it may well be that Pilate had so exacerbated his relations with Jerusalem's populace that any action by him, however benign, would have appeared as intolerably offensive. The Jewish response in this case was markedly different from the previous ones. Taking advantage of the presence in the city of a number of members of the Herodian family, a delegation that included the local aristocracy was constituted to request that the prefect remove these shields. When Pilate refused, the Jews turned to the emperor, who supported their request, whereupon Pilate immediately complied. 24 The New Testament has preserved a number of references to this period that also attest to heightened tension in the city. Luke 13:1, for example, states that Pilate mingled the blood of the Galileans with that of their sacrificesfrom which we may conclude that these people were executed on their way to Jerusalem or when already in the city-in either case while on pilgrimage, which was to culminate with sacrificing in the Temple. 25 Furthermore, the New Testament account of Jesus being sentenced to death together with two other Jews may be an indication of both the character of the prefect as well as the atmosphere of suspicion and hostility that could have infected city life at certain times of the year. Mark 15:7 describes Barabbas, who was released at the time of Jesus' trial, as one who was imprisoned "with the rebels who had committed murder in the insurrection." Moreover, the holiday gatherings, with the multitude of pilgrims and thoughts of redemption (especially on the Passover, commemorating the deliverance from Egypt), may have inspired an air of messianic expectation among some that a miraculous supernatural event of sorts would unfold. The Romans would have been most wary of such possible developments. 26 Thus, if there were any historical basis for the gospels' portrayal of Jesus' experience in the city, it would provide weighty evidence for the prevailing internal and external tensions vis-a-vis the Romans.27 23. Embassy 20, 133. 24. Philo, Against Flaccus 299-395. Much has been written about the relationship between this and the first incident regarding the standards. Some scholars believe that we have here a conflation of one incident, others that there were indeed two separate episodes. See, e.g., Maier, "Episode," 109-121, and D. R. Schwartz, "Josephus and Philo," 26-45. As is evident from the presentation, we subscribe to the latter alternative. 25. It has been suggested that this bloodletting was connected to the earlier-noted aqueduct incident, but this remains suggestive, at best. 26. See in this regard the intriguing, though somewhat speculative, suggestion of Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, 235-259, that the Jewish leadership and Pilate were not so much afraid of Jesus and his message as of the potentially uncontrollable reaction of the Jerusalem crowd. 27. See McLaren, Power and Politics, 88-1O\. In addition to the noted incident, which transpired in Jerusalem, mention ought to be made of Pilate's provocative coinage minted in Caesarea and aimed at offending the Jews. Beforehand, the Romans had been careful not to offend Jewish sensibilities.

292

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Jerusalem was thus the scene of a serious deterioration in the relations between Jews and Romans during Pontius Pilate's years as governor (contra Tacitus' generalization; see above). Do Pilate's actions reflect a deep-seated hatred of the Jews and their customs, or were they merely due to a remarkable insensitivity? Were they the product of specifically local circumstances and this particular prefect, or were they connected to a wider imperial policy emanating from Rome at the time? Pilate's behavior was as offensive as it was exceptional, and thus it is impossible to view his actions as anything but insulting and demeaning toward the Jews. However, while Pilate's own attitude should not be underestimated, it is likely that the degree of his hostility should be attributed, at least in part, to the anti-Jewish policy espoused by Sejanus, a praetorian prefect and close adviser of Tiberius until his death in 31 C.E. As Tiberius was removed from daily affairs at this time, Sejanus had amassed vast power and influence throughout the empire. Phil028 emphasizes Sejanus' hatred and ties Pilate's actions explicitly to Sejanus' policy. According to Philo, Sejanus was unabashed in his anti-Jewish policy, and it is quite likely that Pilate's blatant offenses against his Jewish subjects took place in the first part of his tenure, when Sej anus , power was at its peak.29 As noted above, the coins minted by Pilate fall neatly into this early period. Finally, the usual moderating influence of the Roman governor of Syria was lacking at this time, since during these years, until 32 C.E., no one served in that post. With Sejanus falling out of favor with the emperor in 31 C.E., Pilate's behavior seems to have moderated. Offensive pagan ritual vessels ceased to appear on coins from 32 C.E. (the last year in which Pilate issued coins); in his final years, Pilate decided to build a temple in Caesarea in honor of Emperor Tiberius, perhaps to ingratiate himself with the emperor after Sejanus' fall. A dedicatory inscription found in the city constitutes the only archaeological fmd to date bearing Pilate's name. 30 It is probably not coincidental that a number of messianically oriented movements appearing at about this time were met by harsh resistance from Pilate and, in one case, the Jerusalem authorities. The case of Jesus, despite all its attendant historical problems, is clearly an example of religious and social turmoil that affected (and reflected) certain sectors of Judaean society.3l More

Pilate, however, struck coins over a period of several years (29-31 C.E.) that bore pagan symbols of sacred items such as the simpulum (a ladle for pouring sacrificial wine) and a lituus (an augur's staff). The dates of the appearance of such coins, coinciding with the height of Sejanus' (the emperor Tiberius'chief adviser until 31 C.E.) power, may thus be far from coincidental. 28. Embassy 24, 159-161. 29. See Paltiel, Vassals and Rebels, 86--104. 30. On Pilate's inscription, see Frova, Scavi di Caesarea Maritima, 217-220, and Levine, Roman Caesar· ea, 19-21. 31. On Jesus and the social turmoil in Judaea, see Brandon, Jesus and the Zealots, passim; Hengel, Zealots, 337-341; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiah, 48-87; Sweet, "Zealots

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

293

pointedly, many Samaritans appear to have been swept up in a messianic fervor when they responded to a call of one of their own to come to Mount Gerizim and witness the discovery of the holy vessels of the Temple that had been buried by Moses. Pilate deployed his troops to prevent their gathering, resulting in the massacre of large numbers, including some of their leaders. The subsequent complaints of Samaritan leaders to Vitellius, governor of Syria, led to Pilate's removal from office ten years later. 32 Whether the Jesus and Samaritan incidents were merely coincidental or reflect a deeper disillusionment with Roman rule, a fear of possible religious restrictions, or socioeconomic concerns-any of which could result in eschatological activity-is impossible to determine with any certainty. The reactions of Jerusalemites to Pilate's numerous provocations included a wide range of tactics. The standards incident caused a delegation to address its grievances in Caesarea, the aqueduct affair led to a street riot, and the gilded shields matter elicited a high-level diplomatic effort with the governor and then the emperor himself. Pilate's reactions were likewise varied: from backing down in Caesarea, to a violent confrontation in the streets of Jerusalem (and on Mount Gerizim), and fmally to the execution of suspicious individuals. The cumulative effect of the years under Pilate was one of suspicion and hostility. The tensions caused by his actions were unmistakable and the scars proved indelible. But Roman policy, based as it was in large measure on the individual official, was now to swing in the opposite direction, at least for a few short years. Following Pilate's dismissal, the Roman governor of Syria, Vitellius, adopted a sympathetic policy toward the Jews. To dispel the tension, he and his friend Marcellus went to Jerusalem in 36 C.E., where the Jerusalemites greeted them "in magnificent fashion." Vitellius offered sacrifices in the city and abolished taxes that had been imposed on produce. He agreed that the vestments and ornaments of the high priest which had been under Roman control since 6 C.E. would now be under the supervision of the priests themselves. 33 Somewhat later, when leaving Acre on his way to fight the Nabataeans, Vitellius at first intended to march through Judaea. When he learned from Jewish leaders that the appearance of standards with images would be offensive to the Jewish population, Vitellius ordered his troops to circumvent the region and travel eastward, through the Jezreel Plain, toward Nabataea. He himself proceeded to Jerusalem, accompanied by Herod Antipas, and while offering sacrifices at the Temple during a festival, he was warmly greeted by those present. On both this occasion and once before and Jesus,"' 1-11; Bammel, "Revolution Theory," 11-68; and Gabba, "Social, Economic and Political History," 134-139. See also Brunt, "Josephus," 149-153, and Goodman, ''First Jewish Revolt," 417-427.

32. Ant. 18.4, 1-2, 85-89. See Smallwood, "Date of Dismissal," 12-21. 33. Ant. 18.4,3,90-95.

294

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

when visiting the city, the governor appointed a new high priest. Earlier, he had deposed Caiaphas, replacing him with Jonathan son of Ananus; now he removed Jonathan in favor of his brother Theophilus. 34 Moreover, upon learning of the ascension of Gaius Caligula to the throne, he administered to the Jerusalemites an oath of loyalty to the new emperor. 35 Vitellius appointed his friend Marcellus chief of the cavalry over the province;36 for several years there seems to have been a hiatus in the appointment of local governors, and Judaea apparently was administered by the governor of Syria. Vitellius' palliative actions, albeit short-lived, provided a reassuring antidote to Pilate's unsettling policy. Three years later, however, the pendulum swung back dramatically. Fear and deep consternation gripped the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Judaea in 40 C.E., when Emperor Gaius Caligula announced his intention to erect a statue in the Jerusalem Temple. The ultimate desecration of Judaism's most holy site was to be perpetrated, as had indeed happened several centuries earlier in the reign of Antiochus IV. Caligula ordered Petronius, Vitellius' successor as governor of Syria, to carry out the task. Although the three sources recording this account differ in many details, the overall outline of the events is identical. 37 When Petronius reached Acre, a delegation of Jews entreated him to reconsider this decision. Petronius conducted negotiations with local Jews and their leaders in Tiberias, and when he became convinced of the negative effects that might ensue if he actually carried out the emperor's order (Jewish resistance, a farmers' strike, the loss of revenues from taxes, and brigandage), he wrote to Caligula and urged him to nullify the decree. Negotiations with the Jews were severed when news of Caligula's death on January 24,41 C.E., reached Judaea several months later. Mention should be made of Tacitus' striking remark that the Jews "chose rather to resort to arms, but the emperor's death put an end to their uprising."38 Nothing in the Jewish sources hints at such a reaction, with the possible exception of two vague remarks of Philo.39 It is difficult to determine whether there is an element of truth in Tacitus' report. Just as he may be suspect of attributing a

34. Ibid., 18.5,3,120-123. 35. Ibid., 18.5, 3, 124. 36. Ibid., 18.4,2,89. 37. The three accounts of this incident-Josephus, War 2.10, 1-5, 184-203, and Antiquities 18.8, 2-8, 261-304, and Philo, Embassy 29-36, 184-293-have quite a few discrepancies between them; see Smallwood, "Chronology," 3-17, and "Philo and Josephus," 114-129; Bilde, "Roman Emperor Gaius," 67-93; D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 18-23, 77-78; Grabbe, Judaism, 11:401-405; McLaren, Power and Politics. 114-126; and N. Taylor, "Popular Opposition to Caligula," 54-70. 38. Tacitus, Histories 5.9, 2 (GLAJJ, II: 29). 39. Embassy 31, 208, 215.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

295

rebellious inclination to the Jews in light of the later revolt, so, too, Philo and Josephus might be accused of the exact opposite, namely, portraying the Jews as peace loving and civil. For the present, the issue must remain moot. Although there was no confrontation or defilement of the Temple, the threat that was issued by the highest authority in the empire and hung over the nation for months was real and especially unsettling. Pilate may have been a devious and cruel governor but there was always recourse beyond him-as was proven in the gilded shields incident. In this case, there was none. We have no idea of how Jewish society as a whole reacted. Some Jews may have been inclined to downplay the incident, although we read of a holiday that seems to have been instituted to celebrate the annulment of the decree.40 Others, however, saw this plan as a harbinger of future acts that, if carried out, would threaten the fabric of Jewish religious existence. Even though their numbers may have been small, some among the latter group tended to be highly motivated ideologically and extreme in their apocalyptic reading of the situation. The havoc that they might create could be devastating if a climate conducive to anarchy and rebellion ever crystallized and if society was unable to keep such unsettling tendencies firmly in check.

Jerusalem under Agrippa I (41-44 C.E.) Following Caligula's death in 41 C.E., Roman policy once again shifted dramatically. His successor to the throne, Claudius, sought to soothe Jewish sensibilities by restoring a significant degree of autonomy to Judaea and appointing a Herodian, Agrippa I, grandson of Herod, as king. There was also a distinctly personal dimension to this selection, as Agrippa seems to have played an instrumental role (how much is a matter of debate both in the sources and among scholars) in Claudius' successful bid for the Senate's approval of his becoming emperor.41 In making this decision regarding Judaea, Claudius restored to Agrippa all of the areas once incorporated into Herod's kingdom, and for a brief period of three years Jerusalem was once again the capital of an extensive kingdom. Claudius bestowed the rank of consul on Agrippa (and that of praetor on his brother Herod, who was also made king of Chalcis, a small district in Phoenicia) while signing a treaty in the forum of Rome (which was later incised on bronze tablets and deposited in the Capitol there), issuing an edict confIrming this appointment, and delivering a panegyric in honor of Agrippa. 42 40. Megillat Ta 'anit (Lichtenstein, "Die Fastenrolle," 344-345). 41. War 2.11, 1-4,204-213, and Ant. 19.3-4,212-273. 42. Ant. 19.5, 1,274-275, and Dio Cassius 60, 8, 2 (GIAl], II: 367-368). M. Stern, "Reign of Herod," 291-292; D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 23-30; and, more generally, Paltiel, Vassals and Rebels, 189-224.

296

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Josephus has only positive things to say about Agrippa's rule. Comparing him to his grandfather, he declares in a rather polemical and singularly tendentious manner that whereas Herod had a cruel and evil nature, fostered closer ties with Greeks than with Jews, and preferred Greek cities to his own, Agrippa was more easygoing and a generous benefactor to Jew and non-Jew alike. Moreover, the latter enjoyed residing in Jerusalem and kept strict observance of Jewish customs. Josephus notes especially Agrippa's punctiliousness regarding purification laws and sacrifices.43 Agrippa is praised in rabbinic literature as well, and while it is generally assumed that these references are to Agrippa I, it has nevertheless been suggested that some are to Agrippa 11.44 Josephus records a number of anecdotes attesting to the king's piety, first and foremost in regard to the Temple. He notes that when Agrippa initially entered Jerusalem to assume his rule over the city and country, he first offered sacrifices of thanksgiving and donated money for sacrifices, thus enabling poor Nazirites to complete the requirements of their VOW.45 He likewise hung a golden chain given to him by Gaius over the treasure chamber in the Temple precincts.46 A measure of the king's forgiving nature and leniency, according to Josephus, is evident in his response to an accusation made at a public meeting in Jerusalem while the king was in Caesarea. A man named Simon claimed that the king was impure (or impious) and thus should be excluded from the Temple. Summoning Simon to Caesarea, Agrippa met his accuser while at the theater and asked him what, in fact, was improper in his conduct. Simon said nothing but only begged the king's forgiveness, which he received immediately.47It has been suggested with much plausibility that Simon's alleged remarks reflect a stringent priestly interpretation of purity rules, thus limiting certain peoples' eligibility to enter the Temple precincts, a position also evidenced in the Qumran scrolls. Such an interpretation of purity laws might have banned proselytes and their descendants from entering the sacred precincts and thus would have affected Agrippa I as wel1. 48 43. Ant. 19.7,3,328-331.

44. See, e.g., M Sotah 7, 8; M Bikkurim 3, 4; B Ketubot 17a; and Leviticus Rabbah 3, 5 (ed. Margulies, 66-67). For a dissenting opinion favoring Agrippa II, see Safrai, Pilgrimage, 196-198. M. Stern, "Reign of Herod," 293, has opined that there might have been a good measure of sympathy for Agrippa I, not only because of his Herodian and Hasmonean ancestry but also because of the three decades (especially the 30s) of Roman provincial rule that demonstrated to many the advantages of a Jewish ruler over Judaea. 45. For a different dating of these events, to the days of Gaius Caligula in 38 C.E., see D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 11-14,68--69. 46. Ant. 18.6,10,237; 19.6, 1,293-296. 47. Ibid., 19.7,4,332-334. 48. D. R. Schwartz, Agnppa I, 124-130.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

297

Thus, whatever accuracy there may be in Josephus' overall perspective regarding Agrippa's status and stature, the Simon incident indicates another view of the king and how he functioned in Jerusalem. This tone of dissent is further echoed in Josephus' account of Agrippa's anger toward an old friend Silas, who had been faithful to him when he was imprisoned and had supported him many times in the face of danger.49 The king had appointed Silas as commander-in-chief of the army, but dismissed and imprisoned him when the latter's remarks continually irritated and embarrassed him. Upon reflection, Agrippa sought to make amends but was rebuffed by Silas. In the end, Agrippa left Silas in prison. 50 On another plane, Agrippa adopted a harsh policy vis-a.-vis the Jerusalem church or, more accurately, toward some of its leaders. According to Acts 12: 1-19, Agrippa (referred to here as King Herod; see below) executed James, brother of John, and imprisoned Peter who later miraculously escaped. Despite the heavy literary and theological overlay (the use of the name Herod, a Herodian persecutor, the Passover setting, Peter's miraculous escape, Agrippa's subsequent death), it is quite possible that Agrippa adopted a characteristically priestly Sadducean policy of persecution toward the Jerusalem church. The "approval of the Jews" for his actions noted in Acts may, in fact, refer primarily to contemporary priestly circles. The events that transpired upon Agrippa's death in Caesarea point to a great deal of hostility toward the king harbored by his non-Jewish subjects, especially the soldiers among them. It seems that the elite troops in the province hailed from units of Caesareans and Sebastenians who served under the Roman governors of Judaea before and after Agrippa, and quite likely under him as well. 51 In contrast to the wailing and lamentations of the people at large, the pagan population of these cities, forgetting the king's benefactions to them, behaved in the most hostile fashion: They hurled insults, too foul to be mentioned, at the deceased; and all who were then on military service-and they were a considerable number-went off to their homes, and seizing the images of the king's daughters, carried them with one accord to the brothels, where they set them up on the roofs and offered them every possible sort of insult, doing things too indecent to be reported. Moreover, they reclined in the public places and celebrated feasts for all the people, wearing garlands and using scented unguents; they poured libations to Charon [mythical ferryman of the dead], and exchanged toasts in celebration of the king' s death. 52 49. Ant. 18.6,7,204, and 19.7, 1,317.

50. Ibid., 19.7, 1,318-325. 51. See, e.g., War 2.3,4, 52, and Ant. 18.6,10,237; 19.9,2, 365; 20.6, 1, 122. See Schiirer, History, 1:362-367, and M. Stem, "Province of Judaea," 324-330.

52. Ant. 19.9, 1,356-358.

298

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

It is difficult to explain such deep-seated antagonism, especially in light of the benefactions that Agrippa, as his grandfather Herod, had bestowed on pagan cities generally-as Josephus himself was quick to note. It may have been Agrippa's role in the Dor affair a few years earlier that angered them (see below) or possibly the return to Jewish rule under Agrippa that they found particularly objectionable. Notwithstanding these tense relations with some of the kingdom's non-Jewish population, the situation in Jerusalem appears to have been much more stable and supportive. As noted, Agrippa's concern for the Temple and purity laws, as well as his anti-Christian stand, could not help but endear him to the priestly class.53 We can only speculate about the reasons for his various appointments of high priests;54 he may have only been following the precedent of his ancestors and Roman predecessors. 55 We have no information regarding his relationship to the Pharisees. If later rabbinic tradition indeed refers to Agrippa I, it may reflect a positive attitude toward him on the part of contemporary Pharisees. However, two considerations should caution us against too facile an identification between the king and the Pharisees. One is his apparent alliance or closeness with Sadducean views, and the other is his very different attitude toward the Christians from that of the Pharisaic leader R. Gamaliel the Elder. The latter adopted a tolerant view of Christian activity in Jerusalem at the time of the trial of the apostles (Acts 5:34,39). There seems to be some evidence that Agrippa cultivated close ties with the Jerusalem aristocracy, as we might well have assumed he would. His former friend and the head of his army, Silas (whose namesake Silas the Babylonian lived a generation later),56 may have been part of the Babylonian settlement of Bathyra founded by Herod in Batanaea.57 The Sons of Bathyra, who according to rabbinic literature played a role in Temple affairs,58 may also have been part of this Babylonian community. 59 Silas was replaced as head of the army by Helkias, who likewise hailed from an aristocratic family with long-standing ties to the Herodian family. Helcias' father, Alexas, had been married to Salome, Herod's

53. It was around this time, perhaps in Agrippa's absence, that an unnamed high priest presided over the execution of Stephen for his provocative speech that bore a distinctly anti-Temple ring (Acts 6-7; on the high priest's involvement, see Acts 7: 1). For the dating of this incident (given its reference to Paul), see D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 71-73,213-216. 54. Agrippa first removed Theophilus son of Ananus and appointed Simon son of Boethus, surnamed Cantheras. Somewhat later, he wished to appoint Jonathan son of Ananus for a second term, but the latter refused the honor; instead, his brother Matthias was appointed. At a later stage, the king appointed Elionaeus son of Cantheras (Cithaerus) in place of Matthias. 55. Ant. 19.6,2 and 4, 297, 311-316, and 19.8, 1,342. 56. War 2.19, 2, 520; 3.2, 1, 11; 2, 2, 19. 57. See Schiirer, History, 11:14-15 n. 46 and the literature cited therein.

58. Y Kilaim 9, 4, 32b; B Pesahim 66a; and B Rosh Hashanah 29b. 59. Alon, Jews, Judaism, 328-334.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

299

Figure 74. The location of Dor on the Judaean coast.

sister, and was referred to as a "friend of the king," while his son Julius Archelaus, presumably a Roman citizen, married Mariamme, Agrippa's daughter.60 There must have been rumblings within certain Jerusalem circles about other aspects of Agrippa's life and policies, but we can only speculate. Those who attended the meeting convened by Simon and listened to his criticism of the king on purity matters may well have harbored resentment toward Agrippa, and it is doubtful whether Agrippa's Hellenizing activities in Caesarea went unnoticed in the more conservative quarters of the city. His use of figural images on the coins of Caesarea (e.g., of himself and the emperor),61 making statues of his daughters in that city, and his enthusiastic participation in theater performances there (where he once wore glittering robes at dawn, evoking the crowd's reaction that he looked like a god)62 are indications of his comfortableness with Hellenistic culture and willingness to partake of it actively-although presumably not in Jerusalem. Still, many residents of the city probably looked askance at such behavior. Following in his grandfather's footsteps, Agrippa cultivated his relationship with Diaspora Jewry by attending to its various concerns. Although evidence is far from conclusive, there is reason to believe that he played a role in advancing the cause of Alexandrian Jewry in Rome, and soon after of trying to protect Rome 's Jewish community from expUlsion in 41 C.E. through his intervention with the emperor.63Agrippa's involvement in the Dor crisis provides an excellent indication of his willingness to help a Jewish community, in this instance on the periphery of Judaea (Fig. 74).64 When a statue of the emperor was placed in their synagogue by 60. On Jerusalem's nonpriestly elite, see M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 612-618. 61 . See Meshorer, Ancient Jewish Coinage, II:60-64, and Treasury, 90-93. 62 . Ant. 19.8,2,344-345; 19.9, 1,357. 63. See D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa I, 93-106. 64. For our purposes, Dor may be considered a Diaspora-type community. The problem was typical of such a setting, and the city itself was not part of Agrippa's kingdom.

300

THE FIRST CENTURY C,E,

non-Jewish neighbors, the Jews of Dor appealed to the king. At Agrippa's request, the procurator Petronius took strong measures against those responsible for the act. 65 In the tradition of his grandfather, Agrippa also proved to be extremely generous to a number of non-Jewish cities. 66 Josephus especially singles out Beirut as a primary recipient of the king's largesse. He built a theater and amphitheater there and sponsored lavish spectacles in each. 67 There is no evidence as to why this city was selected (maybe in the interests of the local Jewish community or for Agrippa's own personal agenda). Agrippa also sponsored events in Caesarea, Heliopolis (Baalbek), and perhaps Athens. 68 Two initiatives undertaken by Agrippa directly affected the Jerusalem populace. The first was his remittance of taxes on houses, which relieved a major tax burden. 69 The second was the king's decision to build a third wall for Jerusalem. Josephus notes that this wall, built at public expense on the north side of the city, was both wide and high, making it appear quite formidable. Such a project presumes, first of all, that the growth of Jerusalem required an extensive enceinte that in effect doubled the size of the city.70 Thus whatever political difficulties the city might have experienced in the previous decades, its demographic growth continued and now required the addition of new land within its walls. The second implication of this project is Agrippa's ambitious aspirations, with the help of public coffers, to undertake such a major endeavor. It is quite possible that the reference here is to Temple monies that may have been used for this purpose; as noted with respect to Pilate and the aqueduct incident, such a practice would have been in line with the policy indicated by M Sheqalim.71 The Roman reaction appears to have been strange indeed; the governor of Syria, Marsus, as well as the emperor himself, were fearful of a revolution, and they assumed that such a wall would have rendered the city impregnable. 72 It is hard to fathom how Agrippa, who had spent almost his entire life in Rome before becoming king, would have ever entertained the thought of revolt. One has only 65, Ant. 19,6,3,300-311. See also Levine. Ancient Synagogue. 63-64.

66. Here is a rare instance of Josephus criticizing the king: "He derived as much revenue as possible from these territories, amounting to twelve million (drachmas), but he borrowed much, for, owing to his generosity, his expenditures were extravagant beyond his income, and his ambition knew no bounds of expense" (Ant. 19.8, 2, 352). On the basis of this passage, Momigliano, "Rebellion within the Empire," 851 n. I, suggests that the poor financial state of the kingdom was a decisive consideration in Claudius' decision to return the territory to provincial rule, 67. Ant. 19,7,5,335-337.

68. See Schiirer, History, 1:451, and D. R. Schwartz, Agrippa J, 131-132. 69. Ant. 19.6,3,299.

70. On the Third Wall of Jerusalem, see Chapter 9, 71. At 4,2. 72. Ant. 19.7,2,326-327.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

301

to recall the famous speech of Agrippa II (Agrippa's son) in 66 as reported (and perhaps reworked) by Josephus, wherein he tried to forestall the headlong rush toward revolt by surveying the extent of Roman might throughout the empire. That his father could have assessed the matter so differently seems unlikely, to say the least. However, there is little more that can be said in this regard, other than to note Josephus' report of Roman suspicions and fears. One other incident is likewise difficult to comprehend. We are told that Agrippa convened five Eastern monarchs in Tiberias, but we are never told about the purpose of this conclave. On learning of these proceedings, the Romans feared a revolt and the participants were ordered to disperse and return home. 73 As was the case with his grandfather Herod decades earlier, Agrippa also ended his life at odds with his Roman overlords. Both men began their careers with much goodwill and support from Rome's leaders; in fact, they were personally crowned by Augustus and Claudius, respectively. However, friendship has it limits, particularly when such ties seem to conflict with the affairs of state. In these cases, imperial considerations always proved decisive, and so it was in regard to these two Herodian rulers. With Agrippa's demise,14 Judaea once again reverted to provincial status and was administered by a governor based in Caesarea. There may have been specific considerations for Claudius' decision, such as the fact that Agrippa's son (Agrippa II) was too young to assume the position.75 Alternatively, the emperor may have been uneasy with Agrippa's attempt to build an additional wall for Jerusalem or for his calling of the Tiberian conclave. In light of the latter events, the emperor simply may have tired of his experiment in Judaean autonomy and decided to reinstitute the more direct and secure provincial system. It is also conceivable that such a move may have had little to do with the specific circumstances of Judaean politics but rather was part of a broader policy for the empire as a whole, namely, to move toward a greater degree of consolidation and centralization in the provinces. During the 40s, Mauretania, Britain, Lycia, Rhodes, and Thrace all moved in this direction. While we have no inkling of the Jewish populace's reaction to this decision, there can be little doubt that this sudden end to its independence met with considerable disappointment and perhaps resentment. For many, such a decision was but one further indication of the pitfalls, instability, and untrustworthiness of Roman rule. Starting with the incidents under Pilate, continuing with Caligula's potential73. Ibid., 19.18, 1,338-342. 74. Usually dated to 44 C.E.; D. R. Schwartz, Studies, 174-176, however, suggests instead the fall of 43. 75. Josephus, Ant. 19.9, 2, 362, attributes this consideration to Claudius'advisers, claiming that the emperor himself was reportedly interested in choosing Agrippa II.

302

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

ly catastrophic plan, and now, with the return to provincial governors, Roman rule could be viewed as unpredictable and unreliable at best, and as dangerous and threatening at worst, for the future of Judaism and the Jewish people. Not everyone, of course, viewed matters in such dire terms; nevertheless, as noted, it takes but a few extremists to galvanize a large portion of the population to confrontation and revolt. This is what the future held in store for the city and province as a whole, and this is what Josephus meticulously charts over the next two decades.

Procuratorial Rule (44-66 C.E.): The Collapse of Jerusalem Society Although the area of Provincia Judaea (now comprising the Galilee and Peraea in addition to Judea, Samaria, and Idumaea) was much larger than it was under the earlier Roman provincial administration, Claudius nevertheless decided to return the province to equestrian rule. Even the emperor's decision to transfer the Caesarean and Sebastenian military units to Pontus in Asia Minor as punishment for their undisciplined and offensive reactions to Agrlppa's death was revoked after their protestations.76 Before tracing the history of Jerusalem in this period, a word is in order regarding Josephus' accounts in War and Antiquities. The Jewish historian has a great deal to say about the events of these two decades; with the exception of scattered accounts in other sources, he provides us with almost all our information for this era. Josephus' goal was to describe the tensions and conflicts that brought Judaean society to the brink of collapse, culminating in its declaration of war against Rome. However, as might be expected, his account is, of necessity, selective and tendentious. Josephus himself, of course, was a contemporary of these events and played a significant role in them. In War, he is interested in pinning the blame for the revolt primarily on Jewish fanatics while downplaying Roman responsibility. However, in Antiquities, he offers a somewhat more critical evaluation of the procurators. 77 In addition to his overall proclivities, Josephus records many disparate details in his two works. How to reconcile these differences and place the historian's prejudices in perspective are major challenges in chronicling the period. Since both the War and the Antiquities accounts are generally similar in their presentation of the sequence of events (with the latter providing much additional 76. Ibid., 19.9,2,365-366. According to Josephus (loc. cit.), the presence of these troops in Judaea was one of the main factors in the revolt later on; Vespasian, he notes, recognized the problems of having such local troops in the area and decided to remove them. 77. On Josephus'biases in his different writings, see, inter alia, Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 3-66; Rajak, Josephus, 65-66; and Goodman, Ruling Class, 5-14, 20-21,139 n. 3, 145 n. 8, 198-199.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

303

and expanded information),78 we will largely ignore Josephus' assessments of responsibility and culpability at this point and focus instead on the events themselves. To begin with, we should mention several patterns during these two decades. In describing the breakdown oflaw and order in Judaean society, Josephus notes that it was fIrst and foremost cumulative. Matters worsened from decade to decade and, indeed, almost without fail, from procurator to procurator. 79 Second, whereas tensions at fIrst focused on the non-Jewish world (i.e., the Romans, Samaritans, and local pagan population), they subsequently came to involve internal conflicts within Jewish society. Finally, these years witnessed a clear movement of the arena of hostilities from the rural areas to Jerusalem. At first, the city appeared somewhat detached from these events, becoming involved only when the rural population was present, for example, during a festival or when some of Jerusalem's inhabitants responded to provocations in other parts of the country and joined forces with the aggrieved. But by the middle 50s, and certainly with the advent of the 60s, the conflicts were centered fully and forcefully in Jerusalem itself. From this point on, there is little note taken of tension elsewhere (Caesarea aside). In other words, the conflict evolved into what has often been characterized as stasis (civil dissension), a term Josephus invokes to describe the conflicts between various factions of Jews, especially those in Jerusalem.80 In his view, the struggle in the middle fIrst century was as much a domestic Jewish affair as it was one against the Romans. Let us briefly list the major events of the 40s and 50s under procuratorial rule as a prelude to a fuller presentation of the Jerusalem-centered discord. Fadus (44-46)"·

• A territorial dispute between the Jews of Peraea and the pagan citizens of Philadelphia (Amman). • A quarrel between the Jewish authorities and the procurator over control of the high priest's vestments, which was fInally resolved when Herod of Chalcis was entrusted with this responsibility as well as with Temple affairs in general. • The execution of one Tholomaeus, a brigand who operated in the southern part of the country and who hounded the Idumaeans and Arabs. Josephus claims that Judaea was thereby temporarily cleansed of brigandage.

78. Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 5S---{)5, and McLaren, Power and Politics, 34-40. 79. See, however. the contrasting claim by Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 2-24, that Judaea was in constant political turmoil since Pompey's conquest in 63 B.C.E. SO. See the important remarks by Rajak, Josephus, 91-94, on the subject. S!. On Fadus'term of office, see Ant. 20.1, 1-3, 1-16; 5, 1,97-99.

304

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

• Theudas convinced a following that he possessed prophetic powers and could part the waters of the Jordan River, presumably a messianic gesture in imitation of the biblical Exodus-Conquest motif intended to signify the liberation of the country.82 Besides Josephus, Acts 5:36 also makes reference to Theudas. 83

Tiberius Alexander (46-48)84 • The crucifixion of James (Jacob) and Simeon, sons of Judah the Galilean. • A severe famine throughout the country.

Cumanus (4~52)8S • A riot ensued in the Temple following a Roman soldier's lewd act of exposing his genitals to the pilgrims gathered for the festival. • An imperial slave was robbed, which led to the Roman sacking of Jewish villages and to a soldier destroying a Torah scroll. • Tensions mounted between Jews and Samaritans following the murder of a Galilean on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. After further bloodshed and protracted negotiations with Roman officials, the issue was finally laid to rest. At several points in the course of this conflict, Jerusalernites became involved in a number of ways. Upon learning of the original murder, we are told that many in Jerusalem abandoned the festival celebrations and, under the leadership of Eleazar son of Deinaeus and one Alexander, proceeded to attack Samaritans and burn their villages. At a later stage, the leadership of Jerusalem intervened and tried to settle the dispute on favorable terms; the case was resolved only after it was brought to Rome and after Agrippa II (and through him, the empress Agrippina) had intervened. 86

Felix (52-60)8' • After twenty years of activity, the brigand chief Eleazar and his associates were captured and deported to Rome for trial; many others were executed or punished by Felix himself. • Sicarii, named after the daggers (sicae) with which they perpetrated numerous assassinations, now began committing murders in broad day82. See D. R. Schwartz, Studies, 29-43, and Longenecker, "Wilderness," 322-326. 83. On the Theudas episode in Josephus and Acts, see Schtirer, History, 1:456 n. 6, and Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 260 n. 14. 84. On Tiberius Alexander's term of office, see Ant. 20.5, 2, 100-102. 85. On Cumanus'term of office, see War 2.12, 1-7,223-246; Ant. 20.5,3-6, 105-136. 86. Aberbach, "Conflicting Accounts," 1-14. 87. On Felix's term of office, see War 2.13,1-7,250-270; Ant. 20.7, 5-8,160-181.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

305

light and in public as, for instance, at gatherings to celebrate the festivals in Jerusalem. The former High Priest Jonathan was among those murdered, although in Antiquities Josephus accuses Felix of orchestrating the murder.88 Josephus claims that this murder signaled the abandonment of all restraint, and the Sicarii then began to act without fear of punishment from the Roman authorities. Murders now become rampant throughout the city, even in the Temple courtyards; for Josephus, such crimes indicated the departure of the Divine Presence from Jerusalem because, he believed, the Temple was no longer worthy of God's protection. 89 • A series of charismatic religious figures now began to appear, professing to act in the name of God.90 Claiming that the time of redemption was at hand, they led their followers into the desert where God was to give them signs. Particularly impressive was an Egyptian prophet who came to Jerusalem, gathered many followers around him (thirty thousand according to Josephus91 and four thousand according to Acts 21 :38), and led them to the Mount of Olives. By his prediction, the walls of the city were to fall and all those assembled would enter and overthrow the Roman garrison. The prophet himself would then assume the leadership of the people. However, Felix sent his soldiers to disperse the crowd; some people were killed;92 others, some two hundred in number, were taken prisoner; and many (including the impostor himself) fled. • Brigandage continued to spread, but this time with several new and sinister twists. It was now combined with a thoroughly nationalistic fervor; anyone who did not assert the desire for independence from Rome would be killed, as would anyone who submitted to Rome's orders. Armed groups now roamed the countryside, looting and killing the wealthy, and setting villages afire. 93 • A long -simmering crisis in Caesarea over the question of isopoliteia (equal citizenship rights) for the Jews reached a crescendo when violent confrontations erupted between the city's Jewish and pagan populations. On one occasion, the latter mocked the Jews by sacrificing a bird on the

88. Josephus relates that one Dorus of Jerusalem hired the Sicarii to murder Jonathan. 89. On this theological rationale, see Ant. 20.8,5, 165-166 and the interesting rabbinic parallel in T Yom HaKippurim (Yoma) 1, 12 (ed. Lieberman, 224-225). 90. See Barnett, "Jewish Sign-Prophets," 679-697; Horsley, "Popular Prophetic Movements," 3-27; and Gray, Prophetic Figures, 112-144. 91. War 2.13, 5, 261. 92. Four hundred, according to Ant. 20.8, 6, 171. 93. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 48-87.

306

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

steps of the synagogue one Sabbath when the Jews were inside. In the end, the matter was referred to Rome, where, after delays, the emperor ruled in favor of the pagans and the Jews were forced to flee the city.94 • Finally, we read of the outbreak of violence and civil warfare (stasis) in Jerusalem between high-priestly families, on the one hand, and priestly as well as other leaders of the city, on the other. Josephus describes the phenomenon as follows: Each of the factions fonned and collected for itself a band of the most reckless revolutionaries and acted as their leader. And when they clashed, they used abusive language and pelted each other with stones. And there was not even one person to rebuke them. No, it was as if there was no one in charge of the city, so that they acted as they did with full license. Such was the shamelessness and effrontery which possessed the high priests that they actually were so brazen as to send slaves to the threshing floors to receive the tithes that were due to the priests, with the result that the poorer priests starved to death. Thus did the violence of the contending factions suppress all justice. 95

The end of Felix's rule brings us into the 60s and the terms of office of the last three procurators, each of whom, according to Josephus, was worse than his predecessor: Festus (60-62), Albinus (62-64), and Florus (64--66).96 For want of other sources, we will, of necessity, follow Josephus' narrative. It is important to bear in mind that the headlong descent into anarchy and rebellion that he chronicles may not reflect all of Jerusalem society during these years. Then, as now, a disastrous series of events may have played themselves out side by side with the continuing prosperity and stability of many (or even most) citizens. It is possible that several seemingly contradictory trends coexisted in the city, perhaps in different circles. It is also quite possible that many citizens may have been affected by both currents simultaneously. This proposed complexity is illustrated by Josephus when introducing the story of Jesus b. Hananiah, who bemoaned the impending destruction of the city: "Four years before the war, when the city was enjoying profound peace and prosperity."97 We will discuss these developments by category rather than chronological order. 98 94. See Levine, "Jewish-Greek Conflict," 381-397. 95. Ant. 20.8,8, 180-181. This practice of the wealthy priests, of sending their servants to the threshing floors to take all the tithes and thereby depriving the ordinary priests of their sustenance, began in the days of Festus; it is likewise mentioned several years later during the procuratorship of Albinus; see Ant. 20.9, 2, 206. 96. On this time frame (60-66 C.E.), see Ant. 20.8,9-11, I, 182-258, and War 2.14-15,271-332. 97. War 6.5,3,300. 98. For a chronological overview by Josephus in War and Antiquities, see Schiirer, History, 1:467-470.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

307

During the 60s of the first century, Jerusalem became the almost exclusive focus of discontent. The Sicarii continued to plunder and murder in rural areas, but now the number of assassinations in Jerusalem increased dramatically when this factious group succeeded in mingling with the large festival crowds in the city. Moreover, a more brazen strategy was now contrived. To negotiate the release of their imprisoned colleagues, the Sicarii took some of the most prominent Jerusalemites hostage. On one occasion, they kidnapped Eleazar, son of the High Priest Ananias, who held a high position in the Temple. The Sicarii thus succeeded in pressuring Ananias to persuade the procurator Albinus to release ten of their number. By repeating this exercise several times, they were able to free fellow Sicarii so that they might resume their activities throughout the country. Moreover, Josephus reports that Albinus emptied the prisons on his departure from office. Although those charged with serious crimes were indeed put to death, prisoners with lesser offenses were released in an alleged gesture of goodwill. However this "gesture" might have been interpreted by Jerusalemites, Josephus was of the opinion that such an act only added to the number of criminals at large. In addition, violence in the city's streets now became endemic, and street clashes between various factions were all too common. Such confrontations might have been precipitated by rival high priestly families if, for example, one was preferred over the other for an appointment to office. For instance, when Jesus son of Darnnaeus was deposed from the high priesthood and replaced by Jesus son of Gamaliel, a feud broke out between them (Le., their partisans) in the streets of the city. Such behavior had now become a common enough practice that other members of the city's aristocracy also resorted to these violent tactics: Costobar and Saul also on their own part collected gangs of villains. They themselves were of royal lineage and found favor because of their kinship with Agrippa, but were lawless and quick to plunder the property of those weaker than themselves. From that moment particularly, sickness fell upon our city, and everything went steadily from bad to worse. 99

With the gradual collapse of law and order, everyone sought an opportunity not only for self-aggrandizement but for settling political and religious accounts. Thus, in the hiatus following Festus' death and before Albinus assumed his position, the High Priest Ananus, an avowed Sadducee, convened a meeting of a sanhedrin to try James, brother of Jesus. The sentence was presumably carried out, evoking a protest of some Jerusalemites who also informed Albinus that such an act was illegal since the governor had not authorized it. Ananus was 99. Ant. 20.9,4,214. It is such a context that may best explain the lament over the oppressiveness of priestly rule expressed in rabbinic literature: T Menahot 13, 21 (ed. Zuckermandel, 533), and B Pesahim 57a.

308

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

subsequently deposed by Agrippa II who, it will be remembered, had charge over such matters. Conflict and tension affected Temple matters as well. When Agrippa was in Jerusalem, he stayed at the Hasmonean palace situated above the Temple Mount to the west. From there he could see everything that transpired in the Temple courtyards, including the priests officiating in the inner precincts of the Temple. In response to what they viewed as a provocation, the leaders of the city ordered that a wall be built west of the Temple courtyards to block his view. Agrippa and Festus were enraged by this unauthorized construction and gave the order for its demolition. The matter was referred to Rome, and there, with the aid of Poppaea, the emperor's wife, the scales were tipped in favor of the leaders of Jerusalem and against Agrippa and Festus. loo Another Temple-related incident involved the levites, who wished to enhance their stature by gaining permission to wear white linen vestments resembling those worn by priests. We may assume that tensions had already existed between these groups and that the levites now sought to bolster their standing. They submitted this request to Agrippa who, in tum, convened a sanhedrin to confirm this privilege. The levites then requested and received permission to recite some of the psalms by heart, a practice that heretofore had not been sanctioned. The significance of this change, however, is unclear. It is apparent that much in the life of Jerusalem was thrown off balance by the increase of lawlessness and violence. Such an ambience may explain, at least in part, an unusual rabbinic tradition preserved in the Jerusalem Talmud regarding two factions among the Pharisees coming to blows over a halakhic dispute. The issue at hand, termed in rabbinic literature as "the 18 Decrees" (gezerot), dealt with laws pertaining to the nature and degree of contact between Jew and non-Jew. The Pharisaic school of Bet Shammai, making up the majority, adopted a strict and restrictive position; that of Bet Hillel was more lenient. 101 According to this late tradition, the two sides resorted to violence, and many from Bet Hillel were killed. Such an account is so sui generis to rabbinic literature and so uncomplimentary to the sages in terms of their own presumed values and behavior that some sort of a historical kernel is often assumed. Otherwise, how else might one explain the preservation of such an unfavorable and unusual tradition? If violence did indeed take place, it may well date to these tumultuous years immediately preceding the revolt. 102 100. Matthews, "Ladies' Aid," 204-206. 10 1. Y Shabbat 1, 1, 2a. 102. On the 18 Decrees, see Hengel, Zealots, 200-206, and Ben-Shalom, School of Shammai, 252-272. Serious tensions associated with a halakhic dispute in the bet midrash, this time ascribed to the era of Hillel and Shammai themselves, are noted in B Shabbat 17a.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

309

The crisis created (and reflected) by the above was exacerbated by the absence of strong leadership within the city. The natural leadership circle, Le., the high priesthood, was thrown into disarray by the frequent changes of the 60s wrought by King Agrippa II after a decade or more during which only Ananias son of Nebedaeus held this office. In 60, the high priest was Ishmael son of Phiabi,103 who was appointed by Agrippa a year earlier and replaced by Joseph, surnamed Cabi, son of Simon. 104 A few months later, Joseph was replaced by Ananus son of Ananus;105 and after the latter took advantage of a hiatus in procuratorial rule to have James executed, as noted above, he was replaced by Jesus son of Damnaeus. 106 In the coming years, Jesus son of Gamaliel, and subsequently Matthias son of Theophilus, were named high priests by the king. 107 This frequent turnover was clearly destabilizing, as was the fact that no other group or individual was able or willing to fill the gap, neither the Herodians, Jerusalem aristocracy, Pharisees, nor even the Roman provincial government itself. lOS Thus there was no one available to provide a corrective to this deteriorating situation by taking matters into hand and staving off the impending chaos. In the end, this may have been the single most decisive factor in the unraveling of the fabric of Jerusalem, and thus Judaean, society. The die leading to the revolt was finally cast under Florus, whom Josephus describes as the most corrupt of the procurators, exceeding his predecessors in evil and lawless behavior, so much so that, in comparison, even Albinus looked like a model of virtue. What Albinus did in secret, Florus did openly. Violence prevailed over justice and cities fell prey to looters. Many Jews, according to Josephus, abandoned their cities, saying that it was better for them to live among the gentiles. Josephus contends that it was, in fact, Florus' behavior that led the Jews to mount a revolt. 109 Internal tensions continued in this period as well. Construction and restoration of the Temple Mount was completed in 64 C.E., leaving eighteen thousand people without work. Even if Josephus' figure is exaggerated, it is clear that large-scale unemployment was a source of social unrest, and Agrippa hastened to initiate projects that would create jobs. How successful he was in providing them is unknown but the fact remains that, when hostilities finally broke out 103. Ant. 20.8, 8, 179. 104. Ibid., 20.8, 11, 196. 105. Ibid., 20.9, 1, 197. 106. Ibid., 20.9, 1,203. 107. Ibid., 20.9, 4, 213; 9, 7, 223. 108. Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics," 25-29. 109. Rajak, Josephus, 65-77.

310

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

several years later, one of the first acts of the Jerusalem populace was to bum the archives where debt records were stored. Tensions came to a head when violent confrontations broke out with the Roman army. After Florus had appropriated seventeen talents of silver from the Temple treasury for "state needs," which the Jews regarded as extremely offensive and a desecration of the Temple, they mockingly began to collect money for the "needy" procurator. Insulted, Florus then brought regiments into Jerusalem to punish the Jews while appropriating additional monies. Unsuccessful in discovering who was responsible for the affront, Florus ordered his soldiers to kill and plunder the Jews in the upper marketplace. The soldiers, however, disregarded his order and massacred Jews indiscriminately, even those in the streets and in their homes. Florus went even further by bringing Jews of equestrian rank (i.e., Roman citizens) before a tribunal and having them flogged and crucified. I/O When Agrippa's sister Berenice tried in vain to intervene, the rampaging soldiers humiliated her. The leaders of the Jews managed to quell the crowd and complied with Florus' demand that they give a cordial welcome to the Roman armies arriving from Caesarea. Yet it became clear that the procurator had set a trap for them; he secretly ordered his soldiers not to respond to the Jews' welcome and then to attack at the first sign of discontent. The soldiers launched a ruthless assault; because the Jews fought fiercely in the city's narrow alleys, the Roman soldiers were prevented from joining their comrades in the Antonia fortress. The Jews then destroyed the Temple porticoes adjacent to the Antonia fortress and blocked Florus' access to the Temple and its treasury. When this unrest came to the attention of the Roman governor of Syria, Cestius Gallus, he promptly sent one of his aides, Neapolitanus, to assess the situation. Arriving in Jerusalem accompanied by Agrippa II, he saw firsthand the suffering that Florus' regiments had inflicted on the population. Neapolitanus was reportedly impressed by the Jews' loyalty to Rome and duly informed Gallus. Agrippa then convened the Jews in the Xystus, west of the Temple Mount (see Chapter 9), where he delivered a lengthy oration-Dne of the most famous speeches reported in Josephus' writings-in favor of accommodation with Rome. Although some doubt has been cast regarding the authenticity of this speech, suggesting perhaps that it is the product of the Jewish historian's hand in a later period (a rather common practice in ancient times), the argument for its basic accuracy regarding what was said is compelling. It is certainly the type of statement that Agrippa would have made (in contrast to Eleazar son of Jairus' speech at Masada, which was clearly fabricated lll ), and there is even reason to believe 110. War 2.14,9,308. 111. See ibid., 7.8, 6, 320-388.

THE HISTORICAL DIMENSION

311

that Josephus himself was present at that assembly. Agrippa concluded his speech by advising the Jews to pay their taxes and rebuild the destroyed porticoes. At first the people accepted his call, and for a moment it seemed as if the danger of war had subsided. But Agrippa's repeated calls to obey Florus until a replacement from Rome would arrive angered some of the people, who began to taunt and throw stones at him. Agrippa was forced to leave the city, and all hope of preventing an uprising was lost. A series of incidents then ensued that contributed to the rebels' determination to go to war. A band of Sicarii led by Menahem, grandson of Judas the Galilean, captured Masada from a Roman garrison and proceeded to massacre the soldiers encamped there, while Eleazar, son of the former High Priest Ananias, convinced the priests in Jerusalem not to accept sacrificial offerings from non-Jews anymore. The latter action constituted, in fact, a declaration of war since the daily sacrifice for the welfare of the emperor was an expression of Jewish loyalty to his realm. The Jews were thereby officially abrogating their recognition of Roman rule in Jerusalem. War was now irrevocable.

313

Chapter 9

The Urban Configuration

Jerusalem reached an unprecedented size physically and demographically by the middle first century C.E. In fact, it was only at the end of the nineteenth century that the city again attained-and then surpassed-these dimensions. 1 In the last two centuries of the Second Temple period, Jerusalem tripled in size, reflecting in no small measure the city's enhanced stature as the religious center of the Jews, whose numbers and geographical dispersion were unparalleled in antiquity. Together with the monumental Herodian buildings and others erected thereafter, the city gained an international reputation. Writing in the middle of the first century, Pliny the Elder describes Jerusalem as "the most famous, by far, of the cities in the East,"2 and Tacitus refers to it as the capital of the Jews with "a Temple possessing enormous riches."3

Geographical Expansion Following the dramatic expansion of the city westward to Mount Zion under the early Hasmoneans, there was little incentive to expand farther in that direction. The Hinnom Valley to the immediate west of Mount Zion and the hard stone in the area farther west, which was unsuitable for building, were the primary obstacles calculated to discourage city planners from moving in that direction. A northerly direction-with its more conducive topography and suitable stone for building-provided a much more attractive option for the inevitable growth of 1. EJ, IX: 1447-1466. See also Avi-Yonah, "Jerusalem," 206-249. 2. Natural History 5, 70. 3. Histories 5.8,1 (GLAJJ, II: 28).

314

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

--Qo,ooon~""'"",,OI

--

i____ .......... ,

·

" ,,

\

\

\

\ \

\

,

,

,

\

1 1

_Of · 1I _J_, 1

1

.... \ =-1 ..._ 1

'"

1

.;. ........,..r......,

Valley of Hlnnom

<;-. phM.'jFigure 75. Jerusalem in the Second Temple period.

the city. The Second Wall, possibly built by Herod, added almost 40 percent (approximately 60 acres) to the city's area, thus bringing the entire walled area to about 225 acres. The rapid growth continued at least into the fifth decade of the first century, when Agrippa I found it necessary to initiate the construction of what Josephus termed the "Third Wall" (Fig. 75). However, this project was thwarted by the Roman government and was completed only some twenty-five years later by the rebels at the outbreak of the revolt. 5 The area enclosed by this new enceinte was enormous; it doubled the size of the city, which now encompassed some 450 acres. 4. War 2.11 , 6, 218; 5.4, 2, 151-154, and Ant. 19.7, 2,326-327; see also above. 5. War 5.4, 2, 155.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

315

The concomitant population growth may have been the result of natural biological factors, but there can be little doubt that the religious attraction of Jerusalem at this time was at a peak, and people streamed to the city-as pilgrims or future residents-because of the presence of its magnificent Temple.6

The Third Wall As noted, by the reign of Agrippa I, Jerusalem was deemed ready for another enceinte that would incorporate more land. The area within the Second Wall, built some time in the previous century, was now considered inadequate, as many people were now living north of the First and Second Walls: "This wall was built by Agrippa to enclose the later additions to the city, which were quite unprotected; for the town, overflowing with inhabitants, had gradually crept beyond the ramparts."7 The resultant wall, doubling the size of the city, is persuasive evidence for the significant growth in Jerusalem's population. 8 Josephus offers a detailed and historically important description of the course of this wall: The third (wall) began at the tower of Hippicus, whence it stretched northwards to the tower Psephinus, and then descending opposite the monuments of Helena (queen of Adiabene and daughter of king Izates), and proceeding past the royal caverns it bent round a comer tower over against the so-called Fuller's tomb and joining the ancient rampart terminated at the valley called Kidron. This wall was built by Agrippa to enclose the later additions to the city, which were quite unprotected; for the town, overflowing with inhabitants, had gradually crept beyond the ramparts. Indeed, the popUlation, uniting to the hill [on which the Upper City lay] the district north of the Temple, had encroached so far that even a fourth hill was surrounded with houses. This hill, which is called Bezetha, lay opposite Antonia, but was cut off from it by a deep fosse, dug on purpose to sever the foundations of Antonia from the hill and so to render them at once less easy of access and more elevated, the depth of the trench materially increasing the height of the towers. The recently built quarter was called in the vernacular Bezetha, which might be translated into Greek as New Town.

6. Little is known regarding any overall planning for the city, divisions into smaller administrative subsections, building controls, services, public order, and the repair and maintenance of public areas. For these and other questions of a municipal nature in Rome, about which we are far better informed, see O. Robinson, Ancient Rome.

7. War 5.4,2, 148-149. 8. It should be noted that the northern line of this wall was not dictated by topographical considerations. The wall was not extended to afford greater defensive capabilities but rather to accommodate the needs of the city's population.

316

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Seeing then the residents of this district in need of defense, Agrippa, the father and namesake of the present king [i.e., Agrippa II, king in the northern areas in the days of Josephus], began the above-mentioned wall; but, fearing that Claudius Caesar might suspect from the vast scale of the structure that he had designs of revolution and revolt, he desisted after merely laying the foundations. 9 Indeed the city would have been impregnable, had the wall been continued as it began; for it was constructed of stones twenty cubits long and ten broad, so closely joined that they could scarcely have been undermined with tools of iron or shaken by engines. The wall itself was ten cubits broad, and it would doubtless have attained a greater height than it did, had not the ambition of its founder been frustrated. Subsequently, although hurriedly erected by the Jews, it rose to a height of twenty cubits, besides having battlements of two cubits and bulwarks of three cubits high, bringing the total altitude up to twenty-five cubits. Above the wall, however, rose towers, twenty cubits broad and twenty high, square and solid as the wall itself, and in the joining and beauty of the stones in no wise inferior to a temple. Over this solid masonry, twenty cubits in altitude, were magnificent apartments, and above these, upper chambers and cisterns to receive the rain-water, each tower having broad spiral staircases. Of such towers the Third Wall had ninety, disposed at intervals of two hundred cubits; the line of the middle wall was broken by fourteen towers, that of the old wall by sixty. The whole circumference of the city was thirty-three furlongs [same as stades, each approximately two hundred yards].\O For all his detail, Josephus omits here any mention of the wall's gates. Elsewhere he notes "the Women's Towers" (quite possibly referring to a gate) that stood opposite the funerary monuments of Helena to the north. ll A major controversy was waged in the latter half of the twentieth century between Israeli and British archaeologists over the precise course of the Third Wall (Fig. 76). The former adopted a maximalist position, assuming that the Third Wall ran parallel to the wall of the Old City, five or six hundred yards north of it; the latter, following Vincent,12 adopted a minimalist stance, claiming that the wall essentially followed 9. Josephus offers several other reasons from the work stoppage. Earlier in War, 2.11,6,218-219, he remarks that work on the wall ceased owing to the king's death; in Antiquities 19.7,2,326--327, the Roman governor Marsus reported Agrippa's activities to Claudius, and the emperor, suspecting a possible revolt, ordered the king to desist; according to Josephus, "Agrippa thought it best not to disobey." Whatever the reason, or combination thereof, in each case we are told that had the project been completed, the city would have been made impenetrable. See also Tacitus, Histories 5.12, 2 (GLAJJ, II: 30), who states: "they had bought the privilege of fortifying their city, and in time of peace had built walls as if for war." 10. War 5.4,2-3, 147-159. For a detailed discussion of this passage, see Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 459-503. 11. War 5.2,2,55. 12. Vincent, "La troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem (1)," 516--548, "La troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem (2)," 80--100, 321-339, and "Encore la troisieme enceinte," 90--126.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

317

Figure 76. Maximalist (left) and minimalist (right) reconstructions of the line of the Third Wall.

the course of today's Old City wall. According to the British view, therefore, flrst-century Jerusalem was considerably smallerY Each side of the dispute relies largely on archaeological data for proving its claims and countering the opposing view; although detailed, the literary evidence (which we cite above) is nevertheless given to differing interpretations and thus plays a distinctly secondary role in these deliberations. To review all the arguments and counterarguments offered in this controversy would require a small monograph in itself. The pivotal factor in this debate is the remains of a wall excavated in 1925-1927 by Sukenik and Mayer, and a half century later by Netzer and Ben-Arieh; altogether, some 850 yards out of a probable total of 1,200 (stretching from the presumed spot of the Psephinus Tower in the west to the Qidron Valley in the east) have been exposed. 14 There is some debate whether these remains are, in fact, as monumental as Josephus' rather exuberant description, but all assessments date them to the period of the 66-70 revolt. In this context, they seem to best fit Josephus' account of the course of the Third Wall. Thus the "maximalist" placement of the wall appears to be the most convincing. Alternative explanations regarding these remains (a fourth wall built by the rebels; remains of the dike erected by the Romans to prevent escape, etc.) are far less persuasive. Their proponents either invent an unattested fourth wall or suggest a solution that largely ignores the remains themselves (a dike). The wall clearly faces north (as attested by the towers standing there) and the stone foun13. Following Sukenik and Mayer, Third Wall, the Israeli position has been put forth by Avi-Yonah, "Third and Second Walls," 98-125, followed again by Ben-Arieh and Netzer, "Excavations along the Third Wall,'" 97-107, and Shanks, "Jerusalem Wall," 46-57. For the British position, see Kenyon, "Excavations in Jerusalem," 88, and Jerusalem, 166; Hennessy, "Preliminary Report," 22-24; and Hamrick, "Third Wall," 18-22, "Fourth Wall," 262-266, and "Northern Barrier Wall," 215-232. See also Wightman, Walls of Jerusalem, 159-181. 14. NEAEHL, II:7 44--7 45. The existence of this wall was first noted in the nineteenth century by American archaeologist E. Robinson, Biblical Researches, 465-467.

318

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

dations are much more substantial than any Roman dike would require, especially when compared to the one discovered at Masada. 15 Thus, by a process of elimination, it is eminently clear that we are dealing with a sturdy wall built for defensive purposes, and this could only be the Third Wall described by Josephus.1 6

Topography The physical contours of Jerusalem consist of hills or, more often, ridges divided by deep valleys. In his famous description of the city on the eve of TItus' siege, Josephus notes the following: The city was fortified by three walls, except where it was enclosed by impassable ravines, a single rampart there sufficing [i.e., on the east, south, and west]. It was built, in portions facing each other, on two hills separated by a central valley, in which the tiers of houses ended. Of these two hills, that on which the Upper City lay was far higher and had a straighter ridge than the other; consequently, owing to its strength it was called by King David-the father of Solomon, the first builder of the Temple-the Stronghold, but we called it the Upper Agora. The second hill, which bore the name of Akra and supported the Lower City, was like a hog's back. Opposite this was a third hill, by nature lower than Akra, and once divided from it by another broad mvine. Afterwards, however, the Hasmoneans, during the period of their reign, both filled up the mvine, with the object of uniting the city to the Temple, and also reduced the elevation of Akra by leveling its summit, in order that it might not block the view of the Temple. The Valley of the Cheesemakers (the Tyropoeon Valley), as the mvine was called, which, as we said, divides the hill of the Upper City from that of the Lower, extends down to Siloam.... On the exterior, the two hills on which the city stood were encompassed by deep ravines, and the precipitous cliffs on either side of it rendered the town nowhere accessible. 17

It is clear from this text that by Josephus' time the common assumption was that Davidic Jerusalem extended westward and included Mount Zion. Today we know that this was not the case and that David's Jerusalem lay to the east, in what 15. There is also the fanciful position once advanced by Vincent, "La troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem (2)," 80-100, 321, 339, and "Encore 1a troisieme enceinte," 90-126, that this wall is part of the fortifications Bar-Kokhba built after having captured Jerusalem. This explanation is unsubstantiated, as it is generally agreed today that the city was never taken by Bar-Kokhba. 16. Also at issue is the fact that the lowest courses at the side of the Damascus Gate appear to date from the first century C.E. The minimalists assume that this gate was part of the Third Wall; the maximalists, generally following Avi-Yonah, include these remains and the assumed gate in the course of the Second Wall. Ma'oz, "Hasmonean and Herodian Town-Plan," 53-54, suggests that these courses, in fact, were not part of a gate at all but rather of a triumphal arch erected by Agrippa I. 17. War 5.4, 1, 136-141. See Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 36-59.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

319

Josephus calls the Lower City; only under Hezekiah did it expand westward and include Mount Zion. Already in Josephus' day, this First Temple expansion was presumed to have taken place in the Davidic-Solomonic era. This description seems generally clear enough, with the one main exception being the reference to a third hill, lower than the Akra (or the Lower City, in Josephus' parlance) and divided from it by a ravine. This has been interpreted as referring to either the Temple Mount or a hill north ofthe Upper City (or agora). The latter explanation appears the more reasonable of the two; a small valley, often referred to as the Cross Valley, ran from the Citadel area (or Jaffa Gate) eastward toward the Temple Mount. The area to its north was once a hill and is roughly equivalent to the Christian Quarter of today's Old City; it seems that this is the site referred to by Josephus. As a result of this rather sharply divided urban topography,18 the various areas of the city were clearly separated from one another; between them were undoubtedly commercial and public spaces that lined the valley's streets. It seems that each neighborhood developed along different lines owing to its unique topographical features, its location within the city, and the particular popUlation that resided there. 19 Some areas appear to have been more homogeneous than others, although firm conclusions are elusive?O Despite the fact that we have a relatively considerable amount of literary and archaeological material relating to Jerusalem's neighborhoods, the data are very uneven, and some quarters are far better documented than others.21 We will discuss the two most important and best-documented Jerusalem neighborhoods-the Lower and Upper Citiesbeginning with the oldest part of the city, referred to by Josephus as the Lower City and, at times, the Akra. 22

The Lower City The Lower City is a difficult quarter to defme in terms of its ambience and residents, not because of any dearth of information but rather because what we have 18. The Tyropoeon Valley clearly divided the western and eastern ridges, each of which was further divided by a smaller valley; the Cross Valley cut across the western ridge, while the Saint Anne (or Bezetha) Valley ran north of the Temple Mount in an east-west direction. 19. See Laurence, "Local Identity," 38-50. 20. See Wallace-Hadrill, "Elites and Trade," 249-264, and Perring, "Spatial Organisation," 273-293. 21. For an attempt to reconstruct part of the street grid of Herodian Jerusalem on the basis of today's Old City streets, see Wilkinson, "Streets of Jerusalem," 118-136. 22. The western boundary of this neighborhood is not entirely clear. Whether it basically followed the Tyropoeon Valley or included part of the eastern slope of Mount Zion (and if so, how much?) is impossible to determine. Avi-Yonah is probably correct in assuming the latter alternative, which finds expression in the model of Jerusalem at the Holyland Hotel.

320

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

is so diverse and contrasting. We know of four different types of buildings in this part of the city (Fig. 77). First, Jerusalem's hippodrome was almost certainly located somewhere in this quarter. 23 Built by Herod, we can assume that this institution continued to function throughout the first century.24 Josephus makes it quite clear that the building was located south of the Temple and in close proximity to it,25 although no archaeological remains that might be associated with such an institution have as yet been revealed. 26 Because a Roman hippodrome was a large building, ranging in length from 300 to 550 yards, its placement along this ridge was problematic. It was for this reason that Avi-Yonah, in his Holyland Hotel model, opted for a solution that placed the hippodrome partly on the western part of the ridge and partly in the central Tyropoeon Valley (see Fig. 46 in Chapter 5). Whatever may have been its location, it is clear that the hippodrome constituted a dominant presence in this area; it was a monumental institution in its own right and especially imposing within the relatively restricted area of the Lower City. Whether such a building was placed there owing to the proclivities of those already residing in the neighborhood is impossible to determine. If indeed there is some sort of correlation between the building and the immediate population, then there was probably a large percentage of middle- and lower-class citizens in the area. The hippodrome's competitions were rooted in hoary antiquity (according to Roman legend, the first chariot races were held by Romulus soon after Rome's founding in 753 B.C.E.) and were known to attract boisterous fans. From Late Antiquity we read of riots and wanton destruction accompanying these activities. The organized clubs lfactiones) that sponsored the various competitors in Rome (''Reds,'' ''Whites,'' "Greens," and "Blues") were often responsible for such behavior.27 The extent of the disruptions in the first century, and in the East, is unknown. 28 Pliny the Younger exhibited the utmost disdain for the time wasted in the hippo23. See Chapter 5. 24. Such an assumption has often been questioned, either because it was difficult for some to believe that the Jewish inhabitants of the city would have tolerated its continued presence after Herod's death or because Josephus never mentions it after 4 B.C.E. Neither of these considerations is particularly compelling. As we have seen, and will see, the composition of Jerusalem's inhabitants was far from homogeneous, and the more acculturated population continued to dominate the city's political and social life down to the revolt. The absence of any reference by Josephus is noteworthy but far from decisive. By now it is quite clear that the historian was guided by his political agenda; with rare exception, if an institution or office did not playa role in the events that he wished to relate, it would never appear in his writings. The first and only mention of the hippodrome by Josephus occurs in these very circumstances. 25. Ant. 17.10,2,255. 26. On the fragments found in the Temple Mount excavations (not far from where Avi-Yonah suggests that the hippodrome once stood) that have been interpreted as remains of stone theater seats, see Reich and Billig, "AGroup of Theatre Seats," 175-184. 27. Cameron, Circus Factions, 74-153,271-296. 28. Ibid., 56-{i2, 201-205.

321

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

Figure 77. The Lower City viewed from the south (Holyland Hotel model).

Figure 78. Queen Helena's palaces in the Lower City viewed from the east (Holyland Hotel model).

drome and the boorishness of its spectators.29 Undoubtedly, some of the thrill in this spectator sport involved the chariots making dangerous turns, leading to innumerable accidents.30 We have no way of knowing how much this type of competition, and the audience it drew, affected this part of the city. One of the most memorable events of this period was the arrival in Jerusalem of Helena, queen of Adiabene (a kingdom in Mesopotamia), and the building of a series of palaces in the Lower City in the 40s and 50s (Fig. 78). She and the rest of her royal family had recently converted to Judaism, an event noted in detail by Josephus and mentioned in rabbinic literature as welpl Of the royal family, which included her husband, Monobaz, and their two sons, Jzates and Monobaz, Helena herself was the most active in Jerusalem. She lived in the city for a considerable period of time, took a Nazirite vow on several occasions,32 made generous donations to the Temple,33 supplied the local population with grain from Alexandria and dried figs from Cyprus in times of famine,34 and built a monumental tomb for her family north of the citi5 as well as her palace in the center of the Lower City.36 As noted, other members of her family also erected palaces in the Lower City; Monobaz and Grapte (identified as a relative of Helena's son, King Jzates) are specifically noted. 37 29. Letters 9, 6.

30. Pliny the Elder, Natural History 28, 72. 31 . Ant. 20.2-4, 17-96, and Genesis Rabbah 46, 11 (ed. Theodor and Albeck, 467-468), See Schiffman, "Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene," 293-312.

32. M Nazir 3, 6. 33. MYoma 3, 10. 34. Ant. 20.2,5,51-52. 35. Ibid., 20.4, 3, 95-96. 36. War 6.6, 3, 355.

37. Ibid., 4.9, 11,567; 5.6, 1,252-253. The term aule (noted in paragraphs 252-253) probably refers to a palace or residence of Monobaz, and not a courthouse as assumed by Thackeray in LCL, III:279. See War 2.15, 5, 328, and Life 12, 66.

322

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Figure 79. The Theodotos inscription.

Several large buildings were discovered south of the Temple Mount. One is located about fifty yards south of the western Huldah Gate (also referred to as the Double Gate); remains of a large cistern and a plastered pool were found, and the building appears to have been built in the Hellenistic era. Some ninety yards south of the eastern Huldah Gate (sometimes referred to as the Triple Gate) a two-story building was discovered. Each of these structures has been identified with one or another of the Adiabene palaces. 38 The Theodotos inscription, attesting to the presence of a synagogue in the Lower City, was discovered in 1913-1914 in a cistern in the southeastern part of this neighborhood (Fig. 79). Named after the head of the synagogue and its principal donor, the inscription attests to a multiroomed complex that provided for the educational and religious needs of a community, living quarters for pilgrims from abroad, and water installations. 39 The fact that pilgrims would lodge in this synagogue complex indicates that there was a constant flow of Diaspora Jews to and from the building, with the main route heading northward through the Lower City to the Huldah Gates and the Temple Mount. The significance of such a presence lies not only in the size of this particular hostel but also in the possibility that other, similar, institutions existed in the vicinity as well (see Acts 6:9 and below). A number of tombs are attested in this part of the city, two of the most famous ones belonging to Huldah the prophetess and King David. Rabbinic literature notes that these tombs remained within Jerusalem despite the prohibition against burial within the city limits that was intended to prevent its defilement by the dead;40 each of these tombs had an underground tunnel that ostensibly funneled impurities into the nearby Qidron Valley. The Bible notes explicitly the burial of 38. B. Mazar, "Herodian Jerusalem," 236-237, and Ben-Dov, In the Shadow, 155. 39. See Levine, Ancient Synagogue , 54-56, and below. On the water reservoirs located in this area, see Adan, 'The 'Fountain of Siloam'and 'Solomon's Pool,'" 92-100. 40. T Bava Batra I, 11 (ed. Lieberman, 131-132).

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

323

Figure 80. The tomb of the prophetess Huldah near the Temple Mount's southern gates (Holyland Hotel mOdel).

David in "the City of David," which in his day was located exclusively in this area (l Kings 2:10), and Avi-Yonah, in the Holyland Hotel model, placed Huldah's tomb near the Temple's southern gates, which he assumed were named after the prophetess owing to the proximity of her sepulcher (Fig. 80). According to Vitae Prophetarum41 (one of the apocryphal books written apparently in the first century C.E.), there were tombs of other kings of Judah in this area, as well as that of the prophet Isaiah. Vitae also mentions tombs of priests to the east, perhaps a reference to the Qidron Valley tombs (Absalom's tomb, Zechariah's tomb, and the Bnei Hezir tomb). Finally, Eusebius42 notes that James, brother of Jesus, was buried at the foot of the Temple wall (possibly near the southeastern comer) after his execution in 62, which would place it in the vicinity of Huldah's tomb. The presence of the four types of buildings noted above offers a variegated picture of the Lower City. Anyone of them might have set the tone for the entire area, but all four certainly created a dynamic and diverse ambience. We do not know where these buildings were located or how they might have related to one another. Thus one can only speculate as to their respective importance in shaping the life of the Lower City. The western part of the Lower City was traversed by the Tyropoeon Valley, the main artery of the city. Beginning in the north, perhaps near the present-day Damascus Gate, this valley ran southeastward to the Dung Gate that stood adjacent to the Siloam Pool. This thoroughfare was undoubtedly the focus of much commercial activity, as it passed through the area enclosed by the Second Wall with its many commercial enterprises (see below), skirted the Temple Mount to the west where many stores and stalls were found,43 and wound up at the Dung 41. At 1, 8. 42 . Ecclesiastical History 2, 23, 18. 43. See R. Reich and Billig, "Excavations near the Temple Mount," 345-346.

324

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Figure 81. The Hasmonean Palace showing the stoa and open area of the Xystus in the lower left corner.

Gate where there were wool stores. 44 Parts of this street dating from the first century C.E. have been revealed in the Temple Mount excavations; the street may have been colonnaded in the style of Roman cities, and it was here that craftsmen and shopkeepers greeted pilgrims bringing their first-fruit offerings.45 This area is perhaps the one referred to in rabbinic literature as ''the lower marketplace."46 At the very northern end of the Lower City, adjacent to where the First Wall met the Temple Mount,47 stood the Xystus, a building the precise character and function of which remain an enigma (Fig. 81). The term "Xystus" usually refers to a gymnasium of sorts, often with a large open area. As such, it might also have served as a meeting place for a large crowd. The reference to a colonnade adjacent to the Hasmonean palace might indicate such a complex.48 If so, then Jerusalem boasted a kind of gymnasium in Herodian and post-Herodian times for athletic exercises and as a meeting place. It is possible that this building (like the Hasmonean palace above it) had already been erected in the Hasmonean era, perhaps in the same place where Jason and the Hellenizers built a gymnasium in 175 B.C.E.; however, we know very little about the location of Jason's gymnasium, apart from the fact that it was ''beneath the citadel [i.e., Akra]."49 If the Ptolemaic Akra was intended, as seems probable, it would place the gymnasium north or west of the Temple Mount, conceivably in the area of the Xystus. Such an identi44. M 'Eduyot 1, 3. According to one rabbinic source, both the trade of weaving and the location of the Dung Gate were considered degrading (T 'Eduyot 1, 3 led. Zuckerrnandel, 455]). On this and other professions as reflected in rabbinic literature, see Aberbach, Labor, Crafts and Commerce, 159-240. 45. M Bikkurim 3, 3. 46. For example, T Sanhedrin 14, 14 (ed. Zuckerrnandel, 437).

47. War 6.6,2,325; 8, 1,377. 48. Ant. 20.8, 11 , 189. Speculating that the Xystus was located on the main intersection of the city (where the Tyropoeon Valley Street intersected the Cross Valley Street), Ma 'oz, "Hasmonean and Herodian Town·Plan," 51, suggests that the Xystus was, in fact, the city's forum .

49. See 2 Mace. 4, 12.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

325

Figure 82. The bouleuterion in Priene.

fication can be regarded only as speculative at this point. Whatever the case, the Xystus clearly included a large open space intended for major public gatherings,50 and it was here that Jerusalemites were summoned to hear Agrippa IT's plea for peace. Below the Xystus, and also in close proximity to the First Wall, stood the bouleuterion, where Jerusalem's city council (boule) presumably met (Fig. 82).5' The only archaeological remains that have been discovered may relate to the bouleuterion. Deep under the present level of the Western Wall plaza, and almost directly beneath Wilson's Arch (built, as we see it today, some time in the early Middle Ages), are the remains of what was once a well-built room; stone blocks in the lowest courses of several of its walls had been finely molded, and parts of what may well have been an original flagstone floor are likewise in evidence. While no stratigraphy of the room has been ascertained, it seems to fit well into a Herodian context, given the other remains in the area. This room may conceivably be the remains of the bouleuterion mentioned by Josephus. 52

In addition to the above buildings and the main thoroughfare, it must be remembered that the majority of the residents in the Lower City were native Jerusalemites or Judaeans who took up residence there. This quarter in particular became one of the hotbeds of the revolutionaries; at an early stage it sheltered the most extreme faction, which presumably found sympathy and support among the indigenous population. The Sicarii leader Menahem found refuge in the Lower City after having been driven off the Temple Mount by his adversaries. Eventually, he and his next in command were murdered there. 53

50. See Ben-Dov, In the Shadow, 180, who indeed interprets the term "Xystus" as referring to "a structure with a broad, stone-paved plaza in its center." 51 . On this institution as part of the local polis, see Chapter 7. A10n, Jews, Judaism, 55-56, however, assumes that the city 's boule did not meet here but rather in the Temple precincts, in the Chamber of the Bouleutin as it is referred to in a number of rabbinic traditions. 52. The room has often been referred to as the Masonic or Hasmonean HaIl; the former term is a British designation, and the latter has no archaeological or literary basis. See Bahat, "Western Wall Tunnels," 178-179.

53. War 2.l7, 9, 441-448.

326

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Thus, besides the Adiabene royalty and the Theodotos synagogue, the Lower City was the hub of revolutionary activity. The contrast between a recent and pious convert such as Helena, and someone like Menahem, whose group was responsible for the deaths of many Jews whom it considered traitors, could hardly be more striking. Yet, the Lower City was home to both. It appears that this area, the oldest in Jerusalem, was undergoing a significant measure of gentrification in the first century C.E. and perhaps even earlier, under Herod, judging by the Theodotos inscription. The indigenous popUlation was being supplemented in part by wealthy Diaspora Jews, such as Helena and her retinue from the East and those from the West who availed themselves of the Theodotos synagogue's facilities and perhaps other such institutions. We cannot determine why such Diaspora Jews were attracted to this neighborhood. Was it the availability of land, its low cost, proximity to the Temple, or something else?54 Whatever the reasons, these newcomers probably succeeded in shaping the ambience of the area in significant, if not easily defmable, ways.55

The Upper City Of all the sections of Jerusalem, the Upper City, located on Mount Zion to the west of the Lower City, appears to have been more homogeneous (Fig. 83). It was there that Jerusalem's aristocratic, priestly, and wealthy classes lived, and the institutions located in this district were calculated to serve their needs. The palaces and residences of Jerusalem's leadership circles were invariably to be found there, and Herod established himself in this area in the middle 20s, as did the procurators who subsequently occupied his palace.56 In the middle first century, Agrippa II significantly enlarged the Hasmonean palace that already stood on this hill, affording the king a clear view of the Temple and Temple Mount. 57 According to Christian tradition, the house of the High Priest Caiaphas was located nearby, and excavations at the proposed site have uncovered frescoes depicting birds and architectural designs (Fig. 84).58 Although the accuracy of this identification is questionable, it is nevertheless quite likely that many, if not most, of the high priests resided in the area. Josephus notes that the house of the High Priest Ananias, burned by the 54. Proximity to the Temple was undoubtedly a factor in the location of the Theodotos synagogue and may have also influenced the Adiabene royal family. 55. In Pompeii and Herculaneum as well, there was a mixed popUlation of rich and poor, luxurious and squalid, living alongside one another; see Wallace-Hadrill, "Elites and Trade," 249-264. 56. Benoit, "Pretoire," 530-550. This is what happened in Caesarea as well; Herod's palace became the residence of the Roman governor (Ant. 15.9,6,331, and Acts 23:35).

57. Ant. 20.8, 11, 189-190, and War 2.17, 6, 426. 58. Broshi, "Excavations in the House of Caiaphas," 57-58.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

327

Figure 83. A panoramic view of the Upper City (Holyland Hotel model).

Figure 84. The palace of the High Priest Caiaphas (Holyland Hotel model).

revolutionaries, was situated near the palace of Agrippa and Berenice, which certainly was located in the Upper City.59 Because of its prime location, high on a hill overlooking the Temple Mount, it is clear why the wealthy preferred such a location. Moreover, proximity to the political, social, and religious leadership was undoubtedly an additional attraction for the prestige it offered. Fortunately, an opportunity arose following the Six Day War in 1967 to excavate part of the Upper City's residential quarter. The

59 . War 2.17, 6,426. On the tendency in certain Roman towns toward socially exclusive neighborhoods, in contradistinction to recent studies on Pompeii and Herculaneum (see above), see Perring, "Spatial Organisation," 273-293: " [in] those Roman towns which had an administrative role, the elite groups were generally able to maintain control over space and .. . according to the town 's status, location and date, there was a broad change in emphasis from strategies of inclusion to ones of exclusion" (274-275).

328

Figure 85. A Herodian villa in the Upper City.

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Figure 86. The main hall of a villa in the Upper City. with stucco ornamentation on walls and ceiling.

results were most illuminating and, in certain cases, dramatic and even sensational. Although we have had occasion to discuss these unusual fmds from the perspective of Hellenism in Herodian Jerusalem, we will focus at present on the finds that tell us about the residents themselves. The homes of the aristocratic and priestly families in the Upper City offer us a glimpse into the material culture, social values, and cultural as well as religious life of these families. 60 The way in which these Jerusalemites built their houses, their sizes and plans, the kinds of furniture and utensils used, how the rooms were decorated, and the small finds discovered therein confirm that this was the residential quarter of the city's social and economic elite (Fig. 85). These were all family dwellings, some of which, although built in close proximity, had spacious interiors with a large number of rooms arranged around a courtyard-not unlike the residential quarters and villas in other parts of the Roman world. 61 Some of the buildings are well preserved, with walls reaching a height of three meters (Fig. 86). Evidence for the existence of second stories has been found, as well as of basement levels that often included storerooms, cisterns, and ritual baths. Many of these houses encompassed hundreds of square meters, and one particularly large house measured approximately six hundred square meters on the ground floor alone!62 60. For the fullest discussion of these finds and those noted below. see Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 83-191. For some of the archaeological remains, see Geva, ed., Jewish Quarter Excavations, passim. 61. See Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 99, 102-103. Nevertheless, there were some significant differences, at least in regard to the house plans of Pompeii; for instance, the Jerusalem homes lacked a peristyle courtyard, an Italian-type atrium, and a triclinium. See Dickman, "Peristyle," 121-136. 62. The dimensions of this mansion compares favorably with other villas in the East, though they are dwarfed by the extravagant mansions of Pompeii, such as the House of the Faun; see Zanker, Pompeii, 34--41, 194-196. For a chronological survey of Pompeii an homes of different sizes (categorized as houses and villas) from the Tufa period (200-80 B.C.E.) down to the earthquake of 79 C.E., see L. Richardson, Pompeii.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

329

Figure 87. A room in a

Herodian villa in the Upper City.

The walls of these dwellings were covered with white plaster and, sometimes, frescoes. Some were decorated with stucco that often imitated architectural details such as dressed stones. The floors, located mainly in the vicinity of water installations, were paved with mosaics containing geometric and floral patterns, the most common of which bore a rosette design (Fig. 87). These water installations were basically of two types: cisterns holding water intended for drinking, washing, and laundering, and others designated as ritual baths. The absence of figural art and the presence of an extraordinary number of cisterns that seem to be best interpreted as ritual baths indicate the religious punctiliousness of these residents. The priestly background of many, a status requiring frequent immersion to remain in a state of ritual purity, would easily explain the large number of such baths. Of particular interest is the fact that these miqva' ot are of a different variety than those discovered at Masada or described in rabbinic literature. They may be best categorized as Sadducean versions of a miqveh and are evidenced at Jericho and Qumran as well, places where priests were well represented. 63 While a number of baths (i.e., tubs) and bathrooms were found in the Upper City-some that even functioned as steam rooms with heating units (hypocausts) beneath the floors 64-no public bathhouses have been discovered to date in Second Temple Jerusalem, and none is ever mentioned in any literary source

63. See E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law, 214-227, and Regev, "Ritual Baths," 3-21. Only one miqveh of the type discovered at Masada (double pools, one for immersion and one for storage, with a partition between them) was found in the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, on the periphery of the excavated area; see Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 139 (and map on 32). 64. Baths were often strategically placed in different parts of a city to facilitate access for all; see MacDonald, Architecture, 6 (Djemila), 26-27 (Timgad), 37 (Trier), 39 (Gerasa), 40 (Lepcis Magna), 49 (Ostia). Some cities boasted a large number of baths; besides Rome's eight hundred, we know of seventeen in Ostia, four in Pompeii, at least twenty in Athens, and fourteen in Timgad (ibid., 210-219). On baths throughout the empire generally, see the survey and catalog of Nielsen, Thermae et Balnea, and Yegiil, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, 128-313.

330

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Figure 88. The bath and changing room in the basement of a Herodian villa in the Upper City.

(Fig. 88).65 This absence is surprising owing to the ubiquity of public baths throughout the Hellenistic and Roman worlds.66 On the one hand, one might argue that public baths probably existed and that their absence is due to the fact that much of the city remains archaeologically unknown. Such bathhouses may have been so commonplace that they were not particularly noteworthy in and of themselves to warrant mention in literary sources. On the other hand, if one wishes to interpret this lack of evidence as an indication that public baths were not part of the Jerusalem landscape, it might be assumed that many stepped cisterns in Jerusalem were indeed used as baths and miqva'ot, thus fulfilling some of the same functions of a Roman bath, at least in a hygienic sense. If the latter suggestion is to be accepted-and for the present this possibility is only speculative-it might point to an interesting Jewish adaptation of a widespread Hellenistic-Roman institution. Public facilities were discouraged and bathing per se was relegated to the private sector, where stepped cisterns in the basements of homes fulfilled this function, at least for the upper classes. The many public miqva'ot near the Temple would have served visitors from outside the city or segments of the indigenous population that had no private facilities. Other finds, such as glass objects, are worthy of special mention. The amphora bearing the name of the world-renowned glassblower Ennion of Sidon was noted in Chapter 7 (Fig. 89). In addition, a wealth of vessels, especially those made of stone Uugs, bowls, cups, saucers, plates, cooking pots, and jars), as well as stone tables, sundials, ovens, and weights have been discovered, as

65. Yegiil, Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity, 104, 142. See also Wright, "Jewish Ritual Baths," 199-200. Bathing complexes at this time were confined to private quarters, particularly in Herodian palace complexes; see Gichon, "Roman Bath-Houses," 37-53, and Small, "Late Hellenistic Baths," 59-74. 66. This silence cannot be easily attributed to a fundamental Jewish opposition to such an institution; in the post-70 era at least, we encounter no real resistance; in fact, public baths were very much part of the larger Jewish and even rabbinic scene. See Jacobs, "Romische Thermenkultur," 219-311, and Eliav, "Roman Bath," 416-454. No source addresses this issue for the pre-70 period.

331

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

Figure 89. Glass amphora made by Ennion

Figure 90. A menorah incised on plaster from

of Sidon. The inscription reads: "Ennion

a villa in the Upper City.

made this."

have molds for making tokens used for acquiring sacrificial items on the Temple Mount and perhaps for admission to the theater. The wine jugs found are particularly interesting. Imported amphorae with Latin inscriptions imprinted on the handles were found in one of the houses-possible evidence of the occupants' preference for foreign wine. It will be recalled that in the Hellenistic era, Rhodian amphora handles were discovered in the City of David excavations. Literary sources also attest to imported commodities from Sidon, such as cups (or bowls),67and we have already noted the glass amphora of Ennion. Moreover, two fragments of plaster engraved with a seven-branched menorah-one of the oldest archaeological finds bearing this motif-were found in the Upper City (Fig. 90).68 Thus the finds from the Upper City excavations attest to a population that was as comfortable in a cosmopolitan setting as it was in a Jewish one. Neither the amenities of Roman life were forfeited nor the requirements of Jewish practice at the time ignored. Perhaps the most dramatic finds in terms of a specific historical association come from a relatively modest house in the Upper City consisting of a small courtyard surrounded by four rooms, a kitchen, and a small miqveh. A stone weight engraved with the Aramaic inscription "of Bar Qatros" links this object to the

67. M Kelim 4,3. 68. In subsequent centuries, the menorah became the Jewish symbol par excellence; see Levine, "History and Significance," 131-153.

332

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Figure 91. A stone weight found in the

Upper City. The inscription reads: "of Bar·Qatros."

well-known priestly family of that name (Fig. 91).69 No less interesting are the remains of the so-called Burnt House that date from the destruction of the city in 70 C.E. The house was covered with piles of stones and a layer of ash, under which fragments of stone and pottery vessels were uncovered. In a comer of the main room, the skeletal remains of a young woman's arm and hand were found near an iron spear; the woman presumably died when the building was destroyed. Since the latest coin found there dates from 69 C.E., the finds can be placed securely in 70 C.E. Taken together, the finds from the residential quarter of the Upper City have enormous historical implications. First and foremost, they tell us about an important segment of Jerusalem society that our literary sources largely ignore (i.e., the Sadducees and priests). This class is either noted almost exclusively in the political realm (as in Josephus' writings) or invariably regarded antagonistically (as in rabbinic literature and the Dead Sea scrolls). On the basis of the written evidence alone, we would know very little about how the priests and wealthy actually lived. For example, were they cosmopolitan (i.e., Hellenized) to the point of indifference to traditional norms, as sometimes asserted? Hardly so. The proliferation of miqva'ot, the use of stone vessels, the absence of figural art, and the appearance of the menorah all attest to the strong Jewish identity and ritual punctiliousness of these people. Moreover, these material remains have revealed modes of observance about which we were heretofore unaware. Different types of miqva 'ot and the widespread use of stone, particularly in connection with food (tables, eating, and measuring utensils), reflect a deep concern for matters of purity, which appears to have permeated much of Jerusalem society in the first century.70 In addition to the archaeological remains attesting to the priestly and wealthy circles of Jerusalem, it was suggested in Chapter 3 that an Essene community also might have lived in this area. In his publication of the Temple Scroll, Yadin71 notes

69. On the Qatros family in literary sources, see T Menahot 13, 21 (ed. Zuckennandel, 533); B Pesahim 57a, and perhaps Ant. 19.8, 1, 342 and M Parah 3, 5 as well; on the latter two sources, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 94 n. 21, and M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 608. 70. Magen, "Jerusalem as a Center," 252-255, and "Ancient Israel's Stone Age," 46-52; see also Chapter II. 71. Yadin, "Gate of the Essenes," 90-91, and, in more detail, Temple Scroll, 301-304.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

333

that the Gate of the Essenes mentioned by Josephus when tracing the course of the First Wall72 may, in fact, indicate the presence of an Essene community somewhere on the fringes of the Upper City, perhaps on the southwestern slopes of Mount Zion. Subsequent excavations conducted in the area have led to the claim that such a settlement, in fact, once existed there.73 Other excavations conducted at Bet Zafafa, in the southern part of Jerusalem, have revealed some forty pier graves, similar to those found at Qumran.74 It has been suggested that here, too, there may have been an Essene community, though more substantive evidence is still lacking. Nevertheless, the two sites, however intriguing, remain inconclusive; to identify material finds with a particular sect is a formidable and problematic exercise. Josephus' description of the First Wall is one of the most important sources regarding a series of public institutions in the Upper City, particularly when he traces the northern line between the western Herodian towers (today's Jaffa Gate) eastward to the Temple Mount: "Beginning on the north at the tower called Hippicus, it extended to the Xystus, and then, joining the council-chamber, terminated at the western portico of the Temple."75 Moreover, when introducing Agrippa II's famous but futile speech aimed at preventing the impending revolt, Josephus notes the following: He (Agrippa II) accordingly summoned the people to the Xystus and placed his sister Bernice in a commanding position on the roof of the palace of the Hasmoneans, which stood above the Xystus on the opposite side of the upper town; the Xystus was connected with the Temple by a bridge. 76 These passages clearly point to three important buildings that were located along the course of the First Wall in the northeastern part of the Upper City. The westernmost was the Hasmonean palace, presumably where the Herodian family stayed when in Jerusalem during the fIrst century. As already noted, the palace was probably first built by the Hasmonean rulers when they incorporated the western hill into their city, and was then enlarged by Agrippa II in the decade before the outbreak of the revolt. 77 This palace, we are told, commanded a magnificent view of the Temple and its courtyards.78 Below the palace was the Xystus (see above). 72. War 5.4,2, 145.

73. Pixner and Chen, "Mt. Zion," 85-95; Pixner, "History of the 'Essene Gate' Area," 96-104, and "Jerusalem's Essene Gateway," 23-31, 64-66; and Sternberger, Jewish Contemporaries, 131-138. 74. Zisso, " 'Qumran-Type' Graves in Jerusalem," 158-171. 75. War 5.4,2, 144. 76. Ibid., 2.16, 3, 344. 77. Ant. 20.8, 11, 189-190. This may be Josephus'intention when he says that the "palaces" of Agrippa and Berenice in the Upper City were destroyed by the rebels (War 2.17,6,426). Ant. 20.8, 11, 189, tells us that the king "built a chamber of unusual size in his palace at Jerusalem." 78. Ant. 20.8, 11, 189-192.

334

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Two other buildings are likewise to be associated with the Upper City. Both Josephus and rabbinic literature mention the existence of an Upper Market in Jerusalem, and there is little reason to doubt that it was located in this district,79 Indeed, it may be possible to suggest a more precise location, quite possibly near Herod's palace. The area east of the palace is flat and thus most appropriate for a marketplace or agora Josephus himself hints at this proximity. It will be remembered that one of the [mal incidents that led to the outbreak of hostilities was Florus' appropriation of money from the Temple, an act that led some Jerusalemites not only to criticize him severely but also to pass around a basket as if to say that the procurator were destitute and in need of charity. We are then told: "Florus lodged at the palace (of Herod), and on the following day had a tribunal placed in front of the building [emphasis added] and took his seat; the chief priests, the nobles, and the most eminent citizens then presented themselves before the tribunal."80 It would make a great deal of sense to assume that, if the tribunal were summoned to a public setting, as Josephus indicates ("in front of the building"), then it would have been held in an open and spacious place to accommodate all those expected to attend as well as the Roman soldiers needed to provide security. The crucial statement comes immediately afterward, when we are told that, in exasperation at the response of the Jewish leaders, ''Florus ... shouted to the soldiers to sack the agora known as the 'Upper Market.' "81 Since tribunals were often held in an agora, it may well be that the Upper Market was nearby the Herodian palace, which became a praetorium in the first century and, as such, served as the residence of the Roman governor whenever he visited the city.82 It can safely be assumed that several other buildings were located in the Upper City as well, such as the theater built by Herod, even though Josephus offers no information in this regard (Fig. 92). The considerations in favor of such a location are compelling; this type of cultural institution would naturally cater to the more acculturated (i.e., the wealthy) and thus its location in this neighborhood is most appropriate. Moreover, we are told that upon the outbreak of hostilities in 66 C.E., the Jerusalem crowds set fire to the city archives, destroying the debt records and thereby underscoring some of the socioeconomic factors that lay behind the popular support of the rebels. Here, too, the context of this incident in Josephus' account may warrant the assumption that this building was located in the Upper 79. For example, M Sheqalim 8, I, and T Hullin 3, 23 (ed. Zuckermandel, 505). 80. War 2.14,8,301.

81. Ibid., 2.14, 9, 305. 82. Such a presumed location of the agora, with the constant presence of Roman soldiers, would also correspond to the mishnaic reference to gentile spittle in the upper marketplace of Jerusalem, rendering the area impure (M Sheqalim 8, 1).

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

335

Figure 92. The theater in the Upper City (Holy land Hotel model).

City as well, although, admittedly, the evidence is less clear. On one occasion, Josephus mentions the archives together with the house of Ananias the High Priest and the palaces of Agrippa and Berenice;83 and, on another, he speaks of a fire that consumed the Akra (usually identified in his writings with the Lower City; see above), the council chamber, and the Ophel (south of the Temple Mount), eventually reaching the palace of Helena. 84 Whereas the first reference would seem to place the archives in the Upper City, the latter one points more to the eastern ridge and the part of the city south of the Temple Mount. At present, certainty in this matter is impossible. This survey of public buildings-taken together with the wealthy residential quarter---Clearly indicates that the Upper City of Jerusalem served as the home of the city's leadership and aristocratic classes.

The Northern Commercial Quarter The area enclosed by the Second Wall, some sixty acres according to Avi-Y onah's reckoning, lay in the northern part of the Tyropoeon Valley and apparently served a large number of commercial enterprises; it is described by Josephus as follows (Fig. 93): At this spot, on the fifth day after the capture of the ftrst wall,85 Caesar [i.e., Titus] stormed the second; and, as the Jews had fled from it, he made his entry, with a thousand legionaries and his own picked troops, in that district of the new

83. War 2.17.6,426-427.

84. Ibid., 6.6, 3, 354-355. 85. That is, the outer, Third Wall by Josephus'numbering.

336

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Figure 93. The commercial district

within the area enclosed by the Second Wall (Holyland Hotel model).

town where lay the wool-shops, the bmzier workshops, and the clothes-market, and where the narrow alleys descended obliquely to the mmparts. 86

Elsewhere, when discussing this northern section of the city, Josephus also notes the existence of a timber market. 87Although a wool market is also noted in the Mishnah,88 its whereabouts are not recorded. The only specific location given for a shop in rabbinic sources is at the southern tip of the city, near the Dung Gate. 89 The smiths' workshops, on the other hand, may have been intentionally placed outside the walls as a preventive measure against noise. The Hasmonean ruler John Hyrcanus is reported to have banned such work from Jerusalem,90 and it may have been at that point that these artisans relocated outside the city walls to the north. 9! Athenaeus notes that the Sybarites (from southern Italy) did precisely this: The Sybarites were also the first to forbid noise-producing crafts from being established within the city, such as blacksmiths, carpenters, and the like, their object being to have their sleep undisturbed in every way; it was not permitted even to keep a rooster inside the city.92

86. War 5.8, 1,331.

87. Ibid., 2.19, 4, 530. This market may be referred to in Qumran fragment 4Q348, which refers to "Shim 'on from the Beam market"; see Cotton and Yardeni, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek Documentary Texts, 301-303. 88. M 'Eruvin 10,9. 89. M 'Eduyot 1, 3. Weaving seems to have been associated particularly with women; see Ant. 18.9,1,314. 90. M Ma 'aser Sheni 5, 15, and M Sotah 9, 10. 91. Although the Tosefta (Sotah 13, 10 led. Lieberman, 235]) interprets this decree as referring only to the intermediate days of the festival, it may well be a later, and erroneous, interpretation; Hyrcanus' decree may have been a general, civic, one; see M Bava Batra 2,3, and Lieberman, TK. VIII:748. 92. Deipnosophistae 12, 518c-d. On the problem of noise in a Roman city, see the comments of Martial, Epigrams 12.57, 1-28.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

337

At one point in his narrative, Josephus refers to storehouses for grain that, at the height of the Roman siege, were recklessly destroyed by the warring factions of John of Gischala and Simon. Presumably, these were municipal warehouses, as the claim is made that the supplies might have sufficed the city for many years under siege. 93 Josephus intimates that these storehouses (or at least the bulk of them) were located in the vicinity of the Temple (i.e., near the Temple Mount); the commercial quarter immediately to the west would seem to be the most likely SpOt. 94 It is unclear whether this commercial district developed naturally, as a northern extension of the stores in the lower Tyropoeon Valley, or whether it was the result of a conscious decision to concentrate such businesses in this area, perhaps as an aid to pilgrims who entered the city from this direction.95 This area has often been identified with the "Mishneh" quarter of biblical times, noted as the residence of the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22: 14; 2 Chron. 34:22), referred to in Zephaniah 1: 10, and perhaps mentioned in Neh. 11:9 when speaking about "the second city." Josephus refers to this area in one of several ways. On occasion he calls it the "suburb,"96 and at times he refers to it as part of the "New City."97 These designations need not be considered contradictory, as the New City seems to have included almost all of the areas outside the First Wall.

The Bezetha Quarter (The New City) Strictly speaking, the Bezetha section is located north of the Temple Mount; however, the term is sometimes used with respect to the entire New City enclosed by the Third Wall, which included large tracts of land to the west (i.e., north of the Herodian palace and adjacent towers on the western ridge). This ambiguity is evident in the following three excerpts from Josephus' writings: This hill, which is called Bezetha, lay opposite Antonia, but was cut off from it by a deep fosse, dug on purpose to sever the foundations of Antonia from the hill and so to render them at once less easy of access and more elevated.... The recently built quarter was called in the vernacular Bezetha, which might be translated into Greek as New City.98

93. War 5.1,4,24-26.

94. See Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 240-242. 95. See Ma'oz, "Hasmonean and Herodian Town-Plan," 48-51. On the importance of pilgrim trade to the city's economy, see Jeremias, Jerusalem, 126-138, and Goodman, "Pilgrimage Economy," 69-76. 96. Ant. 14.13, 4, 339; 15.11, 5, 410.

97. War 5.8,1,331. 98. Ibid., 5.4, 2,149-151.

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

338

The hill Bezetha was, as I said, cut off from Antonia; the highest of all the hills, it was encroached on by part of the New City and formed on the north the only obstruction to the view of the Temple.99 Cestius, on entering, set fire to the district known as Bezetha or "New City" and the so-called Timber market; he then proceeded to the Upper City and encamped opposite the royal palace. 1°O This area is also referred to by Josephus as the "suburb,"101 quite appropriately named for an area recently enclosed within the city's Third Wall. It seems that before Agrippa I began building a wall here, this land boasted gardens and tombs (John 19:41) and housed pilgrims who set up temporary encampments during the festival seasons. Josephus' references to these pilgrims as being located near the city, "in the plain," may well refer to this area.102 As might be expected, this section in all likelihood remained sparsely populated, at least relative to the rest of the city, even after being partially enclosed by a wall,lOJ a situation that allowed pilgrims to set up temporary encampments there. This sparseness is confirmed by a number of archaeological probes in the area that so far have failed, with the exception of the eastern part, to come up with any substantial building remains from this period. 104 This reality has definite demographical implications and are discussed below. Moreover, monuments and facilities that had once been located outside the city's boundaries now found themselves within its walls. To the west, the tomb of John Hyrcanus was located north of the First Wall, opposite the three Herodian towers and near the Pool of Amygdalon (Hezekiah's Pool).105 The hill referred to in the New Testament as Golgotha was located in this area as well; situated outside the city wall in the time of Jesus, it was now included within the enceinte started by Agrippa 1. 106 The funerary monument of Alexander Jannaeus was to be found in the eastern part of the New City, as was the Sheep Pool with its five porticoes, sometimes referred to as the Pool of Bethesda (John 5:2).107 Unfortunately, we know nothing about other buildings in this area, including the possible loca-

99. Ibid., 5.5, 8, 246. 100. Ibid., 2.19, 4, 530. 101. Ibid., 2.19, 4, 529-530. 102. Ibid., 2.1, 3,12; see also Ant. 17.9,3,217. 103. War 5.6, 2, 260. 104. See Tzaferis et ai., "Excavations at the Third Wall," 287-288, and Baruch and Avni, "Archaeological Evidence," 52-63. 105. War 5.6,2,259; 7, 3, 304, and 5.11, 4, 468, respectively.

106. Simons, Jerusalem in the Old Testament, 282-290. 107. See also War 5.7, 3, 304.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

339

tion of the amphitheater that, it will be remembered, Josephus mentioned was located in "the plain."108 Beyond the area enclosed by the Third Wall and toward the east, there were graves, orchards, and gardens covering the western slopes of the Mount of Olives and, above them, the villages of Bethpage and Bethany. Farther south, and opposite the City of David, was a rock called "Peristereon";109 the site was apparently used for raising doves for sacrifices or other purposes. Along the Qidron Valley, to the city's immediate east, were cultivated plots, and to the southwest lay a village known as Bet Adashim (House of Lentils) or Bet Afunim (House ofPeas)-names suggesting that the area was used for growing legumes.1l0 In reviewing the use of space in first-century Jerusalem, some easily discernible and rather clearly defined patterns emerge. As already mentioned, the valleys served as main routes of communication, and there one would find the shops that served the indigenous population on a regular basis; as suggested, the so-called Lower Market of the city is probably identified with the commercial activity along the Tyropoeon Valley. In addition, the Upper Market presumably was located on the high flat area of the western ridge, in close proximity to Herod's palace, although some have located it in the upper part of Tyropoeon Valley Street in the area enclosed by the Second Wall. These valleys afforded a certain degree of distinctiveness to each of the neighborhoods. The Upper City appears to have been the most homogeneous; by all indications, the wealthy aristocratic and priestly classes of Jerusalem were concentrated there. All the identifiable Hasmonean and Herodian palaces, homes of high priests, and leadership institutions were found in this area, and for this reason it has been suggested that the city's theater, catering as it did to the cultured, cosmopolitan classes, was likewise situated there. The Lower City, on the other hand, was a more complex neighborhood to define. It was the residential quarter for the lower and middle classes yet also served several outside groups that joined Jerusalem's society during these decades. The Theodotos synagogue, serving a local Diaspora (perhaps Italian) community and visitors from abroad, was located there, as were the palaces of the royal family of Adiabene built in the middle first century, a mere decade or two before the revolt. As noted, one can only speculate as to why the two latter groups built in the Lower, rather than the Upper, City. As regards Diaspora Jews, it may be due, as mentioned, to their desire to be close to the Temple. However, one other possibility may come into play. Residence in the Lower City may be related to the lOS. Ant. 15.S. I, 26S. 109. War 5.12, 2, 505.

110. Ibid., 5.12, 2, 507.

340

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

fact that these people were considered outsiders in the eyes of Jerusalem's elite residing in the Upper City and were thus forced to make do with the eastern ridge. As for the northern districts, there are insufficient data available to determine the nature of this area's inhabitants.lll

Demography The dramatic geographical expansion of Jerusalem stemmed, of course, from a significant population increase during this period, conceivably resulting from high fertility, low mortality, migration, or a combination thereof.ll2 The first two factors are unlikely candidates to account for the extensive change that the city witnessed; for hundreds of years, between ca. 540 and 140 B.C.E., Jerusalem's population as demarcated by the city's boundaries seems to have remained fairly stable. The city was concentrated on the eastern ridge, the area commonly referred to as the Temple Mount, Ophel, and City of David (or, in Josephus' parlance, the Lower City). Even the emigration from Judaea to Egypt and elsewhere, which seems to have taken place in the Hellenistic era, does not appear to have significantly depleted the number of inhabitants in the city. Thus the population explosion starting with the Hasmoneans, continuing under Herod and throughout the first century, requires explanation. We have suggested that for the earlier, Hasmonean, period the major component in accounting for this growth is the transformation of Jerusalem into the capital city, with all the political, economic, and social consequences that such a development entails. Under Herod, Jerusalem's political centrality was reconfirmed and broadened. In the post-Herodian era, however, the intensity of the political factor was diminished by the designation of Caesarea as the capital of the Roman province of Judaea. Thus Jerusalem's continued growth must be attributed to other factors, the most prominent of which was the ongoing and increasing migration to the city. How much of this migration was domestic, i.e., from other parts of Judaea, and how much was from the Diaspora, is impossible to determine; in any case, we are better informed about the latter (see below); as a result, the city realized a degree of cosmopolitanism hitherto unknown. Paradoxically, the attraction of the city was primarily a particularistic, religious one; the presence of the Temple and the obvious desire of many Jews to relocate nearby appear to have been paramount considerations at this time. Jews usually came to Jerusalem as pilgrims for a short stay; some visitors took up residence in the city for varying periods of time and even built homes there, 111. On the use of space in urban settings. then and now. see Hillier and Hanson, Social Logic of Space. 112. Parkin, Demography, 72.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

341

as was the case with Queen Helena of Adiabene (see above). There were also those who came to live in the city as the founders and members of the Diaspora synagogues there, as well as someone such as Hillel, the Pharisaic sage from Babylonia. The sum total of this growth was enough to catapult Jerusalem's population; in addition, when pilgrims flocked to the city periodically throughout the year, its numbers swelled far beyond normal size. Estimating the urban population of a city in the Roman era is fraught with difficulties. Many factors have been marshaled to determine the number of residents in a city: its geographical size, built-up area, population density, number of houses registered, water supply system, quantity of food imported, agricultural hinterland, number of seats in the local theater, and, whenever possible, figures recorded in literary or epigraphical sources. 1I3 However, all calculations reached on the basis of one or more of the above factors are merely guesses. Each of these criteria is flawed to one degree or another, and a great deal of caution is required in making any kind of assessment. To cite the cases of the two largest cities in the empire: Rome's population in the early empire has been calculated as being as low as 250,000 and as high as 1.6 million; that of Alexandria, between 300,000 and 500,000. 114 Calculating Jerusalem's population in the first century is just as risky. Whatever meager literary evidence exists is either patently unreliable or, at times, simply contradictory. An example of the former involves the number of pilgrims in Jerusalem. As noted in Chapter 6, Josephus speaks of 2.5 and 3 million pilgrims in the city,1l5 while the Tosefta notes no less than 12 million. II 6 Moreover, there is an outright contradiction among several sources, as well as a great deal of exaggeration by each, regarding the number of people in the city during the war against Rome. Josephus reports that 1.1 million people fell in the siege of the city and some 97,000 were taken captive;lI7 Tacitus, however, claims that 600,000 people were killed. 118 113. See, e.g., Jacoby, "La popUlation de Constantinople," 81-109; Duncan-Jones, "City Population," 85 ff.; Packer, "Housing and Population," 80-95; and Gamer, "How Many People?" 39-42. See also Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt, 53-57. 114. The lower figure for Alexandria is offered by Diodorus (17, 52, 6) and relates to the number of free people in 59 B.C.E.; the higher number is suggested by Delia, "Population of Roman Alexandria," 275-292. See Salmon, Population et depopulation, 5-39, esp. 11-22. A maximalist position on popUlation figures in Greco-Roman antiquity is taken by Beloch in his monumental and classic Die Bevolkerung, 392 ff., while a minimalist approach characterizes the work of Russell, Late Ancient and Medieval Population, and Control, though in his later work Russell modifies his estimates upward.

115. War 6.9, 3, 423-425; 2.14, 3, 280. 116. T Pesahim 4, 15 (ed. Lieberman, 166).

117. War 6.9,3,420-426. 118. Histories 5.12, 3 [GLAJJ, II: 31].

342

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Population estimates for Jerusalem in the fIrst century

C.E.

range between

25,000 and 225,000, with several approximations in the area of 100,000.119 Many of these numbers are based on various fIgures appearing in literary sources. For instance, Josephus, in quoting Hecataeus, notes that Jerusalem had a popUlation of 120,000,120 an impossible fIgure given the size of the city at the beginning of the third century B.C.E.l2l The account of John's vision in the New Testament describes Jerusalem at the end of days as having a population of 70,000 people (Rev. 11: 13). Although this book is far from being a reliable historical source for fIrst-century Jerusalem and the number offered is clearly symbolic (as are the others given there), 122 ironically it may indeed tum out to be a fairly accurate approximation of the actual number of the city's inhabitants (see below). Avi-Yonah calculates the number of people in Jerusalem during the years 69-70, the height ofthe revolt, on the basis of the 23,400 men in arms listed faction by faction in Josephus' account. 123 Assuming the ratio of fIghters to total population as being roughly 1: 10, this fIgure indicates that on the eve of its destruction Jerusalem held close to a quarter million residents. In view of the fact that the city absorbed many refugees from Judaea during these years, the number of permanent residents before the revolt was clearly signifIcantly lower; how much, however, we cannot knOw. Similarly in regard to Jeremias' estimate of 180,000 people partaking of the Passover sacrifice; 124 even if one were to accept his calculations, the number of permanent residents in the city would still remain unclear. Thus the above-noted approaches, suggesting popUlation figures for the city in normal as well as unusual times, are problematic, each in its own right. One of the most common methods for assessing a city's population, as we have seen with respect to Persian Jerusalem (see Chapter 1), is to estimate a population density per acre and multiply that number by the area of the city. Obviously, this approach will work only when one can be reasonably certain of the total area in 119. For the low estimate. see Jeremias,Jerusalem, 84 (Hengel, Zealots, 354 n. 211, estimates 40,000); for the high one, see Byatt, "Josephus and Population Numbers," 51-60. See also Broshi, "La population de l'ancienne Jerusalem," 10-13; Wilkinson, "Ancient Jerusalem," 33-51; and GIAJJ, II: 63. The fullest treatment of this question of late is that of Reinhardt, "Population Size of Jerusalem," 237-265, who estimates the city's popUlation in the middle first century at possibly 100,000 to 120,000.

120. Against Apion 1.22, 197. 121. A similar exaggeration attributed to Hecataeus has to do with the circumference of the city; Josephus quotes fifty stades, an area not attained even when the city reached its maximum growth in the first century. We are clearly dealing here with an idealized account written at a later date. See Bar-Kochva, Pseudo-Hecataeus, 271-288 for a late-second-century B.C.E. date; and the cautious remark of M. Stern (GIAJJ, I: 23-24), who, while defending the authenticity of Hecataeus'passages generally, does acknowledge that some parts derive from a later Jewish revision, "however slight." 122. See, e.g., Rev. 21:9-22, and Massyngberde Ford, Revelation, 46-50.

123. War 5.6, 1,248-250. This was an oral communication for which I am unable to find a written reference. 124. Jeremias, Jerusalem, 77-84.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

343

question. 125 At the end of the Second Temple period, Jerusalem encompassed some 450 acres. Assuming a population density of 160 to 200 people per acre, we might then conclude that the city numbered 80,000 to 90,000 permanent residents. 126 However, given the fact that the city's area included a large tract of land (about half the overall total) that had just recently been included within the city, an area that, by Josephus' own admission, had been sparsely settled, we should lower the above estimate considerably. Assuming that the newly enclosed area had half the normal urban density (and possibly even less), a figure between 60,000 and 70,000 seems reasonable. Wilkinson,127 for his part, studied the water supply system of the city and also concluded that there were about 75,000 inhabitants. Jerusalem, then, would have been considered a substantial city for its time, though not in the same demographic league as Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, or even places such as Carthage, Apamea, Pergamon, and Ephesos, all of which were considerably larger. 128 With a population of at least 60,000, Jerusalem qualified as a large metropolitan area in the second rank of provincial cities. However, if we also take into consideration that three times a year the city's population grew substantially, perhaps even doubling or tripling itself for days and weeks at a time, we should imagine that the city's inhabitants were far more numerous and diverse than any fixed number of permanent residents would indicate.

Economic Activity Jerusalem's economic prosperity in this period was more directly correlated to its religious importance than before and to the amount of support it received in this regard. If the city's prosperity under the Hasmoneans and Herod was largely a 125. Nevertheless. even with these givens, certain other factors remain enigmatic, although they, too, are crucial for determining a city's popUlation. For example, how much public space was there? Did residential buildings have more than one floor, and if so, how many? In our present state of knowledge, however, there is no way to determine the answers to these questions. 126. Admittedly, estimating popUlation density is a hotly contested topic, although it remains a most important criterion for determining population estimates. As we have already noted, Beloch tends toward high figures (as, e.g., in regard to Asia Minor; Die Bevdlkerung, 242), while Russell drastically reduces Beloch's numbers. When dealing with population density, Russell assumes an estimate of only about 60 people per acre. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations, 62--{i3, posits 200 people per acre for Rome, close to that of Beloch, as does Hopkins, Conquerors and Slaves, 96-98. See also Oates, "Population of Rome," 10l ff. 127. Wilkinson, "Ancient Jerusalem," 49-50. This approach, however, is no less speCUlative than the others noted above. Behind the number suggested lies a series of unproven assumptions, including (I) that we know all of Jerusalem's water sources, (2) that the flow of water in the city's aqueducts was fairly constant, and (3) that the average water consumption of the city's inhabitants can be accurately calculated. 128. Duncan-Jones, Economy of the Roman Empire, 260-261 n. 4, and "City Population," 85 ff.; Parkin, Demography, 72; Jacoby, "La popUlation de Constantinople," 81-109; Packer, "Housing and Population," 80-95; Gamer, "How Many People?" 39-42; Bagnall and Frier, Demography of Roman Egypt, 53-57; and White, "Urban Development and Social Change," 40-49.

344

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

consequence of its political centrality, then in the first century C.E. it was based almost exclusively on its religious standing. In other words, despite the diminution of the city's political standing in the year 6 C.E., when Judaea was incorporated into the Roman provincial system, its economic support system was at the same time being bolstered by the burgeoning local Jewish population as well as the expanding Diaspora. Both appear to have related to the city and Temple with awe and reverence and were backed by considerable material support. Coupled with the tradition of Roman respect for Jerusalem, and not infrequently for Judaism itself,129 the way was cleared for ongoing contact and the flow of monies and pilgrims to and from the city. 130 In economic terms, Jerusalem defies any neat categorization. Was it a consumer, service, or producer city? Perhaps it was all three, to some degree. At first glance, Jerusalem can certainly be regarded as a consumer city in that it drew heavily from its surrounding territory for basic subsistenceY 1 Nevertheless, one cannot assume that manufacturing in the city was done only on a small scale with local needs in mind or that Jerusalem was dominated by a landed gentry as such a definition would have it. In fact, given all the economic activity recorded for the city, one might be tempted to defme Jerusalem. at least in certain respects, as a producer, commercial, or even service city,132 the last-mentioned category having been suggested for Pompeii and Corinth. 133 Not only does Jerusalem's unique status render such labels irrelevant but even the suggested distinctions among such cities have been called into question of late. 134 Notwithstanding whatever mutual trade existed between Jerusalem and its immediate rural environs, the bulk of the city's economy was geared to serving the Temple and those visiting it. The import of oil, animals, and flour was undoubtedly intended as much for ritual sacrifices as for the needs of the indigenous population. The stone industry served first and foremost the massive needs of the Temple Mount area as well as the stringent purity requirements observed in the city. Unfortunately, Jerusalem's economic life is only very partially noted in our sources. Moreover, the material is also problematic with respect to its historical value. While some sources can be considered fairly reliable, others must be 129. Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 177 ff., and M. Stem, Studies, 505-517. 130. An interesting indication of the rising standard of living in the city may be found in funerary caves. The first century witnessed the introduction of the arcosolia, a practice that required more space and gave greater prominence to the remains. 131. See Finley, Ancient Economy. 132. See Mattingly et aI., "Leptiminus (Tunisia)," 66-89. 133. Jongman, Economy and Society of Pompeii, and Engels, Roman Corinth. 134. For a critique of these designations of ancient cities, see Whittaker, "Do Theories of the Ancient City Matter?" 9-26, and Mattingly and Salmon, "Productive Past," 3-14. See also Parkins, " 'Consumer City,'" 83-111, and Mattingly, "Beyond Belief?" 210--218.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

345

addressed with skepticism. On the one hand, when Josephus speaks of certain industries in the city, we can be reasonably certain of his reliability. He lived in the city for about thirty years and must have been familiar with some (if not most) of the major commercial enterprises there. On the other hand, our other major source for these matters, rabbinic literature, is far more problematic, as this material derives from literary compositions dating centuries later. How much third- and fourth-century Palestinian rabbis knew about pre-70 Jerusalem is far from clear, and the historical reliability of the statements made by their Babylonian counterparts is even more questionable. Even within the Palestinian corpus of rabbinic works, certain distinctions ought to be made. For instance, tannaitic sources dating from the second and third centuries C.E. may be more likely to contain reliable historical data than rabbinic compositions dating from the fifth and sixth centuries. The latter works at times reflect a minimal interest in the reality of Second Temple Jerusalem (e.g., the Yerushalmi)135 and at times are rendered suspect owing to gross exaggerations or clear-cut folklorist overtones (e.g., Lamentations Rabbah). The only way to gain any sort of assurance that a particular tradition may be credible is if we can find similar information in other sources more contemporary to the events or historical situation described. 136 The material we have attests very often to economic activities that one would expect to find in any Roman city. However, for the most part, we are at a loss to determine where in the city such shops or commercial enterprises were located. Apart from Josephus' descriptions of an industrial-commercial quarter within the Second Wall and of several market areas, there is only one rabbinic source that pinpoints the place of a specific commercial enterprise (the Dung Gate; see below). Clearly, large gaps remain in our knowledge of the economic aspects of city life. Nevertheless, it seems safe to assume that much of Jerusalem's commercial activity, following Josephus and the rabbinic material, took place largely-though not exclusively-along the Tyropoeon Valley. This central valley, it will be remembered, cut the city in two on a roughly north-south axis and constituted its main artery, serving, inter alia, as a primary commercial venue. Its width of twentyfive yards indeed attests to this importance and, as has been suggested, the Lower Market of the city, noted on occasion in rabbinic sources, was probably located here. While the concentration of economic activity here does not preclude the fact that other areas in the city also served similar functions, these other places were probably decidedly secondary in importance. 135. Hezser, "(In)Significance of Jerusalem," 11-49. 136. See the appendix to this chapter. One of the most salient weaknesses in Jeremias' classic study, Jerusalem, is his uncritical use of rabbinic sources. No distinctions are made in the nature and date of the sources, and almost all the traditions found therein are considered historically trustworthy.

346

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

As noted, certain trades mentioned in the sources would befit any city or town. Jerusalem had its artisans, bakers, launderers, butchers or poulterers, weavers, fullers, and smiths. \37 After the outbreak of hostilities against Rome, it seems that the smiths were mobilized to train large numbers of people to produce the necessary weapons for the anticipated battles and, in tum, train others to do so. 138 A few of the references contain a number of other interesting pieces of information. The artisans, for example would greet pilgrims bringing their first fruits to the Temple with the words: "Brethren of such-and-such a place, you have come in peace (i.e., we1come)."139 It is very likely that their shops and workshops were located along a main street where these people were apt to pass, and this, in tum, may well point to Tyropoeon Valley Street Visitors entering the city from the north (the main road from the coastal plain to Jerusalem approached from this direction, passing Bet Horon). As regards the weavers, we are informed that some of them worked in the area of the Dung Gate,140 in the southern extremity of the city, where the Qidron, Tyropoeon, and Ben Hinnom Valleys meet. Moreover, we read at one point that there were two learned weavers who transmitted teachings regarding miqva'ot (derived from the first-century B.C.E. Pharisaic sages Shemaya and Avtalion) to the sages of the next generation. This does not seem to have been an unusual phenomenon, as another source mentions two shopkeepers who were, in fact, Pharisees-EI'azar b. R. Zadoq and Abba Shaul b. Botnit. 141 In addition to the above, there were a number of industries that appear to have particularly flourished in Jerusalem owing to its status as a temple-city. One was olive and olive oil production. Even without explicit sources, the centrality of this commodity is most evident from the names of different locales in and around the city, all attesting to the importance of olives-for example, the Mount of Olives to the east (Mark 11: 1 and parallels) and, at the base of its western slope, Gethsemane (lit., "oil press," Mark 14:32), where there was also a garden (John 18:1). The newest neighborhood to be included within the city's walls was, as noted, Bezetha, literally "house or place of the olive." The Mishnah, in a context almost certainly 137. The trades are mentioned, respectively, in M Bikkurim 3, 3; Ant. 15.9.2,309; T Miqva'ot 4, 10 (ed. Zuckermandel, 656); M 'Eruvin 10,9; M 'Eduyot 1, 3, and B 'Avodah Zarah 26a; War 5.4,2,147; and M Sotah 9, 10, and M Ma'aser Sheni 5,15. 138. War 2.22, 1,648-649. 139. M Bikkurim 3, 3. 140. M 'Eduyot 1,3. 141. T Betzah 3, 8 (ed. lieberman, 295). A rabbinic source referring to a synagogue of "Tarsians" (B Megillah 26a) has sometimes been invoked in this regard and interpreted as referring to a synagogue of weavers in Jerusalem (e.g., Jeremias, Jerusalem,S n. 2, 66 n. 8). However, this source is most problematic. Its relation to similar, but not identical, traditions in the Tosefta (Megillah 2, 17 led. Lieberman, 352-353]) and the Yerushalmi (Megillah 3, 1, 73d) is ambiguous, as is the chronology of the Bavli statement See lieberman, TK, V:1162.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

347

referring to Jerusalem, speaks of olive presses near the walls of the city.142 True enough, the best-quality olives, the Mishnah reports, were brought to the Temple from Peraea, east of the Jordan River. 143 Nevertheless, it is quite possible that even these choice olives were brought whole to the city (perhaps for purity reasons) and then pressed there, as suggested already in the Yerushalmi. l44 Clearly, the needs of the Temple were a major factor in the degree of local oil consumption. Although never specifically singled out as a trade (except in one late rabbinic source)/45 spices were very much in demand, not only for daily personal use but for burial and Temple purposes as well. So, for example, John 19:39-40 notes one Nicodemus who bought one hundred pounds of spices (myrrh and aloe) for Jesus' burial: ''They took the body of Jesus and bound it in linen clothes with the spices, as is the burial custom of the Jews" (see also Mark 16:1). Goldsmiths were likewise an identifiable part of the city's economic scene. Here, too, the needs of the Temple provided much business, since-as attested by both Josephus and rabbinic literature l46-gold plating was a service in great demand. Gifts made of gold were donated to the Temple, and in the cases of Monobaz and Helena it is very likely that their gifts were made in the city since both had residences there. 147 Vows were taken to donate gold (in whatever form)l48 to the Temple,149 and a special container (referred to as a shofar) was designated for such gifts. 150 The golden vines, one sent by Aristobulus to Pompey and another hung in the Temple, were in all likelihood local products as well. 151 The latter vine, noted with awe by both Josephus and the Mishnah for its size, was not a one-time gift; donors could add leaves, berries, or grape clusters on any occasion. 152 As mentioned, Agrippa I also donated a golden chain, given to him by the emperor Gaius, which was hung over the Temple treasury.153 Jeremias raises the interesting suggestion that the rabbinic references to a golden tiara associated with Jerusaleml54 142. 143. 144. 145.

MMa'aserSheni 3,7. M Menahot 8,3. Y Hagigah 3,4, 79c. Y Yoma 4,5, 41d. See Sokoloff, Dictionary, 429.

146. War 5.5, 4, 208-211; 5, 6, 222-224, and T Menahot 13, 19 (ed. Zuckennandel, 533), respectively. 147. MYoma 3, 10.

148. Including the donation of gold dust; see Liebennan, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 170--172. 149. T Sheqalim 3, 6 (ed. Liebennan, 214). The Tosefta relates that a wealthy woman once vowed to give to the Temple gold equal to the weight of her daughter if the latter were to recover from an illness. When the daughter recovered, she honored her vow ('Arakhin 3, 1 led. Zuckennandel, 545]). 150. M Sheqalim 5, 5-6. This gold was used exclusively for gold plating in the Holy of Holies; see T Sheqalim 3, 6 (ed. Liebennan, 214) and M Sheqalim 4, 4. 151. Ant. 14.3, 1,34-35, and War 5.5, 4, 210. 152. Ant. 15.11,3,395; War 5.5, 4,210; and M Middot 3,8. 153. Ant. 19.6, 1,294-295. 154. T Shabbat4, 6 (ed. Liebennan, 17-18) and parallels. See Liebennan, TK, III:62.

348

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

may, in fact, relate to souvenirs of the city that were sold to pilgrims in the pre-70 era; such a practice is attested in Ephesos, where souvenirs of the shrine (or temple) of Artemis were sold to visitors (Acts 19:23-41).155 The stone industry was particularly essential to Jerusalem and the Temple. Stonecutters are specifically noted by Josephus,156 and according to one rabbinic source, Phineas of Habata was appointed high priest after having been a stonecutter. 157 Clearly, the enormous amount of building activity during the Herodian and post-Herodian eras, as documented by Josephus, required a massive production of stone blocks. What literary sources have documented, archaeological finds have confirmed: Stone was the primary building material used in the Temple;158 in Herod's many building projects (e.g., the palace);159 and, of course, in the many tombs, along with their ossuaries and sarcophagi, dotting the landscape around the city. Perhaps the single most impressive building project in the Jerusalem necropolis was undertaken by Helena, who had thousands of tons of stone removed to create a large courtyard, a monumental entranceway, a series of inner chambers, and an impressive fa<;ade that featured a frieze, columns, capitals, and pilasters (known today as the Tomb of the Kings). The raising of pigeons for sacrifices was clearly a desideratum and might well explain the many columbaria (small niches in caves here interpreted as dovecotes) found throughout Judaea. In the vicinity of Jerusalem itself, some twenty-five columbaria have been discovered, usually in man-made caves. Despite the difficulty in dating such installations, the overwhelming majority can be confidently placed in the late Second Temple period. l60 Finally, numerous excavations have demonstrated that the use of stone for ordinary household utensils (mugs or measuring cups, jars, cooking pots, bowls, etc.) proliferated in this period, in large part owing to purity concerns of a fastgrowing population. 161 Remains of stonecutting facilities have been found in and around the city: the Lower City (the Ophel and the City of David), Hizma to the north, the Mount of Olives, Bethany, Abu-Dis to the east, and, most recently, on the eastern slopes of Mount Scopus. 162

155. See also Paul, "Jerusalem," 259-263, as well as Elsner, "Origins of the Icon," 178-199, esp. 191-196.

156. War 7.2, 2, 26. 157. T Yoma 1,6 (ed. Lieberman, 222), and Sijra, Emor 2 (ed. Weiss, 94b).

158. Ant. 15.11,2,390. 159. War 5.4, 4,177-178. 160. KIoner, "Columbaria," 61 *-66*. 161. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 167-183, and Magen, "Jerusalem as a Center," 244--256. 162. Gibson, "Stone Vessel Industry," 176-188, and Amit et al., "Stone Vessel Workshops," 353-358.

THE URBAN CONFIGURATION

349

Appendix: The Use of Rabbinic literature in the Study of Second Temple Jerusalem We have already taken note of some of the problems in using rabbinic literature for reconstructing aspects of urban life in Jerusalem. No blanket statement can be made in this regard; the material is neither ipso facto reliable nor a priori worthless. Each reference has to be evaluated on its own merits, taking into account the date of the particular text, the nature of the evidence, its context, and what purpose (polemical, apologetic, or inspirational) this information may have served the rabbinic tradents themselves. 163 As a rule (and, like any rule, it has its exceptions), the earlier the material, the greater the likelihood that it may reflect a pre70 setting. This is all the more applicable if the context is halakhic; one might then assume an attempt on the part of the sages to achieve a greater degree of precision and accuracy. We have incorporated such references when they appeared reasonable, and particularly when they corroborated evidence from other sources, in this case primarily Josephus. However, such historically reliable material is rather sparse. Most rabbinic material derives from later sources (i.e., amoraic material) and dates, in terms of editorial composition, anywhere from the third through the eleventh and twelfth centuries. This material is mostly aggadic (non-halakhic) and, though rich in its range of subjects, is also quite problematic. At times the information is stereotyped and its credibility thus seriously undermined. See, for example, the claim that Jerusalem boasted twenty-four thoroughfares, each having twenty-four markets, each of these having twenty-four streets, each street having twenty-four alleys, each alley having twenty-four entrances, and, finally, each entrance having twenty-four courtyards p64 Other traditions are simply outrageously exaggerated, as, for example, that there were about twelve million people in Jerusalem for a Passover celebration165 or that there were no less than 480 (the numbers 460 and 394 are also mentioned) synagogues in the city.166 The latter instance is instructive for its homiletical inspiration, because in a later source we are told that the number is based on the

163. See Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 198-204, and Gafni, "Jerusalem in Rabbinic Literature," 35-59. 164. Lamentations Rabbah 1 (ed. Buber, 22b).

165. Ibid., 1 (ed. Buber, 23a). This is an interesting example because a similar tradition appears already in the third-century Tosefta (Pesahim 4, 15 led. Lieberman, 166]) and is one of the exceptions to the more "realistic" representations of Jerusalem in tannaitic material. 166. Y Megillah 3, 1, 73d. On 480 synagogues, see also Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 15,7 (ed. Mandelbaum, 257); Song of Songs Rabbah 5, 12; Lamentations Rabbah 2, 4 (ed. Buber, 50b); and Yalqut Shim'oni, Isaiah, 390 (which notes 481 synagogues i). For 460 synagogues, see Y Ketubot 13, 1, 35c. For 394 synagogues, see B Ketubot 105a.

350

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

numerical value of the letters of a word (gematria) appearing in Isa. 1:21. 167 The idealization of Jerusalem is a recurrent theme in these traditions. The Mishnah,I68 for instance, records ten miracles that supposedly took place in the Temple precincts on a regular basis; these are clearly pious fantasies and have little to do with historical fact. Very often, the sages' descriptions of the city reflect their own agenda, and they used (or created) traditions associated with the city for encouraging greater observance among contemporary Jews, shoring up certain beliefs, and possibly countering the claims of others, the Christians in particular. In describing the events surrounding the destruction, the siege, the suffering, the sinful behavior of the inhabitants (e.g., the Qamtza-Bar Qamtza legend), and the material extravagance of some of the wealthy residents of the city, the rabbis clearly used such traditions as a means to convey ethical-religious teachings. 169 The traditions regarding the mutual visits of Jerusalemites in Athens and Athenians in Jerusalem, the repeated emphasis on the purity, uniqueness, and civility of Jerusalem, the piety of its inhabitants, and the expertise and thoroughness of its judges are all part of the same pattern. 170 All too frequently sources about Jerusalem are invoked as historically credible, although the content and context are never fully and critically examined. For example, the third-century R. Joshua b. Levi claimed that on the three pilgrimage festivals all Jews were considered ritually clean and that rigid distinctions in this regard were abandoned for a time.l?l One may also cite the tradition wherein vessels were taken out of the Temple on festivals and shown to pilgrims gathered in the courtyard172 or the several parallel traditions regarding the special laws that were allegedly applicable to Second Temple Jerusalem. 173 While one should not automatically discount such traditions, their acceptance must be based on more than the fact that they appear in one or more rabbinic sources. We have noted a number of reasons why the sages at times might have been interested in emphasizing the piety of Jerusalemites, particularly on the holidays. With that in mind, therefore, corroborating evidence is necessary to use such traditions as historical testimony for Second Temple Jerusalem. In its absence, the temptation simply to assume historical accuracy ought to be resisted.

167. Lamentations Rabbah, Proem 12 (ed. Huber, 6a). 168. MAvot 5, 5. 169. See esp. Lamentations Rabbah 1 and 4. 170. At, respectively, Lamentations Rabbah 1 (ed. Huber, 24a-26a); T Negaim 6,2 (ed. Zuckermande1, 625) and parallels; Tractate "Mourning" (Semahot) 12,5 (ed. Zlotnick, 35) and T Sukkah 2,10 (ed. Lieberman, 265); and H Sanhedrin 23a. 171. Y Hagigah 3, 6, 79d. See Safrai, Pilgrimage, 135-141. 172. Y Hagigah 3, 8, 79d. 173. See Sperber, "Social Legislation in Jerusalem," 86-95.

351

Chapter 10

Social Stratification

The Social Dimension The social stratification of first-century Jerusalem was different from that of most Roman cities and towns where the urban-rural nexus at times predominated. The landed gentry often constituted the core of the ruling elite controlling Roman urban societies. Alternatively, business interests and professional tradesmen assumed a central role in municipal affairs in other urban frameworks. 1 Such groups seem to have played a peripheral role in Jerusalem, and the local ruling elite drew its leadership heavily, though not exclusively, from priestly circles. It was these circles that the Romans chose to cultivate, albeit with certain checks and safety measures that would ensure their complete control of the city. Having experimented with quasi-independent Jewish rule for almost seven decades, the Romans now turned to the priestly elite, in particular to a small circle of high priestly families, recognizing it as the most prominent and stable component in Jerusalem (and Judaean) society.2 This policy is succinctly articulated by Aelius Aristides in his panegyric to Rome: "There is no need of garrisons holding acropolises, but the most important and powerful people in each place guard their countries for you. And you hold their cities in a double way, from here and individually through them."3

1. See Wallace-Hadrill. "Elites and Trade," 241-272.

2. Ant. 20.10, 5, 251. Any type of social mobility, as evidenced in a number of Italian towns in the first century (see Mouritsen, "Mobility and Social Change," 59-82), is not attested in Jerusalem. 3. Panegyric 26,64. Aelius Aristides, Complete Works, II:86. Much has been written on this policy; see, e.g., Brunt, "Romanization," 161-173.

352

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Table 1. High Priests of the First Century C.E. Date ofAppointment

5/6 6 15-26

Early 37 April-May 37 41 Late 41 44 46 47 c.59 c.61 62 (three months) 62 63/64 64--66 Winter 67-68

High Priest

Joazar (reappointed) Ananus son of Seth Ishmael son of Phiabi (a short tenure) Eleazar son of Ananus Simon son of Camithus Caiaphas son-in-law of Ananus Jonathan, son of Ananus Theophilus son of Ananus Simon Cantheras. perhaps son of Joazar or Eleazar Matthias son of Ananus Elionaeus son of Simon Cantheras Joseph son ofCami (Camithus) Ananias son of Nebedaeus Ishmael son of Phiabi Joseph Cabi son of Simon (either Cantheras or Simon son of Camithus) Ananus son of Ananus Jesus son of Damnaeus Jesus son of Gamaliel (in-law of the Boethus family) Matthias son of Theophilus Phineas (or Phanni) son of Samuel

Adapted from Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics," 32.

High Priests First-century Jerusalem was governed by a priestly oligarchy (Table 1).4 Not only does Josephus make this eminently clear throughout his historical narrative but he also articulates this fact in summarizing his account in Antiquities: After Aristobulus' death Herod ceased to entrust the high priesthood to the descendants of the sons of Asamonaios (i.e., the Hasmoneans). Herod's son Archelaus also followed a similar policy in the appointment of high priests, as did the Romans after him when they took over the government of the Jews. Now those who held the high priesthood from the times of Herod up to the day on which Titus captured and set fire to the Temple and the city numbered twenty-eight in all, covering a period of 107 years. Of these some held office during the reigns of Herod and Archelaus his son. After the death of these kings, the constitution became an aristocracy, and the high priests were entrusted with the leadership of the nation. s 4. On the priesthoods and sacrificial systems in Roman religion of the first century and their roles in ensuring the stability, prosperity, and wealth of the empire, see Gordon, "Religion in the Roman Empire," 235-255.

5. Ant. 20.10, 5, 249-251; see also War 4.3,6 148. Josephus waxes eloquent in his apologetic work Against Apion, 2.21-22, 184-189, in praise of the priesthood generally and the high priesthood in particular when describing the political-religious structure of Jewish society: "could there be a finer or

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

353

The situation after 6 C.E. was, on the one hand, a continuation of what had held true since Herodian times; the high priesthood was not a hereditary position but was determined by outside forces, either the Herodians or the Romans. On the other hand, however, the first -century priestly leadership was a throwback to preHerodian days, when the high priest was the most eminent political and religious figure in the city. Thus the form of leadership that held sway throughout most of the Persian era and flourished in the Hellenistic era was now reintroduced, albeit with the important proviso that ultimate control of this office was in the hands of Rome or its appointees. The high priestly oligarchy at this time was made up of four families. The first two had already been introduced into this position by Herod when he appointed Jesus son ofPhiabi and, later, Simon son of Boethus, both of Egyptian origin. The latter, whose daughter Herod married, served as high priest from 23 to 5 B.C.E. Simon's three sons, Joazar, Eleazar, and Simon, likewise held the office of high priest in the coming decades, as did several others (both named Ishmael) from the Phiabi c1an. 6 At the outset of the first century, the family of Ananus (Hanan) made its appearance; this family, more than the others, was to dominate the high priestly office in the coming decades. Appointed by Quirinius in 6 C.E., Ananus himself served in the post for nine years; later on, no less than five of his sons also assumed this position.? The family's status, however, did not derive only from its domination of this office; a number of other high priests and important Jerusalem figures were affiliated with the family by marriage, the most famous of whom was Caiaphas, who served in this position for eighteen years. 8 Members of this family were not only involved in Jesus' trial but were also major players in the persecution of the first Christians. Acts 4:5-12 notes that Ananus, Caiaphas, John, Alexander, "and all who were of the high priestly family" took the lead in questioning Peter and John about Jesus' activities and beliefs.9 The fourth high priestly family is that of Qimhit, so named, interestingly enough, after a maternal ancestor. Two, perhaps three, high priests came from

more equitable polity tban one which sets God at the head of tbe universe, which assigns tbe administration of its highest affairs to the whole body of priests, and entrusts to the supreme high-priest tbe direction of the other priests?" 6. Lists of these high priests are found in Schiirer, History, II:229-232; Jeremias, Jerusalem, 377-378; and Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics," 31-32.

7. Ant. 20.9, I, 198. 8. M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 606-607. 9. An Aramaic ossuary inscription attests to the remains of one "Yehohanah, daughter ofYehohanan son of Theophilus the high priest," who was appointed high priest by Vitellius (Ant. 18.5, 3, 123) and belonged to the family of Ananus. See Barag and Flusser, "Ossuary of Yehohanah," 39-44.

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

354

its ranks,1O and they are mentioned rather approvingly in later rabbinic sources. l1 An additional indication of its positive image is the fact that the Qimhit family is not mentioned in the well-known rabbinic passage bemoaning the corrupt rule of the high priests. 12 However, there is one family, Qatros, that is mentioned in this rabbinic tradition but completely ignored by Josephus. It is quite possible that some of the first -century high priests whose familial affiliation is unknown belonged to the Qatros clan, but such a claim is only conjectural. 13 In sum, while the families of Phiabi and Camith produced two or three high priests each, that of Boethus boasted six and that of Ananus, eight. 14 Many of these high priests retained their stature and leadership roles even after their term of office expired. Ananus, for example, appears to have held an important position in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' trial, long after he served as high priest (Luke 3:2; John 18:13-24; Acts 4:6), whereas Jonathan son of Ananus led a delegation to the governor of Syria in 52, some fifteen years after he served as high priest, and at the same time he lobbied successfully for the appointment of Felix as procurator. 15 A third example is Ananias son of N edebaeus, who, after ministering as high priest for twelve years (47-59), retained his influence in city affairs: Now the high priest Ananias greatly advanced in reputation daily and was splendidly rewarded by the goodwill and esteem of the citizens; for he was able to supply them with money. 16 At any rate he daily paid court with gifts to Albinus and the high priest. 17

This source raises the intriguing question as to whom is being referred here and elsewhere as a "high priest." Clearly, the term includes not only those who, in fact, functioned as high priests at a given time, but also others who once might have served in this capacity. These men not only retained their preeminence but also the use of their title, a fact borne out repeatedly by Josephus (see the above quote) and by the Mishnah. 18 However, we also possess references to high priests 10. According to Mandelbaum, 11. For example, Mandelbaum,

a later rabbinic tradition, there were seven; Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 26, 10 (ed. 398-399). T Yoma 3, 20 (ed. Lieberman, 248), and esp. Pesiqta de Rav Kahana 26, 10 (ed. 398-399).

12. T Menahot 13, 21 (ed. Zuckermandel, 533), and B Pesahim 57a. 13. See M. Stern, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 608. 14. This leaves some five or six high priests who cannot be associated with certainty to one or another of these families. 15. War 2.12,5-6,240-243, and Ant. 20.8, 5, 162. 16. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 182 n. 195, interprets this Greek phrase as "a past-master in making money," and thus as a reference to Ananias' avarice. This translation does not really fit the context and thus seems unwarranted, though it does jibe with the negative rabbinic reference to his "house" in B Pesahim 57a. 17. Ant. 20.9,2,205. 18. M Megillah 1,9; Makkot 2,6; and Horayot 3, 4.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

355

who never served as such, at least according to Josephus' accounts. Thus, when speaking of Matthias son of Boethus as a high priest, he probably meant that Matthias came from a high priestly family.19 Rabbinic literature, as noted, speaks of the Qatros family as high priests, Josephus refers to Jesus son of Sapphas as a high priest and Simon as "descended from high priests,"20 whereas the New Testament also refers to several people by this title, including one Sceva from Ephesos (Acts 4:6, 19:14). Thus, in its broadest meaning, the term may also refer to important priests, whether or not they belonged to the leading families, and even to priests whose claim to fame is that they simply were members of the priestly aristocracy. It is perhaps in this light that we should understand the references to "sons of the high priests" in both Josephus and rabbinic literature. 21 In the latter case, these people were recognized as judicial authorities, and elsewhere it is noted that these "sons" were the recipients of letters from the Diaspora. 22 The fact that a number of members of the high priestly family sat in the sanhedrin (at least according to Acts 4:6) indicates their privileged position. In sum, it was the overall social standing of these priests, whether or not they or their relatives functioned as such in the Temple, that gave them the right to be called high priests. This designation, according to M. Stem,23 "serves as an expression par excellence of the social hierarchy that prevailed at the end of the Second Temple period. Similarly, it reflects the collective superiority of the oligarchical class of the priesthood." The high priests in general, but more specifically the particular person who was functioning as the designated high priest at any given time, served as intermediaries between the Jewish people and Rome, as the latter had based its rule in the East on alliances with local aristocracies. In the case of Judaea, the Romans maintained contact primarily with these high priestly families. These local officials were expected to represent Roman interests (as when Joazar persuaded the people not to join in the rebellion in 6 C.E.)24 and to carry out whatever directives might be issued. The gains for Rome are obvious; it was freed from dealing directly with a wide range of internal Jewish issues for which it was unprepared

19. 20. 21. 22. 23.

War 4.9, 11,574; 5.l3, 1,527. Ibid., 2.20, 4, 566, and Life 39,197.

War 6.2,2, 114, and M Ketubot l3, 1-2, respectively. M Oholot 17, 5. M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 603; and earlier, Jeremias, Jerusalem, 175-181; see also Millar, Roman Near East, 360-366.

24. Ant. 18.1, 1, 3. The statement by Josephus, that this same Joazar had been removed ten years earlier by Archelaus because he supported the rebels of 4 B.C.E., is problematic (Ant. 17.13,1,339). Either this high priest had a change of heart after the official incorporation of Judaea as a province or the accusation was fabricated by either Archelaus or Josephus for his own purposes. See the lengthy discussion in Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics," 17-21.

356

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

and in which it was uninterested. 25 It was this common interest between the provincial oligarchies and the Roman government that cemented relationships and allowed imperial rule to survive as it did.26 However, local authorities were also expected to represent the people regarding their various claims, complaints, or requests to the Roman authorities. Such an intermediary role was not always easy to execute. Conflicts of interest between Rome and the Jews were not rare, especially from the 30s onward, and in each case the person(s) in charge would have to maneuver cautiously between the Scylla of Rome and the Charybdis of the Jews; to complicate matters further, this was to be done while each one took into account what was best for his own political career and the interests of the ruling aristocracy. Despite this alliance, the Romans were careful not to offer the high priests too much leeway. Roman presence in the city was constant; troops were regularly stationed in the Antonia, and the procurator frequented the city throughout the year. The Romans exercised the right of appointing the high priest, and for periods of time they kept charge of the high priest's ceremonial garments. Moreover, they sometimes adopted the policy of divide and conquer when they appointed a member of the Herodian family to manage Temple affairs (see below). As a result of this somewhat fluid chain of command, the inhabitants of the city had occasion to petition a procurator directly when they were opposed to an act by one of their leaders, as was the case in 62, when some protested to Albinus aboutAnanus' convening of a sanhedrin to execute James. 27 There has been a noticeable shift in scholarly opinion of late in regard to the political loyalties of these high priests. On the basis of Josephus' writings, it had been generally assumed that the high priests had been willing partners ready to fully cooperate with Rome and that their political policy was fundamentally proRoman, as had been the case with Herod. 28 The role of the priestly class as leaders of the revolt-at least in its first stages-was interpreted as stemming from their desire to maintain their traditional leadership and to avoid being murdered or from the hope of finding a modus vivendi with Rome as quickly as possible.29 This approach has been challenged in light of a more critical reading of Josephus' text. Most important for this revised approach is the awareness of the 25. Jones, Greek City, 170-171, and Bowersock, Augustus and the Greek World, 87-88, 100-101. 26. Millar, Roman Empire and Its Neighbours, 63. 27. Ant. 20.9, 1,201-202.

28. Schiirer, History, 1:227-236; and more recently Horsley, "High Priests and the Politics," 23-55; see also Rajak, Josephus, 126-134. 29. War 2.22,1,651; 4.5, 2, 319-321. See Horsley, "High Priests and the Politics," 51-54. Moreover, this political positioning is the way Josephus describes his own role in the Galilee during the war (see his Life 4, 17-7,29). See also Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 152-160.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

357

very different agendas in this regard in War and Antiquities. Whereas the former is a well-honed polemic aimed at blaming the horrors of the war and its catastrophic results on the small bands of Jewish extremists, thereby exonerating the Romans rulers and the established Jewish leadership, Antiquities includes a great deal of additional material, some of which casts a different light on these issues. Thus one must take a more skeptical and reserved view of some of Josephus' assessments and take more seriously the scattered hints in his narrative that the high priests may not always have been pro-Roman and opposed to the rebellion. 3D Smallwood was one of the first to claim that during the decades immediately preceding 66 some of the high priests were, in fact, sympathetic to the rebel cause and even adopted anti-Roman stances. 3! This line of thought has been adopted by other scholars, some of whom went even further in claiming that priestly leadership in the revolt was not merely a political ploy to maintain leadership and find a quick resolution to the hostilities but actually reflected fundamental priestly opposition to Roman rule. 32 There is no easy solution to this controversy, and each side has presented compelling arguments. The absence of any high priestly involvement in the various protests to Pilate's actions affecting Jerusalem, or Caligula's plans for introducing a statue into the Temple (which should have unsettled the priests no less than others), might well be a significant indication-despite its being an argumentum ex silentio--of a tendency on the part of these leaders to avoid any sort of confrontation with Roman officialdom. Similarly, the murder of the high priest Jonathan by the Sicarii would appear to constitute persuasive evidence for his pro-Roman leanings, at least in the eyes of these people. On the other hand, several incidents involving high priests appear to reflect a very different orientation by at least some of these leaders. These include, for example, cooperation with the Sicarii in gaining the release of prisoners and Ananus' flouting of accepted Roman practice by trying and executing James during an interregnum. It seems that, in these cases at least, preserving stability and the status quo was not a summum bonum. 33 Polemics and editorializing aside, there is little justification in rejecting the historicity of the events recorded in Josephus' writings. Working with what we have (and ignoring speculation as to what the Jewish historian might have omitted), we can conclude that the high priests, as others in society, were influenced 30. Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 27-58, 180--193. 31. Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics," 14-34. 32. Goodman, Ruling Class, 152-175; Paltiel, Vassals and Rebels, 296-299; Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 27-58.

33. Ant. 20.8, 8, 179-9,4,214. Smallwood, "High Priests and Politics," 26-29. See, however, Horsley's downplaying of the broader political significance of these events in "High Priests and the Politics," 43-48.

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

358

by the developments around them. 34 For decades, they indeed maintained a proRoman stance. But as the turmoil of the countryside penetrated Jerusalem in the late 50s and 60s, some of them were likewise affected by the chaos and anarchyas against anti-Roman sentiment per se-that was becoming rampant. Not only did the situation lead some to brazenly assert their "historical" prerogatives as high priests (as, for example, in convening the sanhedrin) but self-interest overwhelmed others with resultant violence and civil disobedience. Although it is easy to dismiss rabbinic opprobrium regarding the high priestly actions as late and tendentious,35 this tradition may indeed have some historical worth if taken as primarily reflecting the attitudes of some Jerusalemites in the last years before the revolt. In other words, when we contextualize the breakdown of high priestly leadership in the late 50s and 60s, for which we have concrete evidence, we may find a satisfactory explanation for the apparent contradictions and contrasts noted above. The social turmoil that spread to leadership circles as well resulted in the high priests pitting themselves against other sectors of the population and, no less, against each other. The high priests, too, were being dragged into the maelstrom enveloping Jerusalem by the force of circumstances, and their claim to leadership and ability to lead were being seriously compromised. The weakening of high priestly leadership may also be reflected in the unusually high turnover in this office during the 60s. As noted, no less than six different people (almost one-third of those holding this position in the first century) held office during the six years preceding the outbreak of the revolt.

Priests When all is said and done, the high priestly elite constituted but a thin layer of Jerusalem's society. The social and religious foundation of this elite group-and .the ultimate source of its power and standing-rested on the central role played by the priesthood generally throughout the Second Temple era. Indeed, the priesthood constituted the upper echelon in Jerusalem society. Josephus notes: My family is no ignoble one, tracing its descent far back to priestly ancestors. Different races base their claim to nobility on various grounds; with us a connection with the priesthood is the hallmark of an illustrious line. 36

34. For some religious expressions of these heightened tensions, see below. 35. T Menahot 13, 21 (ed. Zuckermandel, 533), and B Pesahim 57a.

36. Life 1, 1. See also Against Apion 2.1, 185.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

359

Priestly affiliation, of course, was based on genealogical descent, about which the priests were extremely punctilious in both preserving and recording. 37 This attempt at maintaining genealogical purity was due primarily to their central role in the conduct of Temple affairs generally and its ritual in particular. It will be recalled that the division of the priesthood into twenty-four courses enabled all priests to officiate in the Temple two weeks a year. This exclusive right to offer sacrifices was the fundamental basis for priestly prominence, not only in the religious sphere but in the social and political ones as well.38 The priests' religious role was further solidified by their judicial responsibilities and time-honored position as interpreters of Scripture (Mal. 2:4-7).39 Priestly hegemony in all areas of Jerusalem's life crystallized in Persian times and peaked under Hasmonean rule. Despite a temporary eclipse under Herod, the leading role of the high priestly oligarchy in the first century C.E. enhanced the status of priests generally, as attested by their role in the early stages of the revolt as well as in various first-century synagogue settings.40 The importance of the priests in Jewish society did not depend on their numbers, which were few relative to the total Jewish population. We know that in the Persian era about one-tenth of the returnees from Babylon were priests41 and that later on this percentage decreased as a result of the growth in the Jewish population. Since no one could become a priest without being born into a priestly family, their numbers depended solely on procreation. Josephus speaks of about twenty thousand priests who held various positions in the Temple at the end of the Second Temple period,42 when the total number of Jews throughout Judaea may have reached one and a half to two million.43 In other words, accepting Josephus' figure 37. Schiirer, History, 11:240-244, and Jeremias, Jerusalem, 213-221. 38. Schiirer, History. 11:292-308. On the various priestly functions in the Temple, see Jeremias, Jerusalem. 160-181. 39. See also Against Apion 2.21, 186-187. The relationship between the priestly class and the scribes in the pre-70 period regarding scriptural interpretation is unclear; a variety of assessments are offered in scholarly literature. See, e.g., Schiirer, History, II:238-239. 40. See Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 125-126. See, e.g., the Theodotos inscription, a powerful expression of priestly leadership in one Jerusalem synagogue (see below). 41. Parallel lists in Ezra 2 and Neh. 7 record 4,289 priests and 42,360 others. 42. Against Apion 2.8, 108. 43. The number "twenty thousand" derives from Josephus' statement that each of the four priestly "tribes" (i.e., courses) had five thousand members. Accepting this number requires the assumption that he had in mind the four priestly families that returned under Persian rule and from whom the subsequent twentyfour courses grew, as stated in T Ta'anit 2, I (ed. Lieberman, 328). See also Neh. 12:1-7,12-21 and M Ta 'anit 4,2. Thus the number "twenty thousand" refers to all the priests in the first century. However, some scholars have entertained the possibility that Josephus was actually referring to each of the twenty-four courses in his day, and that "twenty" was inadvertently dropped from the text. If so, this would mean that each course had 5,000 priests and the total would then be five times greater, i.e., 120,000. Whether the levites, women, and children are to be included in this number is unclear. Preferring the former alternative, we would further assume that the number refers only to male priests in Josephus' days. For a discussion of this issue, see Schiirer, History. 11:246-247; Jeremias. Jerusalem. 203-206;

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

360

and counting all priestly family members and slaves (which would increase this number fourfold or fivefold), the number of people in priestly households throughout first-century Judaea constituted about 5 percent of the total population. Many, if not most, priests lived in Jerusalem or its immediate environs. 44 The archaeological excavations in the Upper City, as noted earlier, confirm the presence of priestly families there and their high socioeconomic standing. Some villages, such as Bethpage to the east of the city, seem to have been populated entirely by priests;45 to the north, somewhat farther removed, there was a concentration of priests at Gophna that may have hailed back to pre-70 dayS.46 There is no way of gauging with any degree of certainty the number of priests who resided in Jerusalem at this time, either permanently or when officiating as part of their course. If we were to hazard a guess, we would venture to say that there were at least several thousand priests permanently residing in the city, including the high priestly families as well. Together with families and those of the officiating priestly course who were in the city for the week, there probably were at least ten thousand priests in the city at anyone time (about 15 percent of the population), except, of course, on the pilgrimage festivals. 47 The economic basis of the priesthood seems to have been generally solid. Many undoubtedly owned land, and Hecataeus' remark, that Moses allotted more land to priests than others ("in order that they, by virtue of receiving more ample revenues, might be undistracted and apply themselves continually to the worship of God,"48 undoubtedly reflects conditions throughout the Second Temple period. Josephus himself owned land in Jerusalem,49 and the wealth of Ananias the high priest may well have derived, at least in part, from his land holdings. 50 Moreover, besides the priestly dues assigned them by the Torah,51 the priests also seem to have taken control of the tithes that had originally been intended for the levites (Num.18:21; Neh. 10:38-40). Evidence from the Hellenistic era makes it clear

M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 595; S. Schwartz, Josephus and Judaean Politics, 70 n. 53; and Kasher, Josephus Flavius, 11:404-405.

44. On the various priestly settlements outside of Jerusalem, see Biichler, Priests and Their Cult, 119-154, and J. Schwartz, "On Priests and Jericho," 23-48. 45. Origen, Commentary to Matthew 16, 17. 46. Y Ta 'anit 4, 5, 69a, and B Berakhot 44a. 47. Compare this to the number of priests in Jerusalem earlier on. Neh. 11:10-14 notes 1,192; 1 Cbron. 9:13 lists 1,760; Hecataeus (Against Apion 1.22, 188) records 1,500; and Lett. of Aristeas 95speaks of 700 priests officiating there. See Kasher, Josephus Flavus, 1:181-182.

48. GLAJJ, I: 28. 49. Life 76,422. 50. Ant. 20.9, 2, 205. An indication of priestly landholdings may be found in the emperor's promise to restore the landed property to those who agreed to resettle Gophna; most of these people seem to have been priests (War 6.2,2, 115). 51. See Schiirer, History, 11:257-274.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

361

that this change had already taken place by then;52 and in the first century this practice continued, as attested by Josephus,53 Philo,54 and the New Testament (Heb. 7:5). Nevertheless, there were significant gaps in the living standards within the priestly class. It will be recalled that one of the indications of violence in the middle first century was the dispatching of servants by the high priests to forcibly (if necessary) take the tithes from the threshing floors, thus depriving ordinary priests of their share. 55 Thus, for these and other priests with no ample income from lands, donations that they may have received were usually not enough to live on; thus we read of priests who were employed in a variety of occupations: stonecutters, merchants, cattle breeders, farmers, and, of course, scribes. 56

The Herodian Dynasty Although Josephus' narrative does not focus specifically at any point on the Herodians per se, we can piece together enough snippets of evidence to indicate that this family, through its different members and in different ways, continued to play important and, at times, powerful roles in Jerusalem. We have already noted these occurrences, but a brief review in chronological order will allow a full appreciation of the Herodian family's ongoing impact on the city right down to the revolt. Herodian involvement first emerged in the various confrontations and tensions during Pontius Pilate's tenure. As noted in Chapter 8, Philo speaks of the introduction of golden shields into Jerusalem bearing the name of the emperor.57 It was Herodians who led the delegation that protested before Pilate: But when the Jews at large learnt of his action, which was indeed already widely known, they chose as their spokesmen the king's (i.e., Herod) four sons, who enjoyed prestige and rank equal to that of kings, his other descendants, and their own officials, and besought Pilate to undo his innovation ... and not to violate their native customs. 58

52. See, e.g., Tob. 1:6-8; Jub. 13:25-26,32:15; Jth. 11:13; and Josephus, Against Apion 1.22, 188, quoting Hecataeus. See also Grintz, Book of Judith, 191-192. 53. Life 15, 80. 54. On the Virtues 18,95. 55. Ant. 20.8, 8, 181; 9.2, 206. Tannaitic law, in an apparent attempt to harmonize biblical injunctions with more recent practice, claims that the tithes belonged to both priest and levite. See M Peah 1, 6, and Oppenheimer, 'Am Ha-Aretz., 38-42.

56. See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 206-207, and M. Stem, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 586-587. 57. Embassy 38, 299-305. On this incident generally, see Hoehner, HerodAntipas, 176-183, and Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 300--307. 58. Embassy 38, 300 (trans. Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 128).

362

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

We can assume that the reference to Herod's sons included Antipas, then tetrarch of the Galilee and Peraea, as well as Philip, ruler of the northeastern regions (the Golan and beyond). The identity of the two other Herodians is uncertain. 59 The delegation was overwhelmingly Herodian in composition, although the number (or the identity) of "descendants" is not given. We may presume that "their own officials" refers to members of the Jerusalem aristocracy. When Pilate refused to acquiesce, the delegation became more emphatic in tone, demanding to see the letter authorizing his action. They then appealed to the emperor, who immediately rectified the situation. The veracity of the details of these "negotiations" depends on the accuracy of Philo's report, which, of course, can be notoriously tendentious. Nevertheless, there seems to be little justification in doubting the claim regarding the Herodians' involvement. A second incident involving a Herodian and Pilate relates to Jesus' trial. Luke reports that Pilate, having found no reason to condemn Jesus and having heard that he was from the Galilee, referred him to Antipas who was then in Jerusalem for the festival: 60 When Pilate heard this, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that he belonged to Herod's [i.e., Herod Antipas'] jurisdiction, he sent him over to Herod, who was himself in Jerusalem at that time. When Herod saw Jesus, he was very glad, for he had long desired to see him, because he had heard about him, and he was hoping to see some sign done by him. So he questioned him at some length, but he made no answer. The chief priests and the scribes stood by, vehemently accusing him. And Herod with his soldiers treated him with contempt and mocked him; then, arraying him in a splendid robe, he sent him back to Pilate. And Herod and Pilate became friends with each other that very day, for before this they had been at enmity with each other (Luke 23:6-12).

Antipas seems to have visited Jerusalem quite frequently on the festivals. 61 Several years later, in 37, Josephus relates that he accompanied the Roman governor Vitellius to the city on such an occasion.62 In the case of Jesus, there is no hint in any source that Antipas was in the city on official business. There is no reason to assume that Pilate's handing over of Jesus was due to a jurisdictional issue, i.e., that as ruler of the Galilee it was his responsibility to adjudicate in this matter. 63 Rather, Pilate seems to have tried diplomatically to shift responsibility from him59. See Smallwood, Philonis Alexandrini, 302-304. 60. See Hoehner, HerodAntipas, 224-250, esp. 227-232, on the question of the historicity of this pericope. 61. The suggestion that Antipas'presence in Jerusalem at this time had something to do with the recent killing of Galileans by Pilate (Luke 13:1) is speCUlative.

62. Ant. 18.5,3, 122. 63. Similarly, when Felix discovered that Paul was a Cilician he made no effort to transfer him to the local Roman official there (Acts 23:34-24:26).

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

363

self to Antipas. If the latter condemned Jesus, Pilate would not be blamed; if Antipas found Jesus innocent, then this would confIrm his own fIndings that Jesus should not be punished. Curious to see if Jesus would substantiate the claims made against him,64 Antipas was thwarted by his silence; he then allowed the priests and scribes to present their accusations. Finally, having mocked him (dressing Jesus in a splendid robe seems to have been intended as a parody of his claim to kingship), Antipas sent him back to Pilate, a gesture interpreted by the latter as fInding him innocent of the charges brought against him (Luke 23:13-16). Thus, according to Luke, Antipas' role in this trial was minimal and existed only because of the prefect's desire to exploit his presence or flatter him.65 The crisis generated by Gaius Caligula's plan to set up his statue in the Jerusalem Temple led to a series of demonstrations and delegations to Petronius, the official sent to carry out his orders. As noted earlier, we have three accounts of this chain of events, with significant differences among them, including wide discrepancies as regards the leadership of the Jews on this occasion. While Philo speaks of priests, magistrates, and elders,66 Josephus, in War,67 notes the Jews generally, singling out no specifIc group except the "aristocracy" as juxtaposed to the people on one occasion. In his Antiquities,68 however, Josephus is more specific. Having referred to tens of thousands of Jews several times, the crux of the negotiations was carried out by "Aristobulus, the brother of King Agrippa, together with He1cias the Elder and other most powerful members of this house, together with the civic leaders." It was these people who fInally succeeded in persuading Petronius of the foolhardiness of this plan. If Antiquities is to be believed, then once again the Herodians played a crucial role in negotiations with the Romans, in this case taking place in Tiberias and not Jerusalem. We have spoken at length of Agrippa I's role in governing Jerusalem and Judaea for three years (41-44). In the years after Agrippa's reign, his brother, King Herod of Chalcis (44-48/49),69 and then his son, Agrippa II (49/50--66),70 were awarded custody of the Jerusalem Temple; they were entrusted with the appointment of high priests, overseeing Temple affairs, and authority over Temple 64. This theme of Herodian interest and curiosity in early Christians and Christianity recurs in Acts 25:22 ff., when Agrippa II and Berenice express a desire to see and hear Paul. 65. The enmity between the two (Luke 23:12) seems to have been resolved by this ploy. Pilate's recognition of Antipas was requited by the latter's confirmation of his findings in the trial. 66. Embassy 31, 222; 32, 229. 67. War 2.10,3-5, 192-201. 68. Ant. 18.8,2-3,263-272.

69. On this Herod, who also held a praetorian rank according to Cassius Dio (60, 8, 3), see Schiirer, History, 1:571-72, and Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 304-314. 70. On Agrippa II, see Schiire~ History, 1:471-483; Kokkinos, Herodian Dynasty, 317-341; and Sullivan, "Dynasty of Judaea," 329-345.

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

364

vessels and vestments. 7! On several occasions, Agrippa intervened in Rome on behalf of the Jews; one such instance was related to the disposal of the high priest's robes72 and another to the Jewish-Samaritan conflict under Cumanus. 73 In the former case, Claudius sent a letter to the leaders and people of Jerusalem that was effusively complimentary to the Herodian family: My friend Agrippa, whom I have brought up and now have with me, a man of the greatest piety.... I know that in doing so I shall give great pleasure to King Herod (of Chalcis) himself and to Aristobulus the Younger-excellent men for whom I have high regard, men of whose devotion to me and zeal for your interest I am aware and with whom I have very many ties of friendship.74

We have had a number of occasions to address Agrippa II's active role in Jerusalem during the turbulent 60s. He frequently appointed and dismissed high priests;75 he enlarged his palace to enable him to view the Temple proceedings, thus angering Jerusalem's leaders;76 he was appealed to by certain religious leaders in the city regarding Ananus' execution of James;77 he convened a meeting of a sanhedrin to deal with the levites' request to wear linen garments;78 and, finally, in 64, he financed civic projects for the thousands of workers who had completed work on the Temple. 79 Agrippa II was active in 66 in seeking a peaceful solution to the impending crisis. 80 The piece de resistance of his efforts was the dramatic and moving speech delivered to the Jerusalem populace in the city's Xystus. As noted in Chapter 8, Agrippa marshaled political, military, and theological reasons in an attempt to dissuade his fellow citizens from revolting. He countered arguments in favor of a revolt, offered a detailed overview of the might of Rome (which Josephus probably elaborated from his vantage point later on in Rome), spelled out the disastrous consequences of rebellion, and stated, quite frankly, that at this moment in history God was now on the side ofthe Romans. 8! Having failed in his efforts, Agrippa retired to his kingdom as the city geared up for war. 71. Ant. 20.1, 3, 15-16; 8, 8, 179; 9, 7, 222. 72. Ibid., 20.1, 2, 10-14. 73. Ibid., 20.6, 3, 134-136. 74. Ibid., 20.1, 2,12-13. 75. Ibid., 20.8, 8,179; 8,11,196; 9,1,203; 9,4,213; 9, 7, 223. 76. Ibid., 20.8, 11, 189-195. 77. Ibid., 20.9,1,197-203.

78. Ibid., 20.9, 6, 216-218. 79. Ibid., 20.9, 7, 219-223.

80. War 2.16,2-3,336-343. 81. Ibid., 2.16, 1-5,345-404.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

365

Thus, in one form or another, and with varying degrees of success in the political realm, the Herodian dynasty continued to playa major role in Jerusalem affairs down to the very end. Whether as a ruler in the full sense of the word (as in the case of Agrippa I) or only one appointed over Temple affairs (Agrippa IT), the family's influence in the city and its institutions remained considerable; the stature and political clout that the Herodians enjoyed were inextricably bound up with the intimate connections forged by the family with Rome and its rulers over the generations. The fact that Persius (34--62 C.E.) seems to refer to the Sabbath as the "day of Herod," i.e., the day that Herod celebrated, is a tribute to the honor and fame of this ruler and his descendants in first-century Roman society.82

The Nonpriestly Aristocracy The nonpriestly Jerusalem aristocracy was another focus of power in the city. This group is often mentioned in conjunction with the priestly leadership when referring to Jerusalem's dignitaries, leading men, councillors, etc. These people were a continuation of the Jerusalem aristocracy of the Persian and Hellenistic eras and undoubtedly constituted an important component of the third- to secondcentury B.C.E. gerousia. The two-hundred-strong delegation that appealed to Pompey in 63 B.C.E. to remove the Hasmonean dynasty was probably heavily represented by this group. Gabinius' brief division of the land in 57 B.C.E. returned much of this aristocracy to power, and many of the opponents of Antipater and his sons in the 40s B.C.E. seem to have been drawn from its ranks. When Herod massacred Jewish leaders after conquering Jerusalem,83 many members of this group were undoubtedly eliminated, and one of the primary objectives of Herod's social program was to replace this old guard with new and more loyal constituencies. Finally, many of the objections to Herod that were presented to Augustus by the delegation that went to Rome in 4 B.C.E. may well represent the position of this social class. We possess, however, only scattered glimpses into this sector of the population. Josephus, for example, notes the names of four ambassadors sent to Rome by the Jerusalem authorities. In his reply to the city, Claudius mentions them specifically: Cornelius son of Ceron, Tryphon son of Theudion, Dorotheus son of Nathanael, and John son of John. 84 Clearly, these men were members of the 82. Persius, Saturae, V:180 (GLAll, I: 436). For a more expansive interpretation of Persius, whereby his reference means that royal birthdays and accession days of the Herodian dynasty were observed by the Jews of Rome in the middle first century, see Horbury, "Herod's Temple," 123-149.

83. Ant. 15.1,2,5. 84. Ibid., 20.1, 2,14.

366

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

city's aristocracy who possessed some degree of Greek education; otherwise, it is unlikely that they would have been sent to Rome as emissaries. It will be recalled that the Hasmoneans also recruited their foreign ambassadors from among the wealthy, acculturated (albeit priestly) classes of Jerusalem society. In the present instance, at least one, Cornelius, seems to have been a Roman citizen. The New Testament also mentions one such Jerusalem leader, noting the role of Joseph of Arimathea who is described as "a respected member of the council (boule), who ... went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus" (Mark 15:43). Matt. 27:57 adds that he was also wealthy and a disciple of Jesus. Rabbinic literature likewise speaks of a number of extremely wealthy Jerusalemites who functioned at the very end of this period. 85 Moreover, a number of Jews in Jerusalem appear to have acquired Roman citizenship and even a rank of nobility within the Roman system of orders. The name Julius Archelaus seems to clearly indicate that the bearer possessed Roman citizenship.86 Moreover, some Jews had been accorded the equestrian rank, an order that might enable members to gain public office, especially as tax collectors.87 By the first century, the designation of knight (equus public..us) could be bought by a Roman citizen for four hundred thousand sesterii. Jerusalemites of equestrian rank are noted on the eve of the outbreak of hostilities in 66; it is reported that, following the plunder of the Temple and their indiscriminate massacre, Florus had such Jews flogged before a tribunal and then crucified.88 The Jerusalem aristocracy of the first century C.E. was, at least in part, associated with and even related to the Herodian family. The foremost example of such ties is the family of Alexa, Helcias, and the above-noted Julius Archelaus, three generations of the Jerusalem elite who played a central role in city affairs. 89 Alexa, the second husband of Herod's sister Salome, was referred to on one occasion as one of the "friends" of the king90 and, together with Salome, was charged with carrying out Herod's final wishes upon his death. 91 Helcias, referred to as "the Elder,"92

85. See, e.g., Avot de R. Nathan, A, 6 (ed. Schechter, 31-33). 86. Ant. 19.9, I, 355; 20.7, I, 140, and Against Apion 1.9,51. Other Jerusalemites who became Roman citizens include Antipater, father of Herod (War 1.9, 5, 194), Josephus (Life 76, 423), and several firstcentury Herodians-Agrippa I, his son Agrippa II, and his daughter Berenike (Williams,Jews among the Greeks and Romans, 144). Paul, of course, was also a Roman citizen, but this derived from his Tarsian family-Acts 22:25-28.

87. See Millar, Emperor, 275-290. 88. War 2.14,9,308.

89. See M. Stern, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 612-613. 90. War 1.28, 6, 566.

91. Ibid., 1.33,6,659-660, and Ant. 17.6,5,175. 92. Ant. 18.8,4,273.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

367

was Alexa's and Salome's son who married one of Herod's granddaughters. He was active in protesting Caligula's plan to desecrate the Temple and seems to have been a pivotal figure during the reign of Agrippa. He bore the titles prefect and friend of the king and was involved in political machinations upon the king's death.93 The last generation of this family was represented by Helcias' son Julius Archelaus and Berenice, Agrippa's daughter. 94 Besides being a Roman citizen, as evidenced by his name, the only thing we know about Julius is that he was well versed in Greek culture and bought copies of Josephus' War.95 We may be able to add to this generation yet another individual by the name of Helcias, who is mentioned in connection with the events involving the confrontation between Agrippa II and the Temple authorities ca. 62. The ten-person delegation sent to Nero for the purpose of resolving the issue was headed by Ishmael son of Phiabi, the high priest at the time, and Helcias, keeper of the treasury.96 Given his name, it is quite possible that this He1cias was a second son of He1cias the Elder, brother of Julius Arche1aus. This last-mentioned account of the cooperative venture between Ishmael and Helcias seems to indicate the possible relations that might have been forged among Jerusalem's elite, at least when confronted by crises. It will be recalled that priestly, Herodian, and aristocratic elements joined forces in countering the dangers presented by Pilate and Caligula; later on, the two leaders chosen at the outset of the revolt were Joseph son of Gorion and Ananus the high priest.97 However, as we have noted above, it was only with the proliferation of intra-Jewish tensions and their penetration into Jerusalem society in the late 50s, and particularly in the 60s, that conflicts began to flare up between these leadership groups. In the IshmaelHe1cias incident, these men, along with others, were pitted against Agrippa; at about this same time, several Herodians aped the breakdown in priestly circles by also organizing gangs to prey on the weaker elements of the population.98 From this discussion of the Jerusalem aristocracy, it seems clear that the group as a whole was pro-Roman. Whether owing to its Herodian affiliations or to the fact that, as a ruling constituency, its fate was inextricably intertwined with that of the empire, most of its members might have been expected to side with peace, stability, and order. That such proclivities were natural for this type 93. Ibid., 19.8,3,353. 94. Ibid., 20.7, I, 140. 95. Against Apion 1.9, 51. Josephus also mentions two brothers, Costobar and Saul, who belonged to the Herodian house ("of royal lineage"). In the breakdown of civil order in the 60s, they, too, recruited gangs to plunder the weak (Ant. 20.9,4,214). 96. Ant. 20.8, 11, 194. 97. War 2.20, 3, 563. 98. Ant. 20.9,4,214.

368

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

of group is demonstrated in Tiberias at the outbreak of the revolt in 66. The city, we are told, was divided into three factions, pro-Roman, pro-revolt, and one ideologically uncommitted that nevertheless seems to have had the interests of TIberias uppermost in mind. The fIrst group was made up of "respectable citizens"; was headed by one Julius Capellus; and included two men, Herod and Compsus,99 members of the Hellenized upper classes (as per their names) who constituted the traditional ruling class of the city. It is not specifIcally noted whether they also were among the wealthy class of the city but this can readily be assumed. So, too, in regard to Jerusalem. It was undoubtedly this urban aristocracy, along with members of the priesthood, that constituted the primary membership in the city's central civic institutions such as the boule. 1°O Another family that Herod cultivated and that played a role throughout the fIrst century was that of Zamaris. Together with fIve hundred archers and his entire clan, Zamaris was brought to the Trachonitis-Batanaea region to bolster the defenses there. His descendants (Jacimus and Philip) were prominent fIgures in this community and in Agrippa II's kingdom, which included this territory.101 Based in the village of Bathyra, the sages referred to as the "Sons of Bathyra" are generally assumed to be from this family. The connection with Jerusalem in several rabbinic traditions appears in the collective reference to the Sons of Bathyra, who may have held some sort of official position in the Temple. Hillel, likewise having come from Babylonia in the time of Herod, is reputed to have encountered them in that context,I02 as did Yohanan ben Zakkai later on.I03 The figure of Hillel is shrouded in later legend, owing to his acknowledged position as the one who revolutionized Pharisaism intellectually and religiously by using midrash as a means of halakhic and aggadic exposition. Several of his descendants are known to have played a central role in Jerusalem affairs. R. Gamaliel the Elder was an active and respected member of the sanhedrin, offering a vigorous defense of Peter's right to his beliefs when the latter was apprehended (Acts 5:34-39). He is frequently found on the Temple Mount, conversing with a colleague, inquiring into a halakhic matter at the Temple's supreme court, and sending missives to Jews throughout Judaea and the world regarding sabbatical year procedures. 104 The many halakhic decisions regarding 99. Life 9, 32-33. 100. War 2.16,2,336.

101. Ant. 17.2,1-2,23-31. 102. Y Pesahim 6, 1, 33a; B Pesahim 66a-if this tradition indeed has some historical truth. 103. B Rosh Hashanah 29b. This very intriguing story has been analyzed from a wide range of perspectives; see, e.g., Finkelstein, Pharisees, 1-16; Fraenkel, "Hermeneutic Problems," 149-157; and Fischel, "Story and History," 59-88. 104. M 'Orlah 2,12; M Peah 2, 6; and T Sanhedrin 2, 6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 416-417), respectively.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

369

public issues (taqqanot) that have been ascribed to Gamaliel may further indicate his public profile in the period roughly between 30 and 50 C.E. 105 Our main source of information regarding Gamaliel's son Simon b. Gamaliel is Josephus, who notes the following in his Life: This Simon was a native of Jerusalem, of a very illustrious family, and of the sect of the Pharisees, who have the reputation of being unrivalled experts in their country's laws. A man highly gifted with intelligence and judgment, he could by sheer genius retrieve an unfortunate situation in affairs of state. 106

In addition to an assortment of halakhic rulings associated with Simon,107 there is one tradition in the Mishnah that seems to bear out Josephus' last-mentioned assessment. Noting that the price of doves for sacrifices had increased sharply, Simon allowed a smaller number to be sacrificed in certain cases to relieve the poor (against an explicit prescription in the Torah): Once in Jerusalem, a pair of doves cost a golden dinar. R. Simon b. Gamaliel said: "By this Temple [an oath]! I will not let the night pass before they cost but a [silver] dinar." He went to the court and taught: "If a woman suffered five miscarriages that were not in doubt or five issues that were not in doubt, she need bring but one offering (instead of one per case), and she may then eat of the animal-offerings; and she is not bound to offer the other offerings. And the same day the price of a pair of doves stood at a quarter-dinar each. 108

Diaspora Jews There is no question that the presence of Diaspora Jews in Jerusalem was a significant factor in the city's social and cultural makeup, although how much so is impossible to assess. We have already had occasion to note the massive presence of Diaspora Jews during the three pilgrimage festivals,I09 the Diaspora roots of many high priestly and other aristocratic families, and the undoubtedly powerful impression that Queen Helena must have made during her sojourn in the city. By virtue of her charity, piety, and large-scale building projects, her presence was certainly felt in wide circles. The contributions of Diaspora Jewry, particularly to the Temple, have likewise been noted. Nicanor and Alexander of 105. Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 179-182. 106. Life 38, 191. 107. Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 182-184. 108. M Kritot 1,7. 109. See Chapter 6 as well as Jeremias, Jerusalem, 62-71; Safrai, Pilgrimage, 54-74; and E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 127-128.

370

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Figure 94. The fa<;:ade of Nicanor's tomb, Mount Scopus in Jerusalem.

Egypt, the royal family of Adiabene, and Jews from elsewhere llo are specifically mentioned in this regard. More important in terms of an impact on the city, however, were those Jews who actually took up residence there. Some stayed for a while and then returned to the Diaspora (e.g., Paul), while others came and remained in the city for the rest of their lives (e.g., Hillel). The New Testament mentions a number of people who came to Jerusalem from the Diaspora: Simon of Cyrene (Mark 15 :21); Barnabas, a native of Cyprus (Acts 4:36); and Nicolaus, a proselyte from Antioch (Acts 6:5). An ossuary inscription notes a person or family that immigrated to Jerusalem, although the place of origin is not mentioned. III Of even greater significance is the wide range of sources attesting to the existence of Diaspora communities in the city, usually with respect to the synagogues that they established there (see below). Acts 6:9 lists a series of Diaspora congregations in Jerusalem, rabbinic literature notes the existence of a synagogue of Alexandrians,112 and the Theodotos inscription noted earlier points to a Diaspora synagogue probably founded by Jews from Italy. Hundreds of funerary inscriptions found to date shed light on the presence of the following Diaspora communities in Second Temple Jerusalem: Chalcis, Beirut, Tyre, Palmyra, Delos, Greece (Lacedaemon), Cyrene (Berenice and Ptolemais), Capua, Alexandria, Bithynia (or Cilicia), Africa, and Apamea in Syria (Fig. 94).113 However, this evidence is subject to several interpretations. Were these people brought to the city after they died (and thus never lived there), did they die when visiting the city, or were they indeed permanent residents? The last option appears 110. MYoma 3, 10. On the contribution of a pavement by someone from Rhodes, see Isaac, "Donation," 86-92. See also M Hallah 4, 10-11. 111 . Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum, II:no. 1230. 112. T Megillah 2, 17 (ed. Lieberman, 352). 113. See, e.g., Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum, II:nos. 1226, 1227, 1233, 1256, 1284, 1414; Avigad, "Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries," 1-12; Safrai, "Relations," 194; Rahmani, Catalogue, 17; and Avni et aI. , "Three New Burial Caves," 206-218.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

371

most probable, at least in the majority of cases. We hear nothing at this point in time about the practice of transferring the dead to Jerusalem, 114 nor is it likely that the most of these people happened to die when on pilgrimage. While either of these two options is possible, at best they would explain only a small number of cases. It is impossible to assess the implications and consequences that Diaspora Jews had on and in the city. Since their presence was significant on both a temporary and a permanent basis, it is difficult to imagine that their presence was not felt in many ways in the political, social, cultural, and religious realms of Jerusalem's city life. One has only to refer to the account of the Jerusalem church that was split early on between Hellenists and Hebrews (Acts 6:1)Ys If, as seems probable, these terms refer to the mother tongue of the members of each faction, i.e., that they were Diaspora and locally born, respectively, then this would attest to how quickly foreign-born Jews associated themselves with religious and social groupings within Jerusalem society, and not only with their own constituencies. Hillel, too, is a case in point; his impact in Jerusalem, at least within Pharisaic circles, seems to have been considerable, and his progeny (R. Gamaliel the Elder and R. Simon b. Gamaliel) gained prominent positions in their day. In summing up the social configuration of first-century Jerusalem, we are relatively well informed regarding the upper classes-priests, Herodians, and wealthy. There can be little question that many people, and especially these groups (though not only them), became quite affluent. Enormous funds flowed into the city, both from Jews who visited as pilgrims or in fulfillment of one or another religious observance and from the half-sheqel donations from Jews around the world. Given the fact that the potential reservoir of contributors numbered in the millions, 116 the sums involved were clearly extraordinary. It is doubtful that any other single temple in the entire Roman world could lay claim to such funds. Josephus himself pinpoints this source of income as not only substantial but also secure and reliable: But no one need wonder that there was so much wealth in our Temple, for all the Jews throughout the habitable world, and those who worshipped God [i.e., the semiproselytes] even those from Asia and Europe, had been contributing to 114. See Gafni, "Bringing Deceased from Abroad," 113-120, who shows that the practice is only evidenced from the second century onward. One inscription, however, does attest to the bringing of a corpse from Babylonia to Jerusalem: "I, Abba, son of the priest Eleazar son of Aaron the high (priest), I, Abba, the oppressed and the persecuted, who was born in Jerusalem, and went into exile in Babylonia and brought (back [to Jerusalem]); Mattathiah son of Judah, and 1 buried him in the cave which 1 acquired by the writ" (Naveh, "New Tomb-Inscription," 73-74). 115. See Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 1-17; see also Hengel, Acts and the History, 71-80. 116. Estimates have ranged between four and eight million Jews throughout the empire; see, e.g., Baron, "Population," 871, and Feldman, Jew and Gentile, 293, 555. On the population of the empire in general, see Salmon, Population et depopulation, 23-39.

372

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

it for a very long time. And there is no lack of witnesses to the great amount of the sums mentioned, or have they been raised to so great a figure through boastfulness or exaggeration on our part. 117

It comes as no surprise, then, that foreign rulers, be they Hellenistic or Roman, were often tempted to rob the Temple's treasuries. lIs Moreover, archaeological finds have confirmed that many Jerusalemites were able to lavish significant amounts of money on their personal needs. Remains of the homes in the Upper City attest to this wealth, as do many of the tombs encircling the city, such as Absalom's tomb and Zechariah's tomb, both in the Qidron Valley east of the Temple Mount. Moreover, it has been suggested with a great deal of plausibility that the use of ossuaries in funerary settings at this time reflects a significant rise in the standard of living among Jerusalemites generally.1I9 Josephus emphasized this point on several occasions toward the end of his account of the Jewish revolt. He quoted Titus' speech to the besieged general thus: "[A]bove all, we permitted you to exact tribute for God and to collect offerings ... only that you might grow richer at our expense and make preparations with our money to attack us! ... You turned your superabundance against the donors."12o Later on, when describing the post-destruction city, Josephus noted that the Romans continued to discover traces of the vast wealth of Jerusalem, sometimes in the ruins and at other times via reports of prisoners who told of underground caches. 121 Needless to say, other social groupings existed in Jerusalem during these decades, certainly a middle class that included artisans and merchants, as well as manual laborers, slaves, and poor people. The Temple reputedly had a special box for contributions earmarked for the poor (it is interesting to note that the Mishnah and Tosefta speak of those poor who had once belonged to the upper classes).122 Our information, however, is simply too fragmentary to offer an assessment of the role that each of them played in the city's life. 123 The Jerusalem-Diaspora connection is attested not only by the fact that many Jews flocked to the city in one capacity or another but also because Jerusalem's 117. Ant. 14.7,2, 110--111.

118. So, e.g., Seleucus IV (2 Mace. 3:1-7), Antiochus IV (1 Macc. 1:20--24), Crassus (Ant. 14.7, 1, 105-109), and Florus (War 2.14, 6, 293). This might hold true of Jewish leaders as well, as was the case of Menelaus the high priest in 172 B.C.E. (2 Macc. 4:32). 119. See Rubin, "Secondary Burials," 248-269, esp. 262-269. We have noted above that the introduction of arcosolia into burial chambers in the first century probably also attests to the increased prosperity among the city's inhabitants. 120. War 6.6, 2, 335.

121. Ibid., 7.5, 2, 114-115. 122. M Sheqalim 5, 6, and T Sheqalim 2, 16 (ed. Lieberman, 211). 123. See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 100--120; M. Stern, "Aspects of Jewish Society," 624-630; and Seccombe, "Was There Organized Charity?" 140--143.

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION

373

leaders were involved in Diaspora affairs in a variety of ways. The book of Acts seems to indicate such involvement. For instance, there is the account of Paul (Acts 9:2) requesting letters of introduction or authorization from the high priest to the Damascus Jewish community, allowing him to bring back to Jerusalem any Christians he finds there. Later in Pau1's career, when he had reached Rome, the local leaders noted that they had received no such communication from Judaea about him, indicating that epistles of this sort were not uncommon (Acts 28:21). We have noted on several occasions the intervention of Jerusalem authorities, Hyrcanus II, and later Herod (see Chapter 4) on behalf of various Diaspora communities, and it is reported that Pharisaic sages, including Hillel, were approached by Alexandrian Jews for advice on a marital issue. l24 From the above, it is clear that the Jerusalem-Diaspora connection was multifaceted and mutually beneficial on a variety of levels. Just as the city was held in the highest esteem among the far-flung Jewish communities of the Roman and Babylonian worlds, so, too, these communities contributed enormously to the economic, social, and cultural fabric of the city. Jewish life, for however brief a moment, had achieved a delicate balance between powerful centripetal and centrifugal forces working in its midst, between the centralization and focus on Jerusalem and the Temple, and the dispersion and accommodation of vibrant Diaspora communities.

124. T Ketubot 4,9 (ed. Lieberman, 68).

375

Chapter 11

Religious Ambience

Religious life in First-Century Jerusalem Discussion of Jewish religious life in the first century usually revolves around the different sects, most of which were based in Jerusalem, and therefore focuses on the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Christians, and revolutionary factions (e.g., Sicarii, Zealots). The reasons for this are twofold. Most scholars have had a particularly keen interest in this religious dimension of this period, given the fact that Christianity owes much of its origins and earliest development to this time and place and that rabbinic Judaism was indebted to many personalities and traditions stemming from this era. The second reason has to do with the relative wealth of material regarding these sects. They appear in Josephus' writings, at times in pivotal roles, and the New Testament and rabbinic literature, given their particularistic agendas, highlight this aspect of Jerusalem's society as well.' Our concern here is not to rehearse the salient doctrinal and halakhic differences between these groupS. 2 Rather, we will focus on how they functioned in Jerusalem and what influence they had there. From a political vantage point, the Sadducees were clearly the most influential groUp. 3 Many high priests probably identified with them, as the case of Ananus 1. Nevertheless, this material is very uneven. Different sources may emphasize different aspects of sectarian life, and even within a given source (Josephus' War, Antiquities, or Life, or the gospels) there are very often different foci (see S. Mason, Flavius Josephus). Moreover, all these sources, with the exception of Paul and perhaps Mark, are post-70 works and thus describe a situation that most authors or tradents never knew personally. 2. See the surveys in StembergeI; Jewish Contemporaries, passim, and E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 315-494. 3. Important archaeological evidence indicating the fact that Sadducean halakhab was normative in Jerusalem in the early Roman era is reflected in the building of an aqueduct through a cemetery on Mount Zion (M Yadaim 4, 7); see Patrich, "Sadducean Halakha," 25-39. On the term "Boethusians," often

376

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

in his persecution of the Christians in 62 bears out. 4 Nevertheless, it must be recalled that not all priests or high priests were necessarily Sadducees, although we are probably safe in assuming that many were, and thus the sect was able to effect public policy in the Temple and city. For example, among the many interpretations of when the Shavu'ot (Pentecost) holiday falls-and we know of at least three different systems of calculationS-it is most likely that it was the Sadducean custom that prevailed in the Temple. There is no conclusive evidence as to where these various groups lived in the city. We noted a concentration of priestly homes in the Upper City but this may have been due more to socioeconomic reasons than anything else. Elsewhere, Sadducees and Pharisees may have lived side by side and, in fact, one rabbinic tradition addresses such a situation: R. Gamaliel (the Elder-fl. 30-50 C.E.) said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and my father said to us: "Hasten and put out all the (necessary) vessels in the alley before he brings out (his vessels) and thereby restricts yoU."6

It is thus apparent that Pharisees and Sadducees could have lived in close proximity to one another and thus shared the same entrances and alleyways-despite the fact that they did not accept one another's halakhic behavior. The Sadducee in question presumably had another entrance to his house, but were he to use the entranceway common to him and to R. Gamaliel's family, it would restrict the latter from making use of an 'eruv. 7 Either the Sadducee followed different 'eruv laws, or none at all; in any event, he was not to be included in the Pharisaic arrangement. It thus emerges that the laws of the different groups living together in the city served to exclude and separate each from the other sects as well as from ordinary, non-sectarian, Jews. 8 The concentration of diverse sects (as well as other religious personalities and movements) within the city offered its inhabitants the option of joining one or the other, or none at all. Jerusalem served as a marketplace of ideas, beliefs, and practices that might attract some, repel others, and leave many relatively unaffected. Josephus, a product of the city, tells how, at the age of sixteen, he allegedly embarked on his own search: used synonymously with Sadducees (Avot de R. Nathan, A, 5 led. Schechter, 26]), see Schiirer, History, II:406, and LeMoyne, Les sadduceens, 101-102,332-342. 4. Ant. 20.9, 1, 199.

5. Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 145-146, and Yadin, Temple Scroll, I:103-105.

6. M 'Eruvin 6, 2. 7. See the previous mishnah, 'Eruvin 6, I. 8. A. Baumgarten, Flourishing of Jewish Sects, 5-11.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

377

At about the age of 16, I determined to gain personal experience of the several sects into which our nation is divided. These, as I have frequently mentioned, are three in number-the first that of the Pharisees, the second that of the Sadducees, and the third that of the Essenes. I thought that, after a thorough investigation, I should be in a position to select the best. So I submitted myself to hard training and laborious exercises and passed through the three courses. Not content, however, with the experience thus gained, on hearing of one named Bannus, who dwelt in the wilderness, wearing only such clothing as trees provide, feeding on such things as grew of themselves, and using frequent ablutions of cold water, by day and night, for purity's sake, I became his devoted disciple. I lived with him for three years and, having accomplished my purpose, returned to the city.9

Although one can legitimately view this description as Josephus' attempt to clothe himself in a classic Hellenistic educational garb, i.e., having experienced the full gamut of wisdom then available, and as an exercise in self-adulation, there is no inherent reason to assume that such exposure was foreign to the Jerusalem scene. Given the number of sects concentrated there, and the fact that some were actively "missionary" in outlook, moving from one to another in search of truth would have been only natural. Such is the claim in Acts 1--6, that many Jerusalemites and others joined the ranks of the fledgling church, including "a large number of priests" and some Pharisees (Acts 6:7, 15:5). Moreover, the fact that the early church adopted many of the practices of the Essene community further argues for the open channels of communication that characterized Jerusalem society. The picture regarding Pharisaic political leadership in the first century is less clear. If we are to believe some of Josephus' statements 10 and the implications of many traditions in rabbinic literature (vis-a-vis the sanhedrin, for example), then we may conclude that members of this sect played an important, if not dominant, role in Jerusalem affairs." This assumption has been largely discarded over the last two generations, although the extreme position viewing the Pharisees as merely a pious sect with little or no political clout (except for certain individuals) is equally as problematic.'2 Crucial for our understanding of their leadership status is the fact that in all the events discussed by Josephus for the period between 6 and 66, with rare exception, never do the Pharisees as a group, or an 9. Life 2, 10--11. On some of the difficulties with this passage, see S. Mason, "Was Josephus a Pharisee?" 30-45 (= Flavius Josephus, 311-324). 10. For example, Ant. 18.1,3-4,12-17. 11. So, e.g., Schiirer, History, 11:388-403; Alon, Jews, Judaism, 18-47; and S. Mason, Flavius Josephus, 372-373. 12. Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 253-254; Neusner, From Politics to Piety; and Levine, "On the Political Involvement," 12-28.

378

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

individual Pharisee, play any sort of role in the province's political events. The various protest movements and delegations dispatched to deal with the crises at the time do not appear to have included Pharisees. The New Testament accounts of the Jerusalem episodes in Jesus' life bear this out. The Pharisees' role there, compared to their role in confronting Jesus in the Galilee, is strictly secondary to that of the high priest, Sadducees, and aristocracy.13 However, there was at least one Pharisee who played a significant political role in 6 C.E., and several members of the sect-especially R. Simon b. Gamalielas sumed an even larger one, in 66. We are told that when Judas the Galilean organized the uprising in 6, he was aided by the Pharisee Saddok. 14 In his Life, Josephus tells of Pharisaic participation in the events in Jerusalem and the Galilee at the start of the rebellion. He recounts how he himself consulted with the high priests and leading Pharisees after the death of Menahem the Sicarii. 15 Later on, Josephus speaks of the prominent position in the revolutionary government held by Simon b. Gamaliel, as mentioned earlier; it is interesting to note that this Simon was close to John of Gischala, who became one of the leaders of the revolt in 67-70. When Simon dispatched a delegation from Jerusalem to remove Josephus from command, three of the four emissaries were Pharisees. 16 At least in this stage of the war, the Pharisees' role was far from inconsequentialY Perhaps it was for this reason that Josephus, in his War, written decades before his Life as an apologetic, tried to hide from Roman eyes whatever Pharisaic and priestly roles there were in these hostilities, while, at the same time, fixing as much of the blame as possible on what he considered extreme and irresponsible revolutionaries. Aside from the larger political questions affecting Judaean society in the first century, we have very little information regarding other ways in which the Pharisees might have influenced their immediate environs, i.e., Jerusalem. Moreover, the little that we do have is often historically problematic and difficult to pinpoint to a specific context. 18 For example, Hillel is credited with enacting the prozbol, a legal circumvention of the biblical injunction canceling debts every seven years. However, it is not at all clear what the context of

13. See M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, 153-157. 14. Ant. 18.1,1,4. 15. Life 5,21. 16. Ibid., 39, 195-198. 17. It will be remembered that it was about this time that the well-known dispute between the two main Pharisaic groups-the houses of Shammai and Hillel-took place. The issue was whether to endorse a series of eighteen decrees aimed at distancing Jews from gentiles (see above). 18. On reservations in general regarding in the use of later rabbinic traditions about the Pharisees, see Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, III:301-319; Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, 154-159; Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 7-9, 199-237; and E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 458-490.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

379

this decree was. The Mishnah describes it as a public declaration,19 while Midrash Tannaim 20 describes Hillel's statement as an exegetical exercise only. Moreover, did this problem become acute only in Hillel's time or perhaps had it, in fact, been dealt with by others and only Pharisaic-rabbinic tradition ascribed it to Hillel? A second example of such a dilemma regards Hillel's appointment as Nasi (leader, head), although Nasi of what is never made clear. While the tradition is heavily overlaid with later literary accretions that differ among the sources,21 and while it appears to have been influenced by comparable themes from Greco-Roman literature,22 the very historical setting addressed is puzzling. Hillel's time is certainly not the first instance in which the question arose regarding a Passover sacrifice taking place on the Sabbath. The Damascus Document of the Dead Sea sect was already aware of the problem of additional sacrifices on the Sabbath (and, indeed, outlawed them),23 and its calendar, as that of Jubilees, in fact, was constructed to avoid the issue. 24 Thus two of the most "promising" traditions relating to the Pharisees in Jerusalem turn out to be, on further reflection, too problematic to be of much use to us in our study. Nevertheless, instances ofthe Pharisees' public prominence-some of which have been noted above-are too numerous to be ignored. To cite a number of examples: • The book of Acts 5 :34-39, 23: 1-10 notes the participation of Pharisees, particularly R. Gamaliel the Elder, in the Jerusalem sanhedrin on several occasions. • R. Gamaliel the Elder was consulted by those working on the Temple building with regard to a targum that was found on the site. 25 • There are several attestations to R. Gamaliel, and perhaps also his son Simon, dispatching letters to Jews throughout Judaea and the Diaspora regarding the observance of the sabbatical year. 26 • R. Simon acted single-handedly to lower the price of doves for women offering sacrifices after giving birth. 27 19. M Shevi'it lO, 3-4. 20. Ed. Hoffmann, 80. 21. T Pesahim 4, 13-14 (ed. Lieberman, 165-166); Y Pesahim 6, 1, 33a; and B Pesahim 66a. 22. Fischel, Essays, 443-472. 23. CD 11, 17. 24. See the comments of Schiffman, Halakhah at Qumran, 128-131. 25. T Shabbat 13, 2 (ed. Lieberman, 57). 26. T Sanhedrin 2,5-6 (ed. Zuckermandel, 416); Y Sanhedrin 1, 2, 18d; and B Sanhedrin 11a. 27. M Kritot 1,7.

380

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

• Some Pharisees attracted students from near and far, as attested by Paul's claim to have come to Jerusalem to study under R. Gamaliel (Acts 22:3). These examples are, however, by and large instances of individual Pharisees playing leading roles, although even here it is not at all clear how recognized their authority was. Were some of these instances confined to Pharisaic circles only or did they include the population as a whole? Given this uncertainty, and in light of the secondary role accorded the Pharisees in the gospels' passion narratives and their almost total exclusion from Josephus' works in the 6--66 period, we must conclude that their social-political impact at this time was minimal. Whatever influence they may have wielded-which is impossible to assess-was largely restricted to the religious realm.28 What did the Pharisees do in Jerusalem and what was their source of livelihood?29It is widely assumed that many Pharisees were, in fact, professional scribes. If Josephus' emphasis on the Pharisaic akribeia (the precise and exact interpretation of the Law) is an accurate and defining characteristic of the sect/a then it may indicate that many were not only engaged in Torah study for its own sake, but in a professional capacity as well. In that case, one might well conclude that most-if not all-Pharisees were part of Jerusalem's scribal class (see below).3l Alternatively, the Pharisees have been viewed primarily as a table fellowship, where concerns of purity, tithing, and distancing oneself from ordinary, nonpunctilious, Jews, were considered fundamental. They are thus viewed more as a brotherhood or fraternity, separated from others socially, each pursuing some sort of trade or profession. Such a designation of the Pharisees rests mainly on early rabbinic testirnony32 and on a number of New Testament pericopes (e.g., 28. In regard to their religious impact in the city, we are faced with some intriguing possibilities but little hard evidence.lfthe number of six thousand Pharisees noted by Josephus (Ant. 17.2,4,42) is accurate, and if the number refers, as seems likely, to the first century (as well as to the Herodian era), and ifmost Pharisees lived in Jerusalem (again, not unlikely), then their presence in Jerusalem would have been of significant proportions. And, if the above number refers only to adult males, and thus the members of Pharisaic families would have been twenty to thirty thousand, then Pharisaic influence in the city would have been very considerable. However, the many "ifs" in this reasoning can only leave us wondering at this stage. 29. The Pharisees have often been contrasted with the Essenes at Qumran in that they did not sever all ties with contemporary Jewish society. Both Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 70-73, and Baumgarten, Flourishing of Jewish Sects, 13-14, adopt the distinction suggested by Wilson, Magic and the Millennium, 16-26, between the reformist and introversionist approaches, similar, it would seem, to the distinction between a party and a sect made by E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism, 425-426.

30. War 1.5,2, 110; Ant. 17.2,4,41; and Life 38, 191. 31. See also Acts 22:3; the polemic in Matt. 23:2-3; as well as A. Baumgarten, "Name of the Pharisees," 411-428; Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 284-285; and E. P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism, 187-188. See, however, Jeremias, Jerusalem, 254. 32. For example, M Demai 2, 2-3, and T Demai 2 (ed. Lieberman, 68-73).

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

381

Mark 7:3-6).33 Despite attempts in some quarters to date such purity concerns in rabbinic literature to the second century c.E.,34 there seems to be little justification for such skepticism. Besides requiring the dismissal of innumerable rabbinic sources, such an approach also necessitates ignoring New Testament evidence and archaeological material that indicates the centrality of purity concerns among wide circles of Second Temple Judaean society (see below). It may very well be the better part of wisdom not to try and pigeonhole the Pharisees too rigidly. There is no reason to reject totally the evidence of one source or another regarding who they were and what they did. Pharisees might well have been both scribes and members of a havurah (religious association) or, alternatively, one or the other, or neither. 35 In a similar fashion, we have evidence of poor and wealthy Pharisees, some who were merchants, artisans, or farmers, and others who were priests, including one presumably high-ranking Temple official (Hanina, prefect [seganJ of the priests).36

Scribes The ancient world was well acquainted with the institution of the scribe, a term used throughout biblical and Second Temple literature. 37 The first reference to such a group--in this case, one with close ties to the Temple-appears in Antiochus ill's decree to Jerusalem upon his conquest of the city at the tum of the second century B.C.E.38 The term is used with reference to the Hasidians, who appear (and disappear) mysteriously during the Maccabean revolt (l Mace. 7: 12-14), as well as to the martyr Eleazar (2 Macc. 6: 18).39 However, it is only in the New Testament that we find the frequent use of this term with reference to a specific group among the Jews. As is often the case, there is no unanimity in the use of the term in the synoptic gospels; Mark renders them dependent on the priests and thus 33. See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 246-267; Neusner, "Fellowship (Haburah) in the Second Jewish Commonwealth," 125-142, and From Politics to Piety, 81-96; Oppenheimer, 'Am Ha-Aretz, 118-169; and Regev, "Pure Individualism," 176-202. 34. See the references in Sternberger, Jewish Contemporaries, 84 n. 95. 35. As regards the Pharisaic havurah, it is interesting to note the rabbinic tradition (T Megillah 3, 15 led. Lieberman, 357], and Tractate "Mourning" [Semahot] 12, 5 led. Zlotnick, 81]) concerning four havurot in Jerusalem, each devoted to fulfilling a different religious obligation: visiting a house of mourning, a wedding, a circumcision ceremony, or engaging in a secondary burial. Whether these associations functioned throughout the city in general or only among the Pharisees is unclear. 36. M Pesahim 1,6, and MAvot 3,2. See Jeremias, Jerusalem, 258-259, and E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 404-407. 37. See Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 241-276, and "Scribes," 1012-1016.

38. Ant. 12.3,3, 142. 39. It is interesting to note that the word "grammateon" is translated by Goldstein, 2 Maccabees, 286, as "sages," along with a note that the term in this period refers to experts in Torah.

382

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

tied to the Temple and Jerusalem; in Matthew, they are associated with the villages and the Jerusalem leadership; and Luke has them closely connected with the Pharisees.40 Rabbinic literature views the scribes as proto-Pharisees, functioning primarily in the centuries between Ezra and the early Pairs.41 The origin of this class of functionaries, be it in the Temple or city, is unknown. Whereas Bickerman views their emergence as a Hellenistic phenomenon, imitating contemporary practices, Tcherikover, following a Persian model, dates this group from the time of Ezra 42 In truth, we know very little about the scribes and how they functioned in the city. They do not seem to have belonged to one overall framework. Many undoubtedly were associated with the Temple, others with municipal government or countrywide posts, and still others under the patronage of wealthy individuals, the high priestly families, the aristocratic elite, or the Herodians. Saldarini43 suggests that many were retainers and thus owed their position and livelihood to these patrons. They might have been charged with keeping records; handling correspondence; collecting taxes; and serving as teachers, judges, and arbiters when called on. Scribes with similar roles also served in synagogues throughout the Roman Diaspora.44

The Christian Community Our knowledge of Jerusalem's Christian community is confined almost entirely to Acts, whose narrative is informative although selective and tendentious. 45 The account in Acts focuses on several themes: the growth of the local community; friction from within and persecution from without; and the expansion of early Christianity beyond its Jewish and Jerusalem boundaries, becoming, in short order, a universal religion. Jerusalem's importance in this book is thus both confirmed and rejected. On the one hand, it is the place where the first stages of Christianity were played out and, on the other, it served as the staging area for developments elsewhere. Jerusalem's Christian community expanded rapidly in its first years, numbering 120 soon after Jesus' death (Acts 1:15), quickly growing to over 3,000 (Acts 2:41), and then to 5,000 (Acts 4:4).46 However, these numbers are suspect and seem highly exaggerated. The increase in membership was allegedly due to 40. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 159-173,181-182. 41. Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 7-9. 42. Bickennan, "Historical Foundations," 97-99, and Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 124-126. 43. Saldarini, Pharisees, Scribes and Sadducees, 273-276. 44. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 409. 45. On the historicity of Luke's account in Acts, see Hengel, Acts and the History, 3-68; Pliimacher, "Luke," 397-301; and Fitzmyer, Acts of the Apostles, "Introduction." 46. The number of converts, according to Acts 5:13-16, 6:1, 7, kept growing, and it is noted that by the

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

383

successful missionizing, which itself was a result of the enthusiastic reception to the preaching of Peter and John (Acts 4), particularly in the Temple precincts. The Jerusalem Christians are reported to have gathered there daily (Acts 5:42), particularly on the eastern side of the Temple Mount, near Solomon's portico (Acts 5: 12).47 The "Jerusalem church" (a term first used in Acts 5: 11) was, on the one hand, a tightly knit group sharing common property and caring for its needy (Acts 2:43-47, 4:32-37).48 Any deviation from the norm of a complete sharing of goods was considered a severe breach of trust and was immediately and harshly punished (Acts 5: 1-11). Daily prayer, regular visits to the Temple, and common meals constituted the basis of comrr.unal activity (Acts 2:42,46--47). As noted, the Jerusalem church adopted many practices and beliefs that were also normative among the Essenes, including common property, baptism, common meals, and a distinctly eschatological orientation. In addition, the leadership structure was similar to that at Qumran, with the twelve apostles matching the twelve-member Qumran council, and the three priests heading the latter, finding their parallel, perhaps, in the superior rank of Peter, John, and James.49 There may well have been other groups in Judaea that functioned in a similar fashion, but it is only in regard to Christians and the Dead Sea sect that we have solid evidence. On the other hand, the church's rapid development during these years engendered tension and conflict as well. Since its growth and increased numbers involved the amalgamation of different groups, an amiable modus vivendi was not always found that could accommodate everyone. Thus a conflict erupted between the Hebrews and Hellenists over the latter's claim that the distribution of food to widows in the two groups was inequitable (Acts 6:1).50 As a result, the church's 60s the Christians numbered "many thousands among the Jews" (Acts 21:20). In this regard, see Stark, Rise o/Christianity, 1-27, who suggests a rapid increase (40 percent per decade) in the number of Christians based on socioscientific data. 47. See also Acts 3:11. John 10:23 notes that Jesus also was to be found there. Why Christians seem to have preferred the eastern portico associated with Solomon is unclear. Perhaps such a location was chosen to facilitate their contact with the many Jews who would enter the Temple precincts from the main, eastern, gate. For a survey of the evidence in Acts regarding the early Christians'relationship to the Temple, see Barrett, "Attitudes to the Temple," 345-367. 48. Nevertheless, the case for the diversity of the Jerusalem church is made by Fiensy, "Composition of the Jerusalem Church," 226-230, 234-236. 49. See Cross, Ancient Library 0/ Qumran, 197-243; VanderKam, Dead Sea Scrolls Today, 159-185; and Capper, "Palestinian Cultural Context," 323-356. 50. Many distinctions have been offered as to who the Hellenists were: gentile converts, Hellenized proselytes, ''Graecizers'' (Jewish or gentile), Jews who spoke only Greek, etc. (Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, 4-6, and Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 22-23 n. 12). However, most discussions revolve around one of the following three options: (I) the term "Hellenist" is a strictly linguistic one; (2) the term has a geographic component, i.e., these people originated in the Diaspora; and (3) there is, in addition, an ideological dimension, i.e., Hellenists bring cultural and religious baggage reflecting a more universalistic, cosmopolitan, orientation. See Fiensy, "Composition of the Jerusalem Church," 235; Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, 4-13, and Acts and the History, 71-74; and Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 22-24.

384

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

leadership was reorganized, with seven men now appointed to oversee these matters (Acts 6:2-7), according to Luke (the author of Acts) leaving the apostles free to pursue their spiritual tasks. 51 The seven appointees appear to have been members of the Hellenist faction of the community, as attested by their names: Stephen, Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolaus, a proselyte from Antioch (Acts 6:5). Indeed, they may have constituted the leadership of the Hellenists who were now accorded a rank and status over the entire community. What is of consequence in this episode is the speed with which Diaspora Jews joined this new community. No other Jerusalem sect seems to have had a similar appeal. Moreover, as we shall see below, these Jewish Hellenists not only joined the community but also seem to have constituted its more radical element. It is the religious interpretation that some of them gave to the Jewish past and present that soon provided the impetus for a major transformation in the character, ideology, and leadership of this new movement. Stephen, the first of these seven overseers (the order of names listed in Acts may reflect priority and importance), drew a great deal of attention owing to his eloquence and actions, thereby causing resentment among members of a number of Diaspora synagogues located in the city (see below). It seems that Stephen had been preaching (officially or unofficially) and missionizing in these synagogues, and he probably was, or had been, a member of one of them. Why these Diaspora Jews found Stephen's message and conduct so objectionable is never made clear. Perhaps, as Jews from a similar background, they were embarrassed or angered by his seemingly extreme statements. In any case, according to Acts some of these people secretly instigated others (an enigmatic maneuver in and of itself) to lodge charges against Stephen with the authorities; Stephen was then apprehended, tried, and murdered (Acts 6:8-7:60). Some have doubted the historicity of a sanhedrin in these proceedings. Rather, it is claimed, these events took place within the confines of the synagogue and not before a more official body as Luke would have it. 52 Tensions between the Hellenist and Hebrew factions of the church continued unabated. When Paul returned to the city soon after his conversion from being a determined persecutor of the church to an enthusiastic messenger on its behalf (Gal. 1:13,23; Phil. 3:6), he, too, angered the Hellenists who then sought to kill him (Acts 9:29). Despite his Diaspora origins, presumably similar to those of the Hellenists, it would seem that, at this stage, Paul was still committed to a more 51. Even if we assume that the distinction between the twelve and seven was first made at this early stage, it did not last for long; Stephen soon began preaching (Acts 6:8-7:60), as did Philip in Samaria (8:5-40). For a description of Philip as an evangelist, see Acts 21:8. 52. See Hengel, Between Jesus and Paul, 18-21, and Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 28-31.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

385

conservative outlook, reflective perhaps of his Pharisaic education (Acts 22:3; Gal. 1:14) and more in tune with mainstream Jerusalem church ideology. However, as we have just seen, such internal disagreements often carried over to the public realm and involved the Jerusalem authorities, particularly the high priests and the sanhedrin which they headed. The latter often adopted a negative, sometimes harsh, policy toward the Christians, starting with Jesus; confrontations between them are presented as a primary motif in the Jerusalem episodes of Acts. 53 Time and again, the leadership of the church is reported being hauled before these leaders to defend itself against charges of religious incitement and false teaching (i.e., that the true teaching, resurrection, and salvation come only through Jesus; Acts 4:2,12, 5:28). At first, what took place was little more than a public hearing (Acts 4:1-22, 5:17-42). In Stephen's case, however, matters are reported to have taken a radical change for the worse on both sides. Stephen's critique of Judaism, if indeed accurately reported, was a sharp attack on the legitimacy and etemality of the Torah and the Temple. In their present forms, God has need for neither, and as for charges of rebelliousness and blasphemy, Jews have acted in this fashion for ages, including in this very generation (Acts 7:2-53). Stephen's attack does not seem to reflect what we know ofthe Jerusalem church before or after. 54 Here we may have an instance of a Hellenist addressing several burning issues that separated his group from other Christians as well as from Jerusalem's Jewish population generally.55 Following Stephen's death, a general persecution was mounted, one that led many Jerusalem Christians, particularly-if not exclusively-the Hellenists, to flee to other parts of the country and beyond (Acts 8: 1, 11:19). However, the persecutions did not end here. In the early 40s, Agrippa reportedly took action against the local community-for reasons unknown--executing James brother of John, arresting other members of the community, and incarcerating Peter (Acts 12:1-5). Some time after, Peter left,56 and it appears that leadership of the Jerusalem church was now assumed by James brother of Jesus. 57 In any case, by the time of the Apostolic Council several years later (see below), Peter was back in Jerusalem with a rank clearly secondary to that of James (Acts 15:1-22). James remained 53. See S. Mason, "Chief Priests," 115-177. 54. Compare, however, Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews. 44-101, who presents a deconstructive analysis of the entire Stephen episode, its social context, speech, and Hellenist affiliation. 55. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that Christian objections to Torah, Temple, and purity were articulated not only by Hellenists; some Jews also critiqued these institutions and laws, as evidenced in Christian literature, e.g., Matthew, Paul, and perhaps the Gospel of Thomas. See, e.g., Saldarini, "Gospel of Matthew," 23-38. 56. It is unclear if his departure was from Jerusalem only or from Agrippa's kingdom generally. 57. See Bauckham, "James and the Jerusalem Church," 427-450.

386

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

at the head of the church for several decades, and in 62, in an episode we have referred to above, he was executed by the High Priest Ananus who took advantage of an interregnum between procurators. 58 What led the Jerusalem authorities to persecute the church time and again, a phenomenon we find with no other sect or group at the time? This persecution was probably triggered by the radical message (perceived or actual) being articulated by Christians, especially those with a Diaspora background. Stephen came from these circles, as did Paul, whose tendency to adopt extreme positions continued even after his conversion. Paul himself adopted an antinomian posture in his efforts to convert the gentiles (see below).59 Stephen, for his part, articulated a trenchant critique of Judaism, its ideas, practices, and institutions. In the course of time, many of these Diaspora-bom Christians stood at the forefront of the movement to convert gentiles, first throughout Judaea and then the Diaspora. It was Jewish Christians from Cyprus and Cyrene who came to Antioch and converted many gentiles, presumably without obliging them to follow Jewish law (Acts 11:20-24).60 However, the above does not apply to James who was charged, in the words of Josephus, with transgressing the Law; known for his punctilious Jewish observance, such a charge is indeed enigmatic.61 The rapid expansion of Diaspora Christian communities led to other issues in the Jerusalem church that involved not only policy but authority as well. In light of the successes of Paul and others, a meeting (or perhaps a series of meetings known as the Apostolic Council) was called in Jerusalem to discuss these issues. Paul himself reports that the issues discussed included donations collected for the Jerusalem communitt2 as well as a division of labor; he would be allowed to deal with gentile converts while the Jerusalem authorities would address the Jews (Gal. 2: 1-10). However, difficulties arise when trying to harmonize Paul's terse report with the Acts narrative that notes no less than five visits by Paul to the city. Each visit has been identified by one scholar or another with that described in Gal. 2, although most have agreed that the council is best placed in conjunction with Acts 15: 1-30, some time in the late 40S.63 According to Acts 15: 19-20, James 58. Ant. 20.9, 1, 199-201. Josephus notes that "those of the inhabitants of the city who were considered the most fair-minded and who were strict in observance of the law were offended at this" (ibid., 20.9, I, 20 I). We are not told who these people were, although many scholars have identified them with the Pharisees, in all or in part. 59. Compare, however, the challenging theory formulated by Gager, Reinventing Paul, whereby Paul retained his Jewish nomism throughout. 60. On other Diaspora Jews active in promoting the cause among gentiles, see Acts 13:1. 61. See Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 183-191. 62. On this practice, see Rom. 15:25; I Cor. 16:1-4; and 2 Cor. 8-9. As for Acts 11:29, it is not clear whether this was a single occurrence resulting from the famine of 48 C.E. or regular practice. 63. See Cousar, "Jerusalem, Council of," 766-768, and Hill, Hellenists and Hebrews, 107-147.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

387

is quoted as having concluded the deliberations with the following statement: "Therefore, my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the pollutions of idols and from unchastity and from what is strangled and from blood."64 Paul does not mention these legal stipulations; he only asserts that no restrictions had been placed on him. Given the differences between Galatians and Acts, no fIrm determination can be made at this point. 65 What seems to be clear in both accounts-and was probably at the crux of the dispute between Paul and the Jerusalem authorities (and other Jewish Christian critics)-is his right to convert gentiles without their having to commit themselves to the observance of the Torah, i.e., its ritual commandments.

Common Judaism in First-Century Jerusalem 66 Having discussed the practices and beliefs of the various religious groups in fIrstcentury Jerusalem, we now describe the type(s) of Judaism that commanded the loyalty and allegiance of the population at large, and not only that of one specifIc sect. 67 The term "normative Judaism" has often been used in the past to refer to Pharisaic Judaism and Jewish society as a whole. As noted, such an assumption of Pharisaic dominance can no longer be made. Archaeological discoveries, in addition to the study of fIrst-century Judaean society over the past several generations, have demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of a broad spectrum of beliefs and practices. In addition to the well-known sects (pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, Zealots, Sicarii, and Christians), Judaea and undoubtedly Jerusalem as well were inundated with religious extremists (such as the prophet Theudas), bap64. For an analysis of James'speech, see Bauckham, "James and the Jerusalem Church," 452-462. 65. For example, Hengel, Acts and the History, 115-120, prefers the Galatians report and suggests that James'speech may refer to another occasion. See also Hengel and Barrett, Conflicts and Challenges, 42-59, and Munck, Acts of the Apostles, Ixviii. Preference for the Acts account is maintained by Bauckham, "James and the Jerusalem Church," 450-475. 66. Some of the points made below have been addressed above with reference to the earlier Hasmonean era. We have tried to minimize the repetition of details, although some overlap is inevitable as the phenomena noted continued down to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70. 67. The difficulties in ascertaining the nature and parameters of popular religion in antiquity are well known, owing not least to the elitist focus of most written records. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols, suggests that the archaeological and artistic remains attest to a popular, nonrabbinic Judaism in Late Antiquity, but his particular interpretation has not won many supporters (see M. Smith, "Goodenough's 'Jewish Symbols,' " 53-66). The issue remains in dispute: Was there a separate and distinct popular religion in ancient societies, and, if so, is it retrievable by modem scholarship? See, e.g., Momigliano, Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography, 141-160 (on popular religion as viewed by ancient historians), and On Pagans, Christians, and Jews, 159-165; Brown, Cult of the Saints, 1-49; and Van Dam, Saints and Their Miracles, 3-7. See also the approaches of MacMullen, Paganism in the Roman Empire, passim, and Meeks, First Urban Christians, 1-8.

388

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

tist movements, and apocalyptic-oriented groupS.68 In addition to literary references to these types of groups, there is little question that many of the noncanonical books written at this time derived from groups with assorted ideological and halak:hic orientations. Several inscriptions from the Jerusalem area record the burial places of teachers or sages (didaskaloi) who may have been prominent religious figures in some of these groups;69 and, of course, there is Josephus' reference to Jesus as a "wise man" (aoc:po<; cMlp). 70 Thus whatever the degree of popularity enjoyed by the Pharisees, their particular beliefs and practices were only one of many approaches in vogue in the first century (and earlier as well).71 Given the fact that no one sect governed Jewish religious life, which beliefs and practices were common to most Jews and would have been subscribed to by the vast majority of the population? In dealing with basic beliefs (albeit with innumerable nuances), it may be suggested that the following tenets should be included: an exclusive allegiance to the One God of Israel, the sanctity of the Holy Land and Jerusalem, the holiness and uniqueness of the Temple, and the divine origin of the Torah.72 In terms of practice, it was the biblical injunctions, particularly those of the Torah, that commanded almost universal allegiance. Tithes, Sabbath and holiday observances, caring for the needy, and all matters concerning the Temple (sacrifices, vows, pilgrimage) were ascribed to by all Jews, in theory if not always in practice. This does not mean that there were no differences of opinion among individuals and groups on how to interpret these beliefs and apply the commandments. Many of the differences between the Pharisees and Sadducees revolved around varying interpretations of particular texts as well as the diverse strategies of bib68. As reflected in the writings of Josephus (e.g., Life 2, 11-12) as well as in a number of other works composed at the time (e.g., Assumption of Moses). See also the suggestive, though enigmatic, lists of supposedly first-century Jewish sects preserved by Justin (Dialogue with Trypho 80, 2), Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History, 4.22, 7), and Epiphanius (Panarion 16, 19,20,53). See Lieu, "Epiphanius on the Scribes and Pharisees," 509-524; Thomas, Le mouvement baptiste, passim; and Hengel, Zealots, 229-312. On prophets and prophecy in first-century Judaea, see Bienkinsopp, "Prophecy and Priesthood," 239-262, and Gray, Prophetic Figures, 112-163. 69. Frey, Corpus Inscriptionum, II:no. 1266, and perhaps nos. 1268 and 1269. 70. This reference to Jesus, known as the Testimonium Flavianum (Ant. 18.3, 3,63-64), is a complex and problematic paragraph and most likely consists of an authentic statement by the historian that was subsequently embellished by Christian writers. On the controversy surrounding this passage, see Feldman, Josephus and Modem Scholarship, 679-703. 71. A point poignantly made in 1956 by M. Smith, "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century," 67-81, that has become almost universally accepted today. See E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 47-48,448-451, and Goodblatt, "Place of the Pharisees," 12-30. See also Kraft, "Multiform Jewish Heritage," 188-199, and Rajak, Josephus, 109-112. For a dissenting opinion that upholds the earlier consensus of Pharisaic dominance, see Hengel, Pre-Christian Paul, 42-45, 131-132, and literature cited therein. 72. See, e.g., E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 47-51, who is also to be credited with the current use of the term "common." A critique of Sanders' work, at times overly severe, can be found in Hengel and Deines, "E. P. Sanders' 'Common Judaism,' " 1-70. For other formulations of the phenomenon of common Judaism, see Dunn, "Judaism in Israel," 236-258, and S. Schwartz, Imperialism and Jewish Society, 49-71.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

389

Figure 95. An aniconic mosa· ic floor from a Herodian villa in the Upper City.

lical hermeneutics. Thus, for example, with respect to the former, all Jews were committed to following the biblical directive requiring a count of fifty days from Passover to the celebration of Shavu'ot (or the Pentecost). However, not everyone agreed as to when one should commence the count: During Passover itself (Pharisees)? On the Sunday after the beginning of Passover (Sadducees)? Or on the Sunday after the Passover holiday ends (Essenes and Samaritans)T3 Regarding the issue of strategies, the sanctity of the Torah is universally acknowledged, but which interpretation ought to be considered authoritative? Who determines this authoritativeness? Moreover, what are the nature and status of such interpretations? Are they mere ad hoc decisions, or do they constitute an oral law that shares in the sanctity and permanency of the written Torah? In addition, many of the new customs of the Second Temple period became normative Jewish practices. On the one hand, some of these became extensions of biblical commandments; the use of a lulav and ethrog had become an accepted practice by this time (even though it had not been so either in Nehemiah's day or in Samaritan tradition), as did a developing family ritual on the first night of Passover.74 On the other hand, some practices emerged as a result of specific historical circumstances yet managed to gain widespread acceptance, at times owing to official support and promotion. We noted that political and social conditions as well as religious and ideological considerations under the Hasmoneans and Herod fostered the development of pilgrimages. Moreover, the increasing importance of Jerusalem at this time led to an extension of the biblical Second TIthe commandment requiring that it (or its monetary equivalent) be spent in the city. Another relatively new practice that was dramatically different from earlier times was the aniconic policy that became normative under the Hasmoneans, and remained so among Jews for about three centuries (Fig. 95). The avoidance 73. See Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism. 145-146.

74. £1. XV:498--499; Bokser, Origins o/the Seder, 14-28; and Tabori, Passover Ritual throughout the Generations, 78-92.

390

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

of images, whether two- or three-dimensional, profoundly affected Jerusalem society and distinguished this city from other Greco-Roman ones in the private and public domains. The prohibition was scrupulously observed by all sectors of the population, and we have noted a number of episodes in which the introduction of images into the city by Roman authorities caused a major stir and led to protests on the part of the city's population. Both literary and archaeological evidence are in accord on this issue. 75 The importance of purity was likewise central to Jewish society at this time, especially in and around Jerusalem,76 as evidenced by the hundreds of miqva'ot discovered in Jerusalem and its immediate environs that served purification purposes. 77 Indeed, most of the ritual pools known from this period are concentrated in greater Jerusalem (Fig. 96).78 By comparison, relatively few have been discovered in the more remote regions of Judaea, and only in significant numbers when they were connected with some sort of priestly settlement as, for instance, at Jericho or Qumran. Since the use of miqva'ot declined precipitously after 70,79 it seems most likely that the extent of the pre-70 practice was directly connected with the Temple and its purity requirements. Certainly the Temple service was the reason that the priests living in the Upper City were so punctilious in their observance of purity requirements, as the many miqva'ot found in private residences there attest. We have already noted in our discussion of the Temple (see Chapter 6) that the purity requirement for any Jew entering those precincts was scrupulously observed. It is interesting that many of the miqva'ot found in the 75. Nevertheless, several exceptions to this rule have been found in archaeological contexts. Depictions of a fish and bird were found among the remains from the Upper City, as well as a gazelle from Jason's tomb; and, of course, Josephus notes bronze statues in Herod's palace garden in Jerusalem used as spouts for fountains (War 5.4, 4, 181). In light of the thousands of other remains from Jerusalem that feature only geometric and floral decorations, or nothing at all, these figural representations are the exceptions that serve to prove the rule. Compare, however, Gutmann, "The 'Second Commandment,' " 3-14, who tries, rather unsuccessfully, to minimize the aversion to figural images in the late Second Temple period, in part by ignoring the archaeological data, and Hershkovitz, "Decorated Lamps," 43-45, who claims to have detected human facial representations on oil lamps. However, several rabbinic traditions have proven quite enigmatic in this regard. R. Elazar b. R. Zaddoq claims that every type of figural representation was to be found in Jerusalem, with the exception of human depictions (T 'Avodah Zarah 5, 2 led. Zuckennandel, 4681, and Y 'Avodah Zarah 3, I, 43c). Moreover, there are also traditions that tell of eighty-two virgins who embroidered the veils of the Temple that bore images of lions and eagles, and that these veils were at times displayed before the people (Y Sheqalim 8,4, Sib; M Sheqalim 8, 4). Such traditions appear to contradict the archaeological and literary evidence (see War 5.5, 4, 213). 76. Magen, "Jerusalem as a Center," 255-256. This greater concern for purity in the vicinity of Jerusalem finds expression in the following mishnah: "From Modi'in inwards (toward Jerusalem) (people) are deemed trustworthy concerning the use of earthenware vessels; from Modi'in outwards they are not considered trustworthy" (Hagigah 3, 5). See also Regev, "Pure Individualism," 176-202. 77. See Wright, "Jewish Ritual Baths," 190-214. 78. See Magen, "Ancient Israel's Stone Age," 48. 79. R. Reich, "Synagogue and Miqweh," 296.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

391

Figure 96. The entrance to a miqveh (ritual bath).

Jerusalem region were located in agricultural areas. It seems that the need for purity when working with produce that might find its way to the city, and especially to the Temple, offers the best explanation for the stringent purity concerns in these rural areas. 80 The use of miqva'of in and around Jerusalem sheds light on the diversity of this practice as well. In the flISt place, literary sources are replete with references to 'ammei ha-arefz who did not scrupulously observe such injunctions, and thus the more punctilious among the population distanced themselves from such people. But even among those concerned with this observance, there remained degrees of strictness. This was certainly true regarding the various sects (Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes), and within each of them as well. Bet Hillel and Bet Shammai differed on issues connected with purity,81as did various factions within the Essene community.82 No less telling in this regard are the very different types of stepped cisterns found in Jerusalem and Judaea, many of which undoubtedly served as miqva'ot (in contrast to places for washing, storing water, etc.). Almost all of those found in Jerusalem's Upper City, not to mention Qumran and Jericho, are quite different from the type featured in rabbinic literature (Mishnah and Tosefta Miqva'Of) and at Masada. It has been conduded, with much plausibility, that the different types of miqva'of reflect different purity nonns and halakhic rulings among the sects and the 80. An inscription from Masada seems to indicate that the High Priest Ananias' name was invoked to certify the purity of a vessel's contents; see Yadin and Naveh , Masada, 1:23-39, esp. 37-38. 81. On the wide range of distinctions offered by scholars regarding the differences between these two schools, see, inter alia, Schiirer, History, 11:363-367; Sonne, "Schools of Shammai and Hillel," 275-291; Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism, 59-124; Neusner, Rabbinic Traditions, III:340-352; and Ben-Shalom, School ojShammai, 9-14, 231-25\. 82. See E. P. Sanders, Judaism, 214-230, 352-360,431-443, and Jewish Law, 29-42, 184-254; Oppenheimer, 'Am Ha-Aretz. 51-66, 83-96, esp. 54: "These divergent views on the extent to which the laws of purity and impurity were to be applied occupied a central place in the differences of opinion and of approach which characterized the parties and sects in Israel in the days of the Second Temple."

392

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Figure 97. Stone vessels and a table found in the Upper City.

population at large as to what a miqveh required. For example, whereas the Pharisees stipulated that the water of a miqveh not be drawn, the Sadducees, judging by the remains from the Upper City and Qumran, did not follow such a reading.83 The use of stone vessels has often been taken as a further indication of the importance of purity in Jerusalem (Fig. 97).84 Excavation reports indicate the dramatic increase in the use of such vessels in the first century c.E.,85 and it seems to go hand in hand with the stricter observance of purity rules. Nevertheless, some reservations have been expressed regarding the connection between purity and the use of stone vessels. 86 While the greater use of stone may well be a result of, inter alia, the more efficient use of a local resource, it was probably influenced by widespread purity concerns as well. Certainty is elusive, although the coincidence of these two phenomena (the use of stone and an emphasis on purity) is likely not fortuitous. Shared belief was sometimes stretched thin by the wide variety of nuances and interpretations accorded it. This seems to have been the case, for example, with respect to eschatological beliefs. On the personal level, there is a range of concepts 83. E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law, 214-227. 84. Ben-Dov, In the Shadow, 156-160; E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law, 225-226; and Regev, "Use of Stone Vessels," 79-95. 85. Magen, "Jerusalem as a Center," 256; Cahill, "Chalk Vessel Assemblages," 231-232; Amit et aI., "Stone Vessel Workshops," 353-358. 86. For example, Cahill, "Chalk-Vessel Assemblages," 232-234, notes several reservations for the above communis opinio. For one, stone vessels have been found along with clay ones in burial contexts; why would this be so-unless they, too, were susceptible to impurity? It is not always clear why vessels were left in such contexts, and it is possible that once certain ones were abandoned, it was easiest to leave others (not susceptible to uncleanliness but not very expensive either) as well. Of more import, however, is a second claim that may be relevant to the first. If stone vessels were considered pure under all circumstances, why do we not find them in places where the inhabitants were punctilious in their purity observances, such as Qumran? The answer is, probably, that not all Jews assumed this essential purity of stone; in fact, we have clear-cut evidence that stone vessels at Qumran were also susceptible to impurity (CD 12, 15).

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

393

that finds expression in the literature of the period, including resurrection of the body, immortality of the soul or spirit, as well as the outright denial of an afterlife.87 However, more complex than beliefs regarding the individual are the eschatological ideas that often surfaced on the broader social map, i.e., apocalypticism (from the Greek "to reveal"). As noted already, this term refers to a belief in the imminent end of the world accompanied by a final judgment of mankind, often in the context of a cosmic upheaval. In its literary articulation, this genre is regularly pseudepigraphical, information is usually conveyed by some angelic intermediary as a revelation of heavenly secrets, and a messianic figure and visions are frequently invoked. Sources reflecting such a religious outlook include Daniel, I Enoch, various Testaments (e.g., Abraham, Moses), and 4 Ezra 88 It seems, however, that Jerusalem was far from being a hotbed of apocalyptic ferment. The Sadducees and Pharisees together heavily influenced the city and, to a large extent, shaped its religious ambience. Neither of these groups seems to have had much to do with this type of thinking. In fact, the groups most identified with apocalyptic fervor originated or were based elsewhere. We can identify three important venues of apocalyptic activity in the first century, for the most part outside of Jerusalem: the Qumran sect; Judas the Galilean who initiated his rebellion in the year 6 somewhere in Judea, which had just come under direct Roman provincial rule; Jesus of Nazareth and the early Christians, including Pau1.89 This, of course, does not mean that there were no apocalyptically oriented people living in the city. That would be patently untrue, as the growth of the Jerusalem church demonstrates and perhaps the presence of an Essene community as well (see above). Moreover, the messianic figures who operated in Judea and the Jerusalem area in the decade or so before the revolt probably found adherents in the city itself. While the distinction between Jerusalem and greater Judea is far from absolute, it nevertheless does seem likely that there was a significant difference between the metropolis and the countryside. Given the wealth within the city, the political ties of Jerusalem's leaders to Rome, as well as the city's extensive ties to the Diaspora, there is no question that the dominant religious mode in Jerusalem was less apocalyptically oriented and more accommodating to worldly affairs than elsewhere in the country. It will be recalled that this same sort of distinction 87. In addition to the well-known dispute between the Sadducees and Pharisees in this regard (War 2.8, 14, 162-165;Ant. 18.1,3-4, 14-16; and Acts 23:7-10), other expressions of such beliefs can be found in 1 Enoch 22, 46:6, 51:1-2, and elsewhere; Jub. 23:30--31; 2 Macc. 7:9; and 2 Bar. 50:2. 88. Collins, "Apocalyptic Literature," 345-370; Stone, "Apocalyptic Literature," 383-441; and Grabbe, Introduction, 73-93; see also Neusner et aI., Judaisms and Their Messiahs, passim, and Collins, "Jerusalem and the Temple,"3-31. On the functions of prophecy in the Roman world at large in the fIrst centuries C.E., see Potter, Prophets and Emperors. 89. See Barnett, "Jewish Sign-Prophets," 679-697, and Horsley, "Popular Prophetic Movements," 3-27.

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

394

between Jerusalem and the rest of Judaea was also apparent with respect to the turmoil that erupted following Herod's death. Disturbances broke out throughout the country, only reaching Jerusalem at a later stage (see above).

Synagogues As noted in Chapter 10, the existence of a number of synagogues in Jerusalem is clearly attested in several New Testament passages. According to Acts, Paul makes the following statement upon being apprehended by the Roman authorities: "They did not find me in the Temple disputing with anyone or stirring up a crowd, neither in the synagogues nor in the city" (Acts 24:12, also 22:19, 26: 11).90 Perhaps the most important literary testimony regarding the existence of synagogues in Second Temple Jerusalem is Acts 6:9, as it notes a series of such institutions, all associated with Diaspora Jewry (see below). After describing a conflict between Greek- and Aramaic-speaking Jews in the nascent Jerusalem church (Acts 6: 1_7),91 the book goes on to note the opposition to Stephen: Full of grace and power, Stephen worked great wonders and signs among the people. And some of those from the synagogue of the Freedmen (libertini), and of the Cyreneans and of the Alexandrians, and of those from Cilicia and Asia came forward and disputed with Stephen (Acts 6:8-9).

Discussion of this passage has at times focused on the exact number of synagogues referred to, since the text itself is somewhat ambiguous. Opinions range from one or two to five. However, given what we know of the extensive Diaspora presence in the city, and the quite probable differences between the various communities,92 the last option appears the most likely.93 We have no idea exactly where these synagogues were located. The significance of the above passage is twofold. This list of Diaspora Jewish communities in Jerusalem is impressive. In contrast to Acts 2:5-11, which attests to a large and multifarious gathering "from every nation" on a festival, the quoted passage speaks of the institutionalized presence of Diaspora Jews in the city. We do not know how these synagogues functioned: Were they established at the initiative of those who settled in Jerusalem or were they sponsored (in whole or in part) 90. See also John 9:22, interpreted by many as referring to a Jerusalem synagogue. 91. Although the Greek speaks of "Hebraisti," the term probably refers to a Semitic language generally, and in this case Aramaic is far more likely. The evidence for Aramaic's widespread use in firstcentury Judaea is overwhelming; see Chapter 7 herein and Levine, Judaism and Hellenism, 72-84. 92. On the synagogues of the Diaspora communities in the first century, see Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 74-123, and Binder, Into the Temple Courts, 227-341. 93. For a summary of opinions in this regard, see Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 52-54.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

395

Figure 98. The Theodotos synagogue (see arrow) (Holyland Hotel model).

by the various Diaspora communities? It is quite possible that these communities established their own synagogues in Jerusalem, not only to serve former residents but also to tend to the needs of those compatriots visiting the city on pilgrimage. Undoubtedly, the single most concrete evidence relating to a Jerusalem synagogue is the Theodotos inscription found in the Lower City (Fig. 98). The inscription reads as follows: Theodotos, the son of Vette nos, priest and archisynagogos, son of an archisynagogos, grandson of an archisynagogos, built the synagogue for the reading of the Law (i.e., the Torah) and the study of the commandments, and a guesthouse and rooms and water installations for hosting those in need from abroad, it (i.e., the synagogue) having been founded by his fathers, the presbyters, and Simonides. 94

The inscription has been dated on palaeographic grounds to the fIrst century C.E. While this dating has been universally accepted for the last half century, it was challenged of late by Kee, who claims, on the basis of palaeographic considerations, that the inscription dates to the post-70 era, either the late second or third century.95 However, other than asserting his claim and quoting some anonymous palaeo graphic experts, Kee offers no evidence to substantiate this later dating, nor does he explain the presence of such an institution in Aelia Capitolina (the name given to Jerusalem by the emperor Hadrian) during a period in which Jews were generally banished from the city and for which there is no evidence of pilgrimage.96

94. For a detailed analysis of this inscription and a full bibliography, see Kloppenborg-Verbin, "Dating Theodotos," 243-280. 95. Kee, "Transformation of the Synagogue," 1-24, "Early Christianity in the Galilee," 4-7, "Defining the First Century C.E. Synagogue," 493-495, and "Defining the First-Century C.E. Synagogue: Problems and Progress," 7-11. 96. For critiques ofKee' s thesis, see Oster, "Supposed Anachronism," 178-208; Riesner, "Synagogues in Jerusalem," 180-187; Atkinson, "On Further Defining the First Century CE Synagogue," 491-502;

396

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

This inscription is a veritable gold mine of information. In the first place, we gain a sense of the degree of Hellenization in the city. Beginning with the language of the inscription, Greek, all the proper names listed are of Greek or Roman origin (Theodotos, Vettenos, Simonides), as are the titles of the functionaries (archisynagogos, presbyter) and the name of the building (synagogue, from the Greek synagoge). In fact, since Vettenos is a Latin name for one of Rome's districts, it has been generally assumed that the founders were Jews who hailed from that city. These may have been descendants of those taken captive by Pompey in 63 B.C.E. The concluding phrase of the Theodotos inscription has been taken to refer to the foundation of this particular synagogue building either several generations earlier by Theodotos' ancestors, the elders, and Simonides, or to the original congregation in Rome. Whether the earlier institution, dating to the fIrst century B.C.E., was in Jerusalem or Rome is unclear, although given the time frame involved it may conceivably have been the latter. In that case, the Jerusalem synagogue referred to by the inscription would have been, in effect, the continuation of an earlier institution that was reestablished to host visitors to the city as well as serve the Roman-Jewish community of Jerusalem. Another point of interest is the nature of this synagogue's leadership. The term archisynagogos was used in the pagan world to indicate the leader of an association, and in the course of time it became the primary title for the head of a synagogue.97 The fact that the leadership in this institution seems to have been a family affair over three generations is not an uncommon phenomenon in this period. The Hasmonean and Herodian dynasties-not to mention the high priestly office down to the time of Herod, and in a somewhat different form in the fIrst century-are cases in point. From the fIrst century, we know of the family of Judas the Galilean, founder of the Fourth Philosophy (or Sicarn), and the descendants of Hillel, who occupied the office of Patriarchate for over three hundred years starting in the late fIrst century.98 Moreover, the fact that this synagogue was founded and run by a family of priests is most interesting. In the past, an erroneous distinction has often been made between Temple priests and synagogue Pharisees. However, the Pharisees were not especially involved in the Second Temple synagogue nor did this institution necessarily reflect their ideology and practice.99 In fact, as we have seen, priests played a central role in Jerusalem affairs, in the Qumran community, and presumably elsevan der Horst, "Was the Synagogue?" 18-23; Kloppenborg-Verbin, "Dating Theodotos," 243-280; and Levine, "First-Century Synagogue." 97. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 390-402. 98. See Urbach, "Class-Status and Leadership," 43-45. 99. Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 37-38, and Cohen, "Were Pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders?" 89-105.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

397

where. Despite the negative assessments of their leadership, especially in rabbinic sources, there is every reason to believe that they constituted the social and religious leadership of many Jewish communities at this time. Philo's reference to a priest elucidating the Torah portion in the Sabbath service aptly illustrates this reality.loo The number of buildings referred to in this inscription is difficult to assess. Does it speak of a single, all-inclusive structure resembling those from later periods at Dura, Stobi, or Hammam Lif, or was it a complex of separate buildings? Or perhaps there were two separate buildings, one for worship and one for lodging? It is conceivable, though unlikely in light of the functions listed, that there were even more rooms involved (and perhaps even an additional structure). An answer depends in part on how we understand the function of the water installations in this complex.101 Whom did they serve? If they were intended only to service the needs of the lodgers, then they may have been part of the hostel itself. If, however, they were used for ritual and purification purposes and were open to the general public, as were the miqva'ot adjacent to the southern Temple entrance, then there may have been yet another structure. Of major significance are the religious activities explicitly associated with this synagogue and those that are omitted. The reading of the Torah is noted first, reflecting the centrality of this practice in first-century synagogues. All contemporary sources-Philo, Josephus, Acts, and rabbinic literature-speak of the Torah reading as the core of synagogue worship.102 Thus it is eminently clear that it was the Torah-reading ceremony and its ancillary activities-reading from the Prophets (haftarah), sermon, and translations (targum)-that constituted the warp and woof of synagogue liturgy. What is missing, of course, is any reference to communal prayer in the synagogue.103 Indeed, this form of worship is generally missing from all descriptions of synagogue Sabbath worship in pre-70 Judaea. We may conclude, therefore, that institutionalized communal prayer in Judaea was a product of the post-Destruction era. Thus the Theodotos inscription constitutes an important piece of evidence on what transpired in the first-century synagogue on Sabbaths and holidays. Rabbinic tradition also knows of first-century Jerusalem synagogues. A toseftan tradition,l04 quoted later on by both talmuds,1Os relates that a synagogue 100. Hypothetica 7, 11. 101. See R. Reich, "Synagogue and Miqweh," 291-292. 102. See Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 135-142. 103. The only exceptions to the absence of regular communal prayer can be found at Qumran and among the officiating priests at the Temple. In both these instances, there was a fixed prayer liturgy. On this issue, see Levine, Ancient Synagogue, 151-158. 104. T Megillah 2, 17 (ed. Lieberman, 352-353). 105. Y Megillah 3, 1, 73d, and B Megillah 26a, which reads 'Tarsian" for "Alexandrian."

398

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

of Alexandrian Jews located in Jerusalem was purchased by R. Elazar b. R. Zaddoq and used for private purposes. Since this source appears in a relatively early rabbinic compilation dealing with laws and practices pertaining to the synagogue, many of which are clearly of older vintage, the probability of its historical accuracy is great. Moreover, the reality reflected in this tradition, i.e., of a Diaspora synagogue in first-century Jerusalem, is corroborated in the other sources noted above. Several other rabbinic sources record the number of synagogues in Jerusalem. One oft-cited tradition speaks of 480; another, probably corrupt reading, records 460; and yet another notes 394 (see Chapter 9). These numbers-all appearing in later amoraic compilations-are incredibly exaggerated and, in one case at least, undoubtedly symbolic (viz., the number 480). Truth to tell, the unusual figure of 394 appearing in the Babylonian Talmud is baffling. 106 What these traditions do evidence, however, is the assumption by later generations that late Second Temple Jerusalem abounded in such institutions. More than that, however, we cannot say.107 Finally, there is no reason to believe that the Jerusalem synagogues were in any way in competition with the Temple, either in Judaea generally or in Jerusalem proper. lOS The Second Temple period Judaean synagogue evolved primarily as a communal institution with a liturgical component that featured the reading and study of a sacred teXt. 109 Its claim to sanctity would have been negligible, if at all. Thus, far from viewing the synagogue as a substitute for the Temple, its role was definitely complementary. In the Jerusalem setting, the social-communal component was enhanced, given the fact that many of these institutions served the needs of pilgrims or Diaspora communities residing in the city.

In summing up the social and religious character of Jerusalem, we are confronted by an intriguing picture of hierarchy and diversity, definitiveness and fluidity, commonality and divisiveness. In some ways, Jerusalem had the appearance of a hierarchical, well-defined city. Unquestionably, the Temple set the tone for the city, not only geographically but politically, socially, economically, and religiously as well. The high priests were in many respects the city's leaders, and the Temple's needs determined much of the city's economy. Religiously

106. On the tendency in rabbinic literature to exaggerate Second Temple period data, see the appendix to Chapter 9 herein. 107. For other rabbinic sources relating to the pre-70 Jerusalem synagogues, see Levine, Ancient Synagogue' 56-58. 108. Ibid., 37-38. 109. The reference to study taking place within the confines of the synagogue is intriguing. However, there is no way of ascertaining if it refers to adults or children, weekdays or only the Sabbath. A similar conundrum emerges in a later Babylonian tradition (B Bava Batra 21a) that attributes the establishment of an elementary school system throughout Judaea to the High Priest Joshua b. Gamla.

RELIGIOUS AMBIENCE

399

speaking, the Temple defined the city's character, the Jewish Sabbath and holidays set its rhythm, and Temple-related customs its behavioral code. Yet, within Jerusalem's hierarchical ambience, the city's inhabitants found much room to maneuver, adapt, refine, and even create independent social and religious frameworks. Part of this was due to the fact that a significant part of Jerusalem's cultural profile was fashioned outside the Temple by a nonpriestly agenda. Herod had reshaped the city, an urban aristocracy played a vital role, Greco-Roman culture had its impact in myriad ways, and Diaspora Jewry was active in city affairs in every dimension. liD Given the composite nature of this society, the Temple's influence and the image of religious uniformity must be measured accordingly. The religious arena had been in a state of creativity and ferment-sometimes more and sometimes less---ever since Hasmonean times. Persecution (under Antiochus), political independence and its resultant internal conflicts, Hellenization, urbanization, Roman rule with its many benefits and burdens, tensions with neighbors, and internal socioeconomic issues, when taken together, had an unsettling effect. As a result, some people were driven to new (and, at times, radical) social, political, and religious agendas. Yet, even with all this diversity, the Jerusalem religious establishment continued to wield an enormous degree of religious authority, not only in the city itself but throughout Judaea and the Diaspora. The fact that many literary sources attack the Temple and its leadership should not completely dominate our assessment of the first-century Jerusalem religious scene. Whether it be the contemporary Qumran scrolls, the somewhat later New Testament material, or the even later rabbinic corpus, all criticize the Temple, its cult, and its leadership. But, at the same time, it should be recognized that they are also very tendentious sources, the purpose and in some cases raison d' etre of which are to offer a religious alternative to the Jerusalem establishment. One has only to look beyond these overt polemics of several competing religious elites to realize that a very different sort of perspective was probably pervasive among the vast majority of the people. For instance, while some New Testament traditions reflect a degree of hostility toward Jerusalem institutions, many affirm the generally acknowledged power and authority of Jerusalem's religious leaders and the Temple in the eyes of Judaean and Diaspora Jews alike. As noted, according to Acts, the Jerusalem high priest presumably held a position of authority and respect among the Jews of Damascus, 110. It is wise to remember how little we actually know of the city's workings, even with the relatively sizable amount of material at our disposal. Within the religious-cultural realm, the reality of the period was undoubtedly much more complex than we can imagine. Such caution is strengthened by the fact that several ossuaries have been found referring to teachers or sages (didaskaloi) bearing names such as Theodotion <1,'u,n) and Theomnas (9EOIlVU~), neither of whom are known from the literary sources; see Frey, Corpus lnscriptionum, I1:nos. 1266, 1269, as well as no. 1268.

400

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

since Paul asked him for letters (perhaps of introduction) that would enable him to undertake the persecution of Christians in that city (Acts 9: 1-2). Similarly, when Paul reached Rome, the leadership of the Jewish community there was hesitant at first to talk, having received no letter of introduction from Judaea (Acts 28: 17-22). The allegiance of the Jews to the Temple as expressed in the mass pilgrimages and donations of vast amounts of money is enough to confrrm the unrivaled preeminence of this institution in Jewish life.

401

Chapter 12

The Destruction of Jerusalem (66-70 c.E.)

Causes of the Revolt Ancient sources alone confirm that there is no dearth of speculation regarding the causes for the outbreak of the revolt against Rome in 66 C.E. Josephus reports that those fundamentally responsible were a small band of irresponsible zealots who perpetrated murders, robberies, arson, and other brutal acts.' However, he also notes2 that the outbreak of the hostilities was linked to the long-standing tension between the Jews and non-Jews of greater Judaea that came to a head in Caesarea, where Jews confronted Greeks over the issue of isopoliteia (civic rights).3 Elsewhere, Josephus blames the corrupt and greedy Roman procurators, especially Plorus, for provoking violent Jewish reactions. 4 Tacitus likewise intimates that much of the blame for the outbreak of the fighting should be placed on the procurators Felix and Plorus,s while rabbinic literature generally dwells on moral, religious, social, and economic issues as the driving forces that led to the revolt. 6 1. War 1.4.10; 1.11,27; 7.8,1,253-255, and Ant. 18.1,1,6--10; and elsewhere.

2. War 2.14, 4, 284-285.

3. See Levine, "Jewish-Greek Conflict," 381-397. 4. War 2.14, 6, 293-294; 9, 305-308; and elsewhere. For an analysis of Josephus' presentations of the causes of the war, see Bilde, "Causes of the Jewish War," 179-202. Other than these major factors, Josephus chronicles sporadic religious "deviations" that made the Jews liable to divine punishment; see Ant. 15.8, 1,267; 20.9, 6, 218. Elsewhere he notes the disastrous effects of internal strife; see War 5.6, 1,257, and Ant. 18.1, 1,8. For a similar explanation regarding the original Roman conquest of Judaea in the first century B.C.E., see Ant. 14.4, 5, 77-78. See also Aberbach and Aberbach, Roman-Jewish Wars, 33-82. 5. Histories, 5.9,3-10, 1 (GLAJJ, II: 29). M. Stem (GLAJJ, II: 53) summarizes the Roman historian's attitude thus: "Tacitus does not attribute the revolt directly to the rebellious nature of the Jews, and his remarks about such governors as Felix and Florus imply that these had a large share of the responsibility for causing the war."

6. T Menahot 13, 22 (ed. Zuckermandel, 533-534), and B Gittin 55b--56a. A similar theological rationale can be found in Josephus as well; see War 4.5, 2, 318-325, and Ant. 20.8,5, 164-166.

402

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

Given this array of options in our primary sources, modem historians have focused on these and on other causes as well. Frequently mentioned are the socioeconomic factors that contributed to the breakdown of authority in Jerusalem and to the fact that the masses appear to have willingly-even enthusiasticallyjoined the revolt at its outset,? In addition to the heavy taxes imposed by the procurators, especially in the fmal years before the outbreak ofhostilities,8 famine and the unproductivity of the land may well have contributed to the proliferation of brigandage in the 50s and 6Os. 9 The economic factor was certainly at play immediately after the outbreak of the revolt, when the Sicarii, together with the crowds in Jerusalem, burned the city's archives that contained the population's debt records. \0 Finally, the wealth from Temple-related donations that had accumulated in Jerusalem intensified the social polarization not only within the priestly class but also within the Jewish community as a whole. In this vein, it has been claimed that it was the impoverishment of the urban lower classes that sparked the fire of rebellion. 11 Street fights between high priestly and aristocratic families, and even within these circles, contributed greatly to the undermining of social stability. The fact that during the war Simon bar Giora had so much success in mobilizing slaves and others without rights, freeing the former and granting privileges to the latter, attests to the degree of inequality that prevailed at the time. Picking up on a comment by Josephus in War, 12 a number of scholars have emphasized the deteriorating relations between the Jewish and non-Jewish populations of Judaea as a primary-and irresolvable-factor that contributed to the outbreak of hostilities.13 Such disputes already existed from Hasmonean times (if not earlier), but the situation was exacerbated in the first century by the close association of the gentile population with Roman rule. Moreover, the fact that most of the Roman auxiliary forces stationed in Judaea were made up of residents of the non-Jewish cities (particularly Caesarea and Sebaste) only heightened tensions with the local Jewish population. 14 The outbreak of violence between the Jews and their neighbors throughout the region at the outset of the revolt attests to the depth of this hatred. IS 7. Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 80-82.

8. War 2.14. 1,273. 9. Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 52-87. See also Applebaum, "Judaea as a Roman Province," 355-396. On the famines that struck first-century Judaea (including one around the year 49 or 60, presumably attested to in Ant. 3.15,3,320), see Rajak, Josephus, 124-125. 10. War 2.17, 6, 427. 11. For a survey of this approach, bibliographical references, and a cogent critique, see Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 45-50. 12. War 2.14, 4, 284-285. 13. Rappaport, "Jewish-Pagan Relations," 81-95.

14. Ant. 19.9,2,365-366; see also War 2.13, 7, 268. 15. War 2.18, 1-6,457-486.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM (66-70 C.E.)

403

Another approach seeks to highlight the eschatological factor.16 One claim often made, based primarily on the Jesus and Qumran material, is that large sectors of the Jewish community lived in expectation of the coming of the Messiah and the concomitant realization of the end of days. Some scholars have given this messianic impulse a political twist, and regarded active opposition to Roman rule as a necessary stage in the process of redemption (e.g., the Sicarii or Fourth Philosophy).17 These political expressions of Jewish apocalyptic hopes may have drawn their inspiration from the successful Hasmonean revolt, the resultant period of independence, and of the perception of Israel's uniqueness among the nations. 18 This messianism also found expression in the proliferation of false prophets toward the middle of the fIrst century C.E. 19 The many theories regarding the causes of the revolt clearly indicate the wellnigh impossible task of fmding anyone, clear-cut, factor. The various primary sources that relate to this event offer evidence in support of each conjecture, and there can be no doubt that the revolt was a complex phenomenon; its outbreak could have resulted from any or all of the above causes, and the precise ingredients probably differed among various groups and individuals. In this sense, this revolt was far different from that of the Maccabees some two centuries earlier. Then the casus belli was crystal clear: Antiochus IV had defIled the Temple, prohibited Jewish religious practices, and forced Jews to worship idols. Even the Bar-Kokhba revolt of 132 C.E. seems to have had but one or two primary, well-defmed causes.20 In both of the above cases, that of the Maccabees earlier and of Bar-Kokhba later on, the Jewish effort boasted a unifIed leadership. In 66, however, the Jews were sorely divided. In the first place, there were many who opposed the rebellion while others were quite ambivalent in their support. If there is any truth to Josephus' claim that he himself had pro-Roman sympathies,21 then one might reasonably conclude that others within the leading class also sought to temper the revolutionary frenzy and find avenues of possible compromise with the Romans. 22 Moreover, the split between the leadership of the elite strata of Jerusalem society 16. See Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 170-173. 17. Hengel, Zealots, 229-312. 18. Farmer, Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus, passim. 19. Hengel, Zealots, 229-245; Horsley and Hanson, Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs, 135-189; and Barnett, "Jewish Sign-Prophets," 679-697. 20. Schiirer, History, 1:534-557; Mantel, "Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt," 224-242, 274-296; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 428-466; Isaac, "Cassius Dio on the Revolt," 68-76; and Isaac and Oppenheimer, "Revolt of Bar Kokhba," 33-60. 21. Life 4-5,17-23; 7, 28-29; 13,72; 14,77-78; 35,175-176. 22. See, e.g., War 2.14, 8, 301-16, 2, 338; 2.17, 3, 411-17, 6, 429. See Schiirer, History, 1:485-491; Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 150-159; and Gabba, "Social, Economic, and Political History," 148-156. Compare, however, Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 152-160; Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 27-45.

404

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

and the more extreme revolutionaries who poured into the city also underscored the cleavages within Jewish ranks. The very fact that at the height of the revolt in 69-70 there were five separate factions fighting one another in the streets of the city proves conclusively that this military effort lacked a single leadership with any sort of basic coordination and forethought, and hence any single common cause. The upshot of this realization should serve to warn us against trying to find a single cause for these hostilities. Even within specific groups, a wide range of opinions and positions can be detected. For example, R. Simon b. Gamaliel and R. Yohanan b. Zakkai both belonged to the Pharisaic school but their political philosophies (especially their attitude to the war), if later rabbinic tradition is any indication, were apparently quite different. While the former was an active participant in the war efforts, at least during the first stages of the conflict, the latter appears to have been much less committed to the cause, and at one point left the city and found asylum with the Romans. 23 If Alon24 is correct, many ofR. Yohanan's colleagues subsequently boycotted him in Yavneh, presumably because they resented this move. Given the complex nature of the causes for the revolt and the apparent lack of social, economic, and ideological unity among its major players, we can only conclude that the gradual-and at times not so gradual-accumulation of grievances and conflict brought enough Jerusalemites to support (actively or passively) the desire for revolt. The one ingredient that was missing from the Jerusalem scene, as we have already noted, was the presence of strong political leaders in the city who might have addressed the most burning issues and channeled the increasing tension in less-confrontational directions. Thus any political mechanism that might have ameliorated or resolved the crisis simply did not exist.

Jerusalem during the Revolt (66-70 C.E.) The breakdown of civil order in Jerusalem, marking the beginning of the revolt, proceeded quickly in the summer to fall of 66 C.E.: The clashes with Florus, Agrippa's attempt to change the course of events with his speech, the cessation of the sacrifice for the welfare of the emperor, the capture of Masada from the Romans by the Sicarii, and the burning of the house of Ananias the high priest, the palaces of Agrippa and Berenice, and the city's archives25 all created a setting in which the call for revolt was afait accompli. The ecstatic reaction to the 23. Alon, Jews, Judaism, 269-313; Neusner, Development of a Legend, 228-234; and Schafer, "Die Flucht Iohanan b. Zakkais," 44-82. 24. Alon, Jews, Judaism, 314-343. 25. War 2.14, 6, 293-17, 6, 429.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM (66-70 C.E.)

405

surprise rout of Cestius Gallus and his troops, who had suddenly aborted their planned attack of the city and began retreating via Bet Horon, infused many Jerusalernites with the notion that victory may indeed be within their grasp and that their efforts had divine sanction.26 The city's traditionalleadership---i.e., the upper classes, and particularly the priests27-now assumed the reins of power and appointed regional commanders, such as Josephus in the Galilee.28 The coming months, the winter of 66--67, were spent in completing and fortifying the Third Wall, making weapons, training young recruits, and formulating plans for battle.29 The next two years (67-68 C.E.) witnessed a constant stream of refugees into the city following the systematic Roman conquest of the Galilee, Peraea (Transjordan), and large parts of Judea Jerusalem and its immediate environs remained the only place governed by Jews. These military defeats undermined the authority of the ruling circles in Jerusalem, thus creating the setting for more radical groups to take over. Among the multitudes arriving were more extreme leaders and groups, such as the Zealots, the Idumaeans, John of Gischala and his supporters, and Simon bar Giora who, over the course of time, overthrew the established government.3D The Sicarii had been driven from the city and were occupying Masada; they were no longer a factor in Jerusalem. Two types of actions characterized these years. One was a series of attacks directed at the established leaders of the city, and the other was the incessant infighting among the extreme factions. In 68-69, John of Gischala, the Zealots, and the Idumaeans together carried out a "purge" among the population in general and its moderate leaders in particular.3! After a frenzy of pillaging and murder that included members of the royal family, the priesthood, generals appointed by the old guard, and seventy eminent men of the nobility, the rebels culminated their purge with the execution of the High Priest Ananus, who had dared to oppose their takeover of the Temple. 32 Josephus especially bemoans this murder and views it as sealing the fate of the city: "I should not be wrong in saying that the 26. Ibid., 2.18, 9, 499-19, 9, 555. 27. Goodblatt, "Priestly Ideologies," 225-249. 28. War 2.20, 3, 562-564, 568. 29. Ibid., 2.22, 1,648-649. See Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 63-76. 30. On these various groups, see War 7.8, I, 259-274. A fundamental difference of opinion exists among scholars as to whether these groups should be viewed as one overall movement incorporating various nuances and constituencies or very different groups having little in common except for a basic opposition to Roman rule. The former position is held by Hengel, Zealots, 313-376, and the latter by M. Smith, "Zealots and Sicarii," 1-19, and Rhoads, Israel in Revolution, 94-149. 31. These events are described in vivid detail by Josephus in War 4.3-6, 121-388. See Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 85-114. 32. War 4.5, 2, 314-325.

406

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

capture of the city began with the death of Ananus; and that the overthrow of the walls and the downfall of the Jewish state dated from the day on which the Jews beheld their high priest, the captain of their salvation, butchered in the heart of Jerusalem."33 This alliance of revolutionary factions fell apart soon thereafter. Some Idumaeans left the city, according to Josephus (perhaps tendentiously) in disgust over the atrocities perpetrated there, while John broke with the Zealots (at least temporarily). By the spring of 69, John and the Zealots held the Temple, while the Idumaeans, the remnants of the former leadership of the city, and many other Jerusalemites besieged them. Since the latter realized that they would not be able to capture the Temple with the forces at hand, they sought outside help---a measure that led to more heightened tensions in the city. Even with Simon bar Giora joining the Idumaeans and others, these forces were unable to dislodge John and the Zealots from the Temple area. This struggle lasted for more than a year. The Zealots ensconced themselves inside the Temple, John of Gischala in its outer courts, and Simon bar Giora, the rebels from Jerusalem, and the Idumaeans in the Upper and Lower Cities. Destruction, murder, and robbery became the order of the day throughout the city. 34 This internecine strife could have continued unabated for a long time since the rebels did not have to contend with Roman forces for nearly two years. Having encircled Jerusalem already in the spring of 68 and being in the advanced stages of preparation for the final siege of the city, Vespasian brought hostilities to a halt for an entire year (68--69) following Nero's death. However, one by one, the contenders to the imperial throne were replaced; the entire year is known as the Year of the Four Emperors.35 Vespasian awaited orders from the new ruler, and finally, in July 69, he himself was declared emperor by his troops in Alexandria. By the time Vespasian had secured the office and appointed his son Titus to replace him, winter was on the horizon and the final attack was postponed until the spring of 70.

The Siege and Fall of the City In the spring of 70, Titus laid siege to Jerusalem, having marshaled four full legions. They were joined by the Twelfth Legion (Fulminata), which had suffered severely under Cestius Gallus in 66, as well as by thousands of soldiers from legions stationed in Egypt. 36 By this time, leadership of the rebels was in the hands 33. Ibid., 4.5, 2, 318. 34. Ibid., 4.9, 10,556-5.10,4,445. 35. See Stevenson, "Year of the Four Emperors," 808-839. 36. For a detailed discussion of the siege, see Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 115-161.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM (66-70 C.E.)

407

of Simon bar Giora. According to Josephus, he himself commanded almost half the fighters in the city (10,000 of the 23,400). The Idumaeans numbered 5,000 men; John of Gischala, 6,000; and the Zealots, 2,400.37 As noted, these factions had battled one another on and off for several years, and a semblance of unity developed among them only when Titus appeared at the city's gates. Simon bar Giora was in command in the Upper City and in most parts of the Lower City, whereas John of Gischala, having overcome the Zealots, had charge of the Temple Mount, including the Antonia fortress. 38 The rebels successfully attacked the Romans on several occasions, temporarily gaining the upper hand by surprising the soldiers of the Tenth Legion (Fretensis) when the latter were erecting fortifications on the Mount of Olives. 39 Taking advantage of the fact that the Romans were scattered in small groups and unarmed at the time, the rebels attacked fiercely and almost triumphed in battle; only the personal intervention of Titus saved his soldiers from a humiliating defeat. Quickly recovering, the Romans forced the Jews to withdraw. 40 At first, Titus concentrated his attack at the northwestern part of the city, north of the Hippicus tower and opposite the tomb of John Hyrcanus. The Jews again made desperate attempts to bum the Romans' siege machines, but without success. After fifteen days the Roman battering ram broke through the Third Wall, and the most recently enclosed neighborhood of the city, Bezetha, fell to the besiegers; this was in the month of Iyar (April-May). The rebels then withdrew to the confines of the Second Wal1. 41 Titus now hastened to attack the middle section of the Second Wall, as far as possible from the defenders of the Antonia fortress to the east and from those of the three towers beside Herod's palace to the southwest After a five-day siege, the Romans succeeded in breaking through the Second Wall near the commercial area of the city. However, instead of widening the breach in the wall and creating a broader area in which to maneuver, they came in through a narrow opening and found themselves trapped in the twisting lanes of the city. The Jews, who were more mobile (being less encumbered by heavy equipment) and, at the same time, more familiar with the city than the Romans, inflicted heavy losses and forced them to retreat. Four days later, the Romans renewed their attack, and after destroying a large part of the wall they captured this part of the city.42 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42.

War 5.6,1,248-250. Ibid., 5.3, 1,99-105, and Tacitus, Histories 5.12, 4 (GLAJJ, II: 30-31). War 5.2, 1--6,47-97. Ibid., 5.2, 4-5, 71-97. Ibid., 5.7, 2, 299-302. Ibid., 5.7, 3, 303-8, 2, 347.

408

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

At this point, Titus adopted two parallel strategies; he began building ramparts to facilitate his attack on the Antonia fortress and on the Upper City. At the same time, he paraded his army in full battle array before the walls of the city and then paid them their wages in full sight of the besieged. According to Josephus, this demonstration of power had the desired effect, causing many to despair of their plight and what awaited them. 43 Titus urged the population to surrender, using Josephus to convey this message to his fellow countrymen. The latter then embarked on a long discourse, at first claiming that God was now on the side of the Romans, that the fate of the city was sealed, and that Titus was interested in true peace. Josephus tried to prove, through a comprehensive historical survey, that only God was capable of helping the people extricate themselves from dire straits in the past and present, but due to the hardness of their hearts during the war they should no longer expect divine mercy.44 The Romans used yet another means of persuasion. Many of those who had attempted to flee the besieged city were caught and either tortured or crucified, while others were sent back to the city with their hands amputated. 45 The most brutal of all were the Syrian and Nabataean soldiers, who ripped open the abdomens of those who were fleeing on the pretext that they were looking for valuables that the escapees had swallowed. 46 At the same time, the Romans also erected a circumvallation wall around the city to prevent escape outside and the smuggling of supplies inside. 47 The acts of cruelty outside the walls were no less gruesome than those within. Even assuming a great deal of exaggeration on the part of Josephus, which, as we have had occasion to note, was part and parcel ofthe historian's craft, the suffering and cruelty were undoubtedly of enormous proportions. To limit the number of refugees, the gangs inside the city would attack everyone leaving or kill members of the families of those who had managed to escape. Searches for food were conducted in the homes of the wealthy, often accompanied by unbearable torture. 48 By May, the Romans had decided to concentrate their forces on the Antonia in the hopes of breaching its walls, thereby gaining access to the Temple Mount. After completing the earthworks and siege works, an investment of nearly three weeks, the Romans mounted a full-scale attack. Fierce fighting ensued for a 43. Ibid., 5.9,1-2, 348-36l. 44. Ibid., 5.9, 3-4, 361-419. 45. Ibid., 5.11, 1-2,446-459. 46. Ibid., 5.l3, 4-5, 548-56l. 47. Ibid., 5.12,1-2, 499-51l. 48. Ibid., 5.10, 2-4, 424-441; 12,3, 512-l3, 1,533.

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM (66-70 C.E.)

409

number of days, but eventually they were victorious and proceeded to destroy the Antonia. 49 On the very day that the Antonia was demolished, the daily sacrifices in the Temple ceased for want of sacrificial lambs, a development that brought much consternation to the Jews. 50 Failing again in his efforts to convince them to surrender,5! Titus resumed the offensive. After the Romans' repeated attempts at dislodging the stones of the wall of the Temple did not succeed, they set fire to its gates and porticoes. Gradually, the Jews withdrew to the inner courtyard of the Temple. It was then that one of the most controversial events of the war took place. Titus convened his top commanders to discuss the fate of the Temple building. Against their advice, Josephus maintains, Titus decided that the Temple should not be destroyed, so that it could continue to bring glory to the Roman Empire. Nevertheless, there is reason to doubt the reliability of this report. Sulpicius Severns, a fourth-century historian who apparently drew his information from Tacitus, relates that it was, in fact, Titus himself who decided to destroy the Temple: It is said that Titus summoned his council, and before taking action consulted it whether he should overthrow a sanctuary of such workmanship, since it seemed to many that a sacred building, one more remarkable than any other human work, should not be destroyed. For if preserved it would testify to the moderation of the Romans, while if demolished it would be a perpetual sign of cruelty. On the other hand, others, and Titus himself, expressed their opinion that the Temple should be destroyed without delay, in order that the religion of the Jews and Christians would be more completely exterminated. 52

There is much to be said for this latter version. Vespasian, for instance, had little compunction in destroying the Jewish temple of Onias at Leontopolis in Egypt in 73 C.E. for much the same reason. 53 Moreover, since destroying a temple was considered a sacrilege in the ancient world, Josephus may well have wanted to help his benefactor Titus rid himself of any guilt. Thus, even though we have no hard evidence that might help us determine whether Titus was really 49. Ibid., 6.1, 1-8, 1-93. See also, Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 162-171.

50. War 6.2, 1,93-95. 51. Josephus returns to this theme on a number of occasions throughout his account of the revolt, namely that Titus sought every opportunity to conclude the hostilities peacefully, showing clemency on a number of occasions (e.g., War 3.10,5,501; 4.2, 2, 92-96; 5.8, 1,334). This may well be part of his apologetic for his Roman patrons. In contrast, Sulpicius Severus reports that, in the end, the Romans gave the Jews no opportunity to sue for peace or to surrender (GLAJJ, II: 64). For an even more glaring contradiction between these two historians, see below. 52. Chronica II:30, 3, 6, 7 (GLAJJ, II:64). 53. War 7.10,2,421: "The emperor, suspicious of the interminable tendency of the Jews to revolution, and fearing that they might again collect together in force and draw others away with them, ordered Lupus to demolish the Jewish temple in the so-called district of Onias."

410

THE FIRST CENTURY C.E.

the one who ordered the destruction or if the hand of chance was involved and one of his soldiers threw a torch at the building in the heat of battle, the fonner alternative appears most likely. 54 According to Josephus, the Temple was destroyed on the tenth of Av, which is the same day that the First Temple was destroyed by the Babylonians according to Jer. 52:12-13. Note, however, that 2 Kings 25:8-10 dates the destruction to the seventh of Av, and later rabbinic tradition reached a compromise and commemorated these catastrophes on the ninth of the month. 55 With the Temple in flames and its courtyards in tunnoil, the Romans reportedly robbed and killed men, women, children, priests, and the elderly. When about six thousand Jews, mostly women and children, hid in one of the porticoes of the Temple Mount, the Romans set fIre to this structure, killing everyone inside. 56 Another month was required for the Romans to complete the destruction of the entire city, which by that time meant the Upper City. 57 Rejecting the tenns demanded by Simon bar Giora and John of Gischala, Titus had much of the city, already in his hands, razed to the ground: the archives, the council building, the Lower City including Queen Helena's palace, along with houses and streets.58 On the twentieth of that month, the Romans commenced the construction of the necessary siege works, primarily earth embankments, an undertaking that required several weeks. As they were nearing the end, the Romans introduced siege engines and the Upper City quickly fell; by the eighth of Elul, the city was completely subdued. 59 Josephus tells of 1.1 million people who died in the siege and some 97,000 who were taken prisoner. 6o Tacitus, on the other hand, notes that the number of dead was 600,000,61 but both these figures are greatly exaggerated. The Romans reportedly had mobilized some 60,000 soldiers for this mission, a number unparalleled in similar circumstances. The duration of the siege-more than five months-was unprecedented as well. A sense of the magnanimity of the destruction and its human price is reflected in a number of archaeological finds that illustrate Jerusalem's fInal days. The extent of the destruction can be seen today in the excavation remains in the south-

54. See Schlirer, History, 1:506-507 n. 115; Alon, Jews, Judaism, 252-268; Smallwood, Jews under Roman Rule, 325-326; and GLAJJ, II: 65-67. On the preference for Josephus' account, see Rajak, Josephus, 206-211. 55. M Ta'anit4, 6. 56. War 6.5, 1-2,271-285. 57. See Price, Jerusalem under Siege, 171-174. 58. War 6.6,2-3, 323-355. 59. Ibid., 6.8, 1,374--408.

60. Ibid., 6.9, 3, 420. 61. Histories 5.13, 3 (GLAJJ, II: 31).

411

THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM (66-70 C.E.)

Figure 99. Piles of Herodian stones that were

Figure 100. The remains of a woman's

once part of the Temple Mount enclosure

arm and hand found in the debris of the

found in situ on a paved street.

Upper City.

western comer of the Temple Mount, where an enormous pile of huge stones had fallen onto the street below (Fig. 99).62The city's final moments are dramatically evidenced in the Burnt House of the Upper City, where remnants of a severe fire were found.63 Layers of ash and soot covered the walls, furniture, and belongings in the house. Especially poignant are the bones of a hand and the lower arm of a young woman found beside a kitchen wall (Fig. 100).64 So ended the revolt of the Jews and the Roman siege of Jerusalem. 62. Ben-Dov, In the Shadow, 87-93, 109; R. Reich and Billig, "Excavations near the Temple Mount," 348-349. 63 . Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem, 120-139. 64. Ibid., 137, describes the moment of discovery as follows: A unique find came to light near the doorway on the east. where the wall was destroyed more than at any other spot. Leaning against the preserved fragment of the wall were the skeletal remains of the lower arm and hand of a human being, with the fingers still attached. The hand was spread out, grasping at a step. Dr. B. Ahrensburg, who examined the remains, determined that they were of a woman in her early twenties. The associations conjured up by this spectacle were rather frightful. We could visualize a young woman working in the kitchen when the Roman soldiers burst into the house and put it to the torch . She tried to flee, but collapsed near the doorway to perish in the flames. This arm seems to be the first and only human remains discovered so far which can definitely be associated with the great human tragedy which accompanied the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70.

413

Epilogue

By the middle of the first century C.E., on the eve of its destruction, Jerusalem reached the peak of its physical growth and religious status. Over the six hundred years of the Second Temple period, the city had outgrown its modest site on the eastern ridge, expanding westward and northward; it increased fifteenfold, having at first occupied an area of some 30 acres and eventually encompassing approximately 450 acres. Whereas Jerusalem's population had numbered approximately five thousand at the beginning of this era, it now had a total of sixty to seventy thousand permanent residents. Once serving as the center of a small, isolated district on the western fringes of the Persian Empire, Jerusalem had become the capital of an expanded Judaea, stretching from the Galilee to the northern Negev, and from the Mediterranean to the Transjordanian region. From the capital of a provincial population numbering fifty to one hundred thousand inhabitants, it now assumed the role of a spiritual center for some four to eight million Jews living in the Roman Empire (as well as in Babylonia), a number that may have made up almost 10 percent of the empire's total population. As has been repeatedly emphasized throughout this book, Jerusalem's centrality and sanctity in the generations leading up to 70 C.E. were the result of both internal and external developments. At the beginning of the Second Temple period, the city's status was enhanced because Cyrus and his successors recognized it as a "temple-city." The disappearance of the prophets and the monarchical line left the high priesthood as the central religious and political force in the city. Thus it is not coincidental that throughout the ensuing centuries, many laws and customs associated with the Temple crystallized or became operative on a large scale, endowing the city and Temple with an ever-growing religious status: the division of the priests into twenty-four courses, each serving in the Temple twice a year;

414

the Second TIthe intended solely for use in Jerusalem; the offering of fIrSt fruits annually and the first produce of new trees and vines in the fourth year after planting; the half-sheqel contribution; and, of course, the regular pilgrimages. As a result, Jerusalem became the major focus of Jewish life throughout Judaea. All religious groupings and sects were represented in the city at some pointPharisees, Christians, Sadducees, Essenes, revolutionaries, false prophets, and others. The growing Jerusalem population included those born in the city, those who moved there from other parts of Judaea or the Diaspora, and new converts; the languages they spoke were equally diverse-Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and possibly even Latin. On the pilgrimage festivals, the city served as a veritable sacred point (omphalos, navel of the world) for Jews flocking there from all parts of the world. This increased status and centrality was in large part due to the efforts of the Hasmoneans and Herod, who made Jerusalem the capital of their expanded kingdoms. It was only from Herod's time onward, however, that both city and Temple acquired their greatest prominence. Besides his own ambitious personal agenda, Herod was aided by two additional factors: the emergence of an extensive, well-established, and powerful Diaspora that the king sought to link as closely as possible to his city and Temple; and the creation of the pax Romana under Augustus that provided the stability and prosperity to enable the city to realize its full potential. Herod's many efforts to beautify and modernize Jerusalem and its Temple bore fruit as they became well known throughout the empire and were looked on by Jews everywhere as their spiritual and national home. Philo noted that every Jew born in the Diaspora had two homelands, the city of his or her birth and J erusalem. 1 Ironically, Jerusalem was destroyed precisely at the moment when it had reached its zenith. This coincidence had all the makings of a Greek tragedy. According to the Greeks, only someone who had reached a high and exalted position could truly experience tragedy; the greater the fall, the greater the magnitude of the tragedy. First-century Jerusalem was at the height of its influence and prestige, and it was at this point that the city was enveloped in turmoil, gradually descending into anarchy. The internal crisis was compounded by a series of confrontations with the Roman authorities and the neighboring pagan popUlation, which resulted in a direct armed conflict with the greatest military power of the time. Did Jerusalem's destruction indeed herald a major break in the course of Jewish history? The classic approach, finding expression in traditional Jewish, Christian, and Zionist historiography, maintains that this event was, in fact, a 1. Against Flaccus 7, 46, and Embassy 36, 281.

415

watershed; Jewish life changed radically and decisively following 70 C.E. In recent generations, however, the perceived enonnity of this break has been somewhat modified, and attempts have been made to emphasize aspects of continuity before and after 70. Much of Judaea outside Jerusalem (i.e., the Galilee, coastal area, Peraea, and southern Judaea) was relatively unaffected by the war; Roman rule remained in place, and Greco-Roman culture and the economic context of the remaining population continued as before. Instead, many have described the aftereffects ofthe Bar-Kokhba revolt sixty years later (135 C.E.) as far more catastrophic to Jewish life than those of the earlier revolt. Whatever balance one wishes to strike between continuity and disruption, there can be no gainsaying that the shock and loss of 70 were of prime importance in altering many aspects of Jewish life, its institutions and leadership, certainly on a national level. With the Temple destroyed, the Jerusalem aristocracy eliminated, and the priesthood relegated to a peripheral role in communal affairs, many practices and customs that had been inextricably linked with the Temple and the city waned. Purity concerns declined significantly, eschatological tensions soon disappeared for centuries, the constant political unrest and agitation that marked Jerusalem's last decades became a thing ofthe past, and unique practices such as the strictly aniconic orientation in art or the use of ossuaries for secondary burial all but disappeared. Of more import, however, was what must have been a pervasive feeling among many Jews that their spiritual focal point in this world had now been eliminated and that the very core of their personal national and religious life was lost. For many, this must have been traumatic, for some perhaps only unsettling, and for others (particularly if they lived far from Jerusalem) of concern but much less upsetting. One of the mysteries of Jewish history is the ability of the Jews to survive such tragedies and, over time, shape for themselves new institutions, new leadership, and renewed faith. The destruction of the Temples in 586 B.C.E. and 70 C.E. provided such tests. As the synagogue slowly began to fill the void of the Temple, with prayer replacing sacrifices, and rabbinic Judaism the priestly leadership, and as the Galilee and then Babylonia became focal points in lieu of Jerusalem, Jewish life successfully coped with its loss. One thousand years of Jewish history with Jerusalem at its center now became a memory, albeit one that continued to be rehearsed on a regular basis and recalled even in distant times and distant lands. It is this memory, combining the glory and the tragedy of what was, the incredible achievement and the final failure, that encapsulated Jewish attitudes toward Jerusalem in the coming centuries. Yom Kippur, Passover, and Hanukkah on one end of the spectrum and the ninth of Avon the other marked the annual ebb and flow of Jerusalem's memory and Jewish consciousness. Josephus says of Titus when visiting the city after 70 (here perhaps intetjecting himself in these

416

thoughts): "On his way he visited Jeruslem, and contrasting the sorry scene of desolation before his eyes with the former splendor of the city, and calling to mind the grandeur of its ruined buildings and their pristine beauty, he commiserated its destruction."2 In concluding the first edition of his Jewish War,3 to which a seventh book was later added,4 Josephus raises a profound issue in the face of the painful historical reality of Jerusalem in ruins. His rumination is laden, inter alia, with far-reaching theological and social implications: How is it that neither its antiquity, nor its ample wealth, nor its people spread over the whole habitable world, nor yet the great glory of its religious rites, could aught avail to avert its ruin. Thus ended the siege of Jerusalem. s

2. War 7.5, 2,112.

3. Ibid., 6.10, 1,442. 4. On the issue of Book 7 and its dating, see M. Stem, Studies, 402-407; Cohen, Josephus in Galilee and Rome, 84-90; and S. Schwartz, "Composition and Publication," 373-386, and Josephus and Judaean Politics, 13-16. 5. War 6.10, 1,442.

417

Glossary

am (ammei) ha-aretz Ordinary Jew(s), those not belonging to a religious sect. amora, arnoraic Rabbinic sage active in the talmudic period (ca. 200-500 C.E.).

'Aqedah The Binding ofIsaac. archisynagogus (archisynagogoi) Head(s) of a synagogue. archon Leader, ruler. arcosolium (arcosolia) Shelf (shelves) cut into the wall of a cave for placing a corpse. ashlar Rectangular block of hewn stone.

'A vodah Service to God, with specific reference to the Temple ritual. basileus King. Bavli Babylonian Talmud.

bikkurim First fruits. boule City council. bouleuterion Council building. bullae Stamped clay seals affixed to documents. cavea Seats for a theater audience. cubit Half a meter, about nineteen inches.

418

demos Citizens of a city.

dunam One quarter of an acre; one tenth of a hectare. ephebium, ephebion Institution for training Greek citizens. equestrian class Rome's middle class, usually men with business and commercial interests who were often appointed governors of small provinces.

'eruv Marks a boundary for carrying or traveling on the Sabbath. ethnarch Head of a people.

ethrog (ethrogim) Citrus fruit used on Sukkot. gerousia Governing council of elders. golah Diaspora (literal), here refers to the Babylonian returnees. gymnasium Institution for training Greek citizens.

haftarah Prophetic readings for Sabbaths and holidays. hallah Bread offering to the Temple. Haqhel Ceremony held in the Temple on Sukkot every seven years at the conclusion of a sabbatical year. havurah Religious association. hel Area surround the Temple Court(s). ketubah Marriage contract. kukh (kukhim), loculi Niche(s) cut into rock for primary burials. lulav (lulavim) Palm branch(es) used on Sukkot. ma'amad (ma'amadot) Division of Jews in conjunction with the priestly courses (mishmarot). ma'aser Tithe contribution, one tenth of an individua1's produce offered to the Temple. meridarch Seleucid official governing a small territory. miqveh (miqva'ot) Stepped cistern(s) used as ritual baths. mishmar (mishmarot) Division of priests into twenty-four courses.

419

MMT Qumran fragment detailing many halakhic differences between the sect and their Jerusalem adversaries.

nasi Head of a group or sect. opus reticulatum Wall-facing composed of small square stones laid diagonally.

ossuary Small stone coffin used for secondary burial. Pairs Early Pharisaic leaders, two in each generation. peha Persian governor.

pilaster Rectangular column, often attached to a wall. polis Greek city. pozzolana A cement mixture used in Roman masonry. prozbol The right of a court to collect debts in the sabbatical year.

sarcophagus (sarcophagi) Stone coffin(s) satrap Governor of a Persian province. satrapy Administrative division of the Persian Empire. Shephelah Coastal plain west of the Judaean hills. Simhat Bet Hasho'evah Water-Drawing Festival held at the Temple annually on the intermediate days of Sukkot. strategos Greek term for a military commander.

tanna, tannaitic Rabbinic sage active before the early third century C.E. (i.e., the compilation of the Mishnah).

taqqanot Halakhic decisions regarding public issues. targum Translation of the Torah into the vernacular (Aramaic or Greek). temenos (temene) Sacred area(s) surrounding the Temple. terra sigillata Red-glazed tableware used throughout the Roman Empire. terumah Offering to priests.

Yerushalmi Jerusalem Talmud.

420

Abbreviations

ABD

Anchor Bible Dictionary

AJA

American Journal of Archaeology

AJP

American Journal of Philology

AJS Review

Association of Jewish Studies Review

ANRW

Aufstieg und niedergang der romischen Welt

Ant.

Josephus, Jewish Antiquities

AntCI.

L'Antiquite Classique

b.

ben, son of

B

Bavli, Babylonian Talmud

BA

Biblical Archaeologist

BAR

Biblical Archaeology Review

BASOR

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research

CAR

Cambridge Ancient History

CBQ

Catholic Biblical Quarterly

CD

Codex Damascus

CHJ

Cambridge History of Judaism

DID

Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

421

DSD

Dead Sea Discoveries

EI

Eretz Israel

EJ

Encyclopaedia Judaica

GUJJ

M. Stem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism

HTR

Harvard Theological Review

HUCA

Hebrew Union College Annual

IEJ

Israel Exploration Journal

INJ

Israel Numismatic Journal

JA

Jewish Art

JAOS

Journal of the American Oriental Society

JBL

Journal of Biblical Literature

JEA

Journal of Egyptian Archaeology

JJS

Journal of Jewish Studies

JNES

Journal of Near Eastern Studies

JQR

Jewish Quarterly Review

JRS

Journal of Roman Studies

JSOT

Journal for the Study of the Old Testament

JSJ

Journal for the Study of Judaism

JTS

Journal of Theological Studies

U

Liber Annuus

LCL

Loeb Classical Library

M

Mishnah

NEAEHL

E. Stem, New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land

NTS

New Testament Studies

PBSR

Papers of the British School at Rome

422

PEFQSt

Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement

PEQ

Palestine Exploration Quarterly

QDAP

Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine

R.

Rabbi, Rabban

RB

Revue Biblique

REJ

Revue des Etudes Juives

RQ

Revue de Qumran

SCI

Scripta Classica Israelica

SR

Studies in Religion

T

Tosefta

TAPA

Transactions of the American Philological Association

TDNT

Kittel and Friedrich, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament

TK

Lieberman, Tosefta Ki-Fshutah

VT

Vetus Testamentum

War

Josephus, The Jewish War

Y

Yerushalmi, Jerusalem (Palestinian) Talmud

ZAW

Zeitschrift fur die alttestamentliche Wzssenschaft

ZDPV

Zeitschrift des deutschen Paliistina-Vereins

ZNW

Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

ZPE

Zeitschrift for Papyrologie und Epigraphik

423

Bibliography

Modern Literature Abel, F. M. Les livres des Maccabees. Paris: Gabalda, 1949. Aberbach, M. ''The Conflicting Accounts of Josephus and Tacitus Concerning Cumanus' and Felix's Terms of Office." JQR 40 (1949): 1-14. - - - . Labor, Crafts and Commerce in Ancient Israel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1994. Aberbach, M., and D. Aberbach. The Roman-Jewish Wars and Hebrew Cultural Nationalism. New York: St. Martin's, 2000. Ackroyd, P. R. "The Biblical Portrayal of Achaemenid Rulers." In Achaemenid History. Vol. V: The Roots of the European Tradition. Edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg and J. W. Drijvers, 1-16. Leiden, Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1990. - - - . I and II Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah. London: SCM, 1973. - - - . Israel under Babylonia and Persia. London: Oxford University Press, 1970. - - - . "The Jewish Community in Palestine in the Persian Period." CHJ. Vol. I: Introduction: The Persian Period. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 130-161. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. - - - . ''The Temple Vessels-A Continuity Theme." Vetus Testamentum Supplements 23 (1972): 166-181. Adan, D. ''The 'Fountain of Siloam' and 'Solomon's Pool' in First Century C.E. Jerusalem." IEJ29 (1979): 92-100. Adna, 1. Jerusalemer Tempel und Tempelmarkt im 1. Jahrhundert n. Chr. Wiesbaden, Germany: Harrassowitz, 1999. Aelius Aristides, P. The Complete Works. Vol. II. Translated by C. A. Behr. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1981. Aharoni, Y., and M. Avi-Yonah, eds. The Macmillan Bible Atlas. New York: Macmillan, 1968.

424

Aitken, J. K. "Biblical Interpretation as Political Manifesto: Ben Sira in His Seleucid Setting." JJS 51 (2000): 191-208. Albright, W. F. The Biblical PeriodfromAbraham to Ezra. New York: Harper & Row, 1963. Alexander, P. S. "Jerusalem as the Omphalos of the World: On the History of a Geographical Concept." In Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by L.1. Levine, 104-119. New York: Continuum, 1999. - - - . "Quid Athenis et Hiersolymis? Rabbinic Midrash and Hermeneutics in the Graeco-Roman World." In A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays in Jewish and Christian Literature [Suppl. 100 to JSOT]. Edited by P. R. Davies and R. T. White, 101-124. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Alon, G. Jews, Judaism, and the Classical World. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1977. All, A. "Die Rolle Samarias bei der Entstehung des Judentums." In Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel. Vol. II, 316-337. Munich: Beck, 1953. Amit, D. "New Data Regarding the Dating of Jerusalem's Aqueducts." In Archaeological Congress in Israel 20 (in Hebrew), 22-23. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994. - - - . "Ritual Baths from the Second Temple Era" (in Hebrew). Ph.D. diss., Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1996. - - - , J. Seligman, and I. Zilberbod. "Stone Vessel Workshops of the Second Temple Period East of Jerusalem." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 353-358. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Arnoussine, J. "Ephraim et Manasse dans Ie Pesher de Nahum." RQ 4 (1963): 389-396. Anderson, B. W. "Exodus and Covenant in Second Isaiah and Prophetic Tradition." In Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller Jr., 339-360. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Anderson, H. "Maccabees, Books of: Third Maccabees." ABD. Vol. IV. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 450-452. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Applebaum, S. "The Fighting Priest" (in Hebrew). In Nation and History: Studies in the History of the Jewish People. Edited by M. Stem, 35-38. Jerusalem: Shazar Center, 1983. - - - . "Judaea as a Roman Province; the Countryside as a Political and Economic Factor." In ANRW. Sec. II. Vol. 8. Edited by W. Haase and H. Temporini, 355-396. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1977. Argall, R. A. I Enoch and Sirach: A Comparative Literary and Conceptual Analysis of the Themes of Revelation, Creation and Judgment. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Ariel, D. T. Excavations at the City ofDavid 1978-1985 [Qedem 30]. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1990. - - - . "A Survey of Coin Finds in Jerusalem." LA 32 (1982): 273-326. - - - , and Y. Shoham. "Locally Stamped Handles and Associated Body Fragments of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods." In Excavations at the City of David 1978-1985 Directed by Yigal Shiloh. Vol. VI: Inscriptions [Qedem 41], 137-194. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 2000.

425

Arndt, W. F., and F. W. Gingrich, eds. A Greek-English Lexicon ofthe New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957. Atkinson, K. "On Further Defining the First Century C.B. Synagogue: Fact or Fiction? A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee." NTS 43 (1997): 491-502. Avigad, N. Beth She 'arimo Vol. III. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1976. - - - . Bullae and Seals from a Post-Exilic Judean Archive [Qedem 4]. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1976. - - . "A Depository of Inscribed Ossuaries in the Kidron Valley." IEJ 12 (1962): 1-12. - - - . Discovering Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Shikmona and Israel Exploration Society, 1983. - - - . Early Tombs in the Kidron Valley (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1954. - - . "Jerusalem." InNEAEHL. Vol. II. Edited by E. Stem, 729-735. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993. - - . "More Evidence on the Judean Post-Exilic Stamps." IEJ24 (1974): 52-58. Avi-Yonah, M. Art in Ancient Palestine: Selected Studies. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1981. - - - . "The Fa~ade of Herod's Temple: An Attempted Reconstruction." In Religions in Antiquity-Essays in Memory of E. R. Goodenough. Edited by 1. Neusner, 327-335. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1968. - - - . "The Hasmonean Revolt and Judah Maccabee's War against the Syrians." In The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. VI: The Hellenistic Age. Edited by A. Schalit, 147-182. Jerusalem: Massada, 1972. - - - . The Holy Land: From the Persian to the Arab Conquests (536 B.C.-A.D. 640)-A Historical Geography. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1979. - - - . "Jerusalem in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods." In The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. VII: The Herodian Period. Edited by M. Avi-Yonah, 207-249. Jerusalem: Massada, 1975. - - - . "Jewish Art and Architecture in the Hasmonean and Herodian Periods." In The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. VII: The Herodian Period. Edited by M. Avi-Yonah, 250-263. Jerusalem: Massada, 1975. - - . "The Third and Second Walls of Jerusalem." IEJ 18 (1968): 98-125. - - . "The Walls of Nehemiah-A Minimalist View." IEJ 4 (1954): 239-248. Avni, G., Z. Greenhut, and T. Ilan. "Three New Burial Caves of the Second Temple Period in Aceldama (Kidron Valley)." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 206-218. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Bagnall, R. S., and B. W. Frier. The Demography of Roman Egypt. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1994. Bahat, D. "The Herodian Temple." In CHJ. Vol. III: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury and W. D. Davies, 38-58. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. - - - . 'The Western Wall Tunnels." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 177-190. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Bailey, N. A. "Nehemiah 3: 1-32: An Intersection of the Text and Topography." PEQ 122 (1990): 3~0. Ball, W. Rome in the East: The Transformation of an Empire. London: Routledge, 2000. Barnmel, E. "The Organisation of Palestine by Gabinius." JJS 12 (1961): 159-162.

426

- - - . "The Revolution Theory from Reimarus to Brandon." In Jesus and the Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, 11-68. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Barag, D. '''The Coinage of Yehud and the Ptolemies." In Studies in Honour of Arie Kindler. Edited by D. Barag, 27-38. Jerusalem: Israel Numismatic Society, 1999. [= INJ 13 (1994-1999).] - - - . 'The Effects ofthe Tennes Rebellion on Palestine." BASOR 183 (1966): 6-12. - - - . "King Herod's Royal Castle at Samaria-Sebaste." PEQ 125 (1993): 3-18. - - - . "New Developments in the Research of the Tombs of the Sons of Hezir and Zecharias" (in Hebrew). Qadmoniot 35, no. 123 (2002): 38-47. - - - . "A Silver Coin of Yohanan the High Priest and the Coinage of Judea in the Fourth Century B.C." INJ 9 (1986-1987): 4-21. - - - . "Some Notes on a Silver Coin of Johanan the High Priest." BA 48 (1985): 166-168. - - - , and D. Flusser. "The Ossuary ofYehohanah, Granddaughter of the High Priest Theophilus." IEJ 36 (1986): 39-44. Bar-Kochva, B. "Antiochus the Pious and Hyrcanus the Tyrant: A Chapter in the Historiography of the Hasmonean State" (in Hebrew). Zion 61 (1996): 7-44. - - - . Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle against the Seleucids. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. - - - . Pseudo-Hecataeus on the Jews: Legitimitizing the Jewish Diaspora. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996. Barnett, P. W. "The Jewish Sign-Prophets-A.D. 40-70: Their Intention and Origin." NTS 27 (1984): 679-697. - - . "Under Tiberius All Was Quiet." NTS 21 (1975): 564-571. Baron, S. "Population." In EJ. Vol. XliI, 866-903. Jerusalem: Keter, 1971. - - - . A Social and Religious History of the Jews. 18 vols. New York: Columbia University Press, 1952-1983. Barr, 1. "Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek in the Hellenistic Age." In CHJ. Vol. II: The Hellenistic Age. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 79-114. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Barrett, C. K. "Attitudes to the Temple in the Acts of the Apostles." In TemplumAmicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel. Edited by W. Horbury, 345-367. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Barstad, H. M. The Myth of the Empty Land: A Study in the History and Archaeology of Judah during the "Exilic" Period. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press, 1996. Baruch, Y., and G. Avni. "Archaeological Evidence for the Bezetha Quarter in the Second Temple Period" (in Hebrew). In New Studies on Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies. Edited by A. Faust and E. Baruch, 52--63. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-nan University, 2000. Bauckham, R. "James and the Jerusalem Church." In The Book ofActs in Its First Century Setting. Vol. IV: The Book ofActs in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham, 415-480. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995.

427

Baumgarten, A. "City Lights: Urbanization and Sectarianism in Hasmonean Jerusalem." In The Centrality ofJerusalem: Historical Perspectives. Edited by M. Poorthuis and C. Safrai, 50--64. Kampen, Netherlands: Pharos, 1996. - - - . "Crisis in the Scrollery: A Dying Consensus." Judaism 44 (1995): 399-413. - - - . The Flourishing ofJewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997. - - . ''The Name of the Pharisees." JBL 102 (1983): 411-428. - - - . "Qumran and Jewish Sectarianism during the Second Temple Period" (in Hebrew). In The Scrolls of the Judaean Desert: Forty Years of Research. Edited by M. Broshi, S. Talmon, S. Japhet, and D. Schwartz, 139-151. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute and Israel Exploration Society, 1992. Baumgarten, J. ''The Pharisaic-Sadducean Controversies about Purity and the Qumran Texts." JJS 31 (1980): 157-170. - - - . "The Purification Rituals in DJD 7." In The Dead Sea Scrolls-Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport, 199-209. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1992. - - - . "Sadducean Elements in Qumran Law." In The Community of the Renewed Covenant; The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by E. Ulrich and 1. VanderKam, 27-36. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1994. Beckwith, R. T. "The Pre-History and Relationships of the Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes: A Tentative Reconstruction." RQ 11 (1982): 3-46. Bedford, P. R. Temple Restoration in Early Achaemenid Judah. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill,2001. Bee, R. L. Patterns and Processes. New York: Free Press, 1974. Beentjes, P. "Jerusalem in the Book of Chronicles." In The Centrality of Jerusalem: Historical Perspectives. Edited by M. Poorthuis and C. Safrai, 15-28. Kampen, Netherlands: Pharos, 1996. Beloch, K. 1. Die Bevolkerung der griechisch-romischen Welt. Leipzig, Germany: Hinrichs, 1886. Benabou, M., "Resistance et romanisation en Afrique du Nord sous Ie Haute-Empire." In Assimilation et resistance a la culture greco-romaine dans Ie monde ancien. Edited by D. M. Pippidi, 367-375. Bucharest: Editura academiei and Societe d'edition "Les belles lettres," 1976. Ben-Arieh, S., and E. Netzer. "Excavations along the 'Third Wall' of Jerusalem, 1972-1974." IEJ 24 (1974): 97-107. Ben-Dov, M. In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery ofAncient Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Keter, 1985. - - - . ''The Seleucid Akra-South of the Temple Mount" (in Hebrew). Cathedra 18 (1981): 22-35. Benoit, P. "L'Antonia d'Herode Ie Grand et Ie forum oriental d' Aelia Capitolina." HTR 64 (1971): 135-167. - - - . "The Archaeological Reconstruction of the Antonia Fortress." In Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974. Edited by Y. Yadin, 87-89.

428

New Haven, CT, and Jerusalem: Yale University Press and Israel Exploration Society, 1976. - - - . "Pretoire, Lithostroton et Gabbatha." RB 59 (1952): 531-550. - - - , 1. T. Milik, and R. de Vaux. Les grottes de Murabba 'at [DID 2]. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1961. Ben-Shalom, I. The School of Shammai and the Zealots' Struggle against Rome (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1993. Berquist, 1. L. Judaism in Persia's Shadow: A Social and Historical Approach. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. Bertrand, 1. M, "Sur l'inscription d'Hefzibah." ZPE 46 (1982): 167-174. Beyerlin, W. We Are Like Dreamers: Studies in Psalm 126. Edinburgh, UK: Clark, 1982. Bickerman, E. "La charte seleucide de Jerusalem." REJ 100 (1935): 4-35. - - - . "The Civic Prayer of Jerusalem." HTR 55 (1962): 163-185. - - . "The Colophon of the Greek Book of Esther." JBL 63 (1944): 339-362. - - - . "The Date of the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs." JBL 69 (1950): 245-260. - - . "The Edict of Cyrus in Ezra 1." JBL 65 (1946): 249-275. [= Studies in Jewish and Christian History. Vol. I. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1976.] - - - . Four Strange Books of the Bible. New York: Schocken, 1967. - - - . From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees: Foundations of Post-Biblical Judaism. New York: Schocken, 1962. - - - . The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1979. - - - . "The Historical Foundations of Post-Biblical Judaism." In The Jews: Their History, Culture, and Religion. Vol. I. 3rd ed. Edited by L. Finkelstein, 70-114. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1960. - - - . The Jews in the Greek Age. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988. - - - . "On the Sanhedrin" (in Hebrew). Zion 3 (1938): 356-359. - - - . "Une proclamation seleucide relative au Temple de Jerusalem." Syria 25 (1946-1948):67-85. - - . "Warning Inscription of Herod's Temple." JQR 37 (1946-1947): 387-405. Bietenhard, H. "Die syrische Dekapolis von Pompey bis Traian." In ANRW. Sec. II. Vol. 8. Edited by W. Haase and H. Temporini, 220-261 Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1977. Bilde, P. 'The Causes of the Jewish War According to Josephus." JSJ 10 (1979): 179-202. - - - . "The Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula)'s Attempt to Erect His Statue in the Temple of Jerusalem." Studia Theologia 32 (1978): 67-93. Binder, D. D. Into the Temple Courts: The Place of the Synagogues in the Second Temple Period. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. Blenkinsopp,1. Ezra-Nehemiah: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1988. - - - . "The Mission of Udjahorresnet and Those of Ezra and Nehemiah." JBL 106 (1987): 409-421. - - . "Prophecy and Priesthood in Josephus." JJS 25 (1974): 239-262.

429

- - - . "The Sage, the Scribe, and Scribalism in the Chronicler's Work." In The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. G. Gammie and L. G. Perdue, 307-315. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. - - - . "Temple and Society in Achaemenid Judah." In Second Temple Studies. Vol. I: Persian Period [Suppl. 117 of JSOn Edited by P. R. Davies, 22-53. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Blidstein, G. "Atimia: A Greek Parallel to Ezra X 8 and to Post-Biblical Exclusion from the Community." VT24 (1974): 357-360. Boccaccini, G. Roots of Rabbinic Judaism: An Intellectual History, from Ezekiel to Daniel. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001. Boethius, A., and 1. B. Ward-Perkins. Etruscan and Roman Architecture. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1970. Bokser, B. Origins of the Seder: The Passover Rite and Early Rabbinic Judaism. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1984. Bond, H. K. Pontius Pilate in History and Interpretation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Borowski, O. "Hezekiah's Reforms and the Revolt against Assyria." BA 58 (1995): 148-155. Bounni, A., and K. Al-As'ad. Palmyre. Damascus: n.p., 1987. Bowersock, G. W. Augustus and the Greek World. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1965. - - . "Eurycles of Sparta." JRS 51 (1961): 112-118. - - - . Hellenism in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990. - - - . Roman Arabia. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. Brandon, S. G. F. Jesus and the Zealots. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1967. Braund, D. "Function and Dysfunction: Personal Patronage in Roman Imperialism." In Patronage in Ancient Society. Edited by A. Wallace-Hadrill, 137-152. London: Routledge, 1989. - - - . Rome and the Friendly King: The Character of the Client Kingship. London: Croom Helm, 1984. Briant, P. Histoire de l'empire perse de Cyrus aAlexandre, Achaemenid History. Vol. X. Leiden, Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1996. Bright, 1. A History of Israel. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972. Bringman, K, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsveifolgung in Judiia. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. Broshi, M. "The Archaeology of Palestine 63 B.C.E.-C.E. 70." In CHJ. Vol. III: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury and W. D. Davies, 1-37. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. - - - . "The Archaeology of Qumran-A Reconsideration." In The Dead Sea Scrolls: Forty Years of Research. Edited by D. Dimant and U. Rappaport, 103-115. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1992. - - - . "Estimating the Population of Ancient Jerusalem." BAR 4, no. 2 (1978): 10-15. - - - . "Excavations in the House of Caiaphas, Mount Zion." In Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974. Edited by Y. Yadin, 57-60.

430

New Haven, CT, and Jerusalem: Yale University Press and Israel Exploration Society, 1976. - - - . "La population de l'ancienne Jerusalem." RB 82 (1975): 5-14. - - . ''The Role of the Temple in the Herodian Economy." JJS 38 (1987): 31-37. - - , and E. Eshel. ''The Greek King Is Antiochus IV (4QHistorical Text = 4Q248)." JJS 48 (1997): 12~129. - - - , and I. Finkelstein. "The Population of Palestine in 734 B.C.E." (in Hebrew). Cathedra 58 (1990): 3-24. - - - , and S. Gibson. "Excavations along the Western and Southern Walls of the Old City of Jerusalem." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 147-155. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Broughton, T. R. S. "New Evidence on Temple-Estates in Asia Minor." In Studies in Roman Economic and Social History. Edited by A. C. Johnson, 236-250. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951. Brown, P. The Cult of the Saints. London: SCM, 1981. Brunt, P. A. "Josephus on Social Conflicts in Roman Judaea." Klio 59 (1977): 149-153. - - - . ''The Romanization of the Local Rilling Classes in the Roman Empire." In Assimilation et resistance la culture greco-romaine dans Ie monde ancien. Edited by D. M. Pippidi, 161-173. Bucharest and Paris: Editura academiei and Societe d'edition "Les belles lettres," 1976. BUchler, A. The Priests and Their Cult in the Last Decade of the Temple in Jerusalem (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Harav Kook, 1966. Burgmann, H. "Das umstrittene Intersacerdotium in Jerusalem 159-152 v. Chr." JSJ 11 (1980): 135-176. Busink, T. A. Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomon bis Herodes: Einer archiiologischhistorische Studie unter Beriicksichtigung des westsemitischen Tempelbaus. 2 vols. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1970. Byatt, A. "Josephus and Population Numbers in First Century Palestine." PEQ 105 (1973): 51-60. Cahill, 1. M. "Chalk Vessel Assemblages of the PersianlHellenistic and Early Roman Periods." In Excavations at the City of David 1978-85 Directed by Yigal Shiloh, 111: Stratigraphical, Environmental, and Other Reports [Qedem 33]. Edited by A. De Groot and D. T. Ariel, 19~274. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1992. Cameron, A. Circus Factions: Blues and Greens at Rome and Byzantium. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1976. Capper, B, 'The Palestinian Cultural Context of Earliest Christian Community of Goods." In The Book ofActs in Its First Century Setting. Vol. IV: The Book ofActs in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham, 323-356. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Carroll, R. P. "Coopting the Prophets: Nehemiah and Noadiah." In Priests, Prophets and

a

Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage ofSecond Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp [Suppl. 149 to JSOT]. Edited by E. C. Ulrich, P. R. Davies, J. W. Wright, and R. P. Carroll, 87-99. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1992.

431

Carter, C. E. The Emergence of Yehud in the Persian Period: A Social and Demographic Study. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1999. - - - . "The Province of Yehud in the Post-Exilic Period: Soundings in Site Distribution and Demography." In Second Temple Studies. Vol. II: Temple and Community in the Persian Period [Suppl. 175 to JSOT]. Edited by T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards, 106-145. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Cartledge, P., and A. Spawforth. Hellenistic and Roman Sparta: A Tale of Two Cities. London: Routledge, 1989. Chyutin, M. 'The New Jerusalem: Ideal City." DSD 1 (1994): 71-97. Clines, D. J. Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984. - - - . What Does Eve Do to Help? and Other Readerly Questions to the Old Testament. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1990. Cohen, S. J. D. "Alexander the Great and Jaddus the High Priest According to Josephus." AJS Review 7-8 (1982-1983): 41-68. - - - . The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999. - - - . From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. - - - . Josephus in Galilee and Rome: His Vita and Development as a Historian. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1979. - - - . "Parallel Historical Tradition in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature." World Congress of Jewish Studies 9, sec. Bl1 (1986): 7-14. - - - . "Were Pharisees and Rabbis the Leaders of Communal Prayer and Torah Study in Antiquity? The Evidence of the New Testament, Josephus, and the Early Church Fathers." In Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress. Edited by H. C. Kee and L. H. Cohick, 89-114. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1999. Collart, P., and J. Vicari. Le sanctuaire de Baalshamin aPalmyre. Rome: Institut Suisse de Rome, 1969. Collins, J. J. "Apocalypses and Apocalypticism: Early Jewish Apocalypticism." In ABD. Vol. I. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 282-287. New York: Doubleday, 1992. - - - . "Apocalyptic Literature." In Early Judaism and Its Modem Interpreters. Edited by R. A. Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 345-370. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. - - - . The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977. - - - . ed. Encyclopedia ofApocalypticism. 3 vols. New York: Continuum, 1998. - - - . "From Prophecy to Apocalypticism: The Expectation of the End." In The Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism. Vol. I. Edited by J. J. Collins 129-161. New York: Continuum, 1998. - - - . "Jerusalem and the Temple in Jewish Apocalyptic Literature of the Second Temple Period." Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies: International Rennert Guest Lecture Series 1 (1998): 3-31. - - - . "Jewish Apocalyptic against Its Hellenistic Near Eastern Environment." BASOR 220 (1975): 27-36.

432

Cormack, S. "Funerary Monuments and Mortuary Practice in Roman Asia Minor." In The Early Roman Empire in the East. Edited by S. Alcock, 137-156. Oxford, UK: Oxbow, 1997. Cotton, H. M., and J. Geiger. "The Economic Importance of Herod's Masada: The Evidence of the Jar Inscriptions." In Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Edited by K. Fittschen and G. Foerster, 163-170. G6ttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. - - - , and A. Yardeni. Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek Documentary Texts from Nahal Hever and Other Sites [DID 27]. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1997. - - - , E. H. Cockle, and F. G. B. Millar. 'The Papyrology of the Roman Near East: A Survey." JRS 85 (1995): 214-235. Cousar, C. B. "Jerusalem, Council of." In ABD. Vol. III. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 766-767. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Crenshaw, J. L. "Ecclesiastes, the Book of." In ABD. Vol. II. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 271-280. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Cross, F. M. Jr. The Ancient Library of Qumran and Modem Biblical Studies. Garden City, NY: Anchor, 1961. - - - . "Aspects of Samaritan and Jewish History in Late Persian and Hellenistic Times." HTR 59 (1966): 201-211. - - . "Judean Stamps." EI9 (1969): 20*-27*. - - - . "A Reconstruction of the Judean Restoration." JBL 94 (1975): 4-18. Crow, L. D. The Songs of Ascents (Psalms 120-134): Their Place in Israelite History and Religion. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996. Dandamaev, M. A. A Political History of the Achaemenid Empire. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1989. - - - , and V. G. Lukonin. The Culture and Social Institutions of Ancient Iran. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. Daube, D. "Alexandrian Methods of Interpretation and the Rabbis." Festschrift Hans Lewald. Edited by the Faculty of Law, Universitat Basel, 27-44. Basel, Switzerland: Helbing, 1953. - - - . "Rabbinic Methods and Intetpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric." HUCA 22 (1949): 239-264. Davies, G. I. "The Presence of God in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Doctrine." In TemplumAmicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel. Edited by W. Horbury. 32-36. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Davies, J. K. "Rebuilding a Temple: The Economic Effects of Piety." In Economies beyond Agriculture in the Classical World. Edited by D. J. Mattingly and J. Salmon, 209-229. London: Routledge, 2001. Davies, P. R. Behind the Essenes. Atlanta: Scholars, 1987. Decoster, K. "Flavius Josephus and the Seleucid Acra in Jerusalem." ZDPV 105 (1989): 70-84. Deines, R. Jiidische Steinfiisse und pharisiiische Frommigkeit. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1993.

433

Delia, D. "The Population of Roman Alexandria." TAPA 118 (1989): 275-292. Demsky, A. "Who Came First, Ezra or Nehemiah? The Synchronistic Approach." HUCA 65 (1994): 1-19. de Ste. Croix, G. E. M. The Class Struggle in the Ancient Greek World from the Archaic Age to the Arab Conquests. London: Duckworth, 1981. Dickman, 1. A. "The Peristyle and the Transformation of Domestic Space in Hellenistic Pompeii." Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. Edited by R. Laurence, 121-136. London: Routledge, 1994. Di LelIa, A. A. "Wisdom of Ben-Sira." In ABD. Vol. VI. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 931-945. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Dimant, D. "Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha." In Mikra. Edited by M. J. Mulder, 379-419. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1988. Dion, P. 'The Civic-and-Temple Community of Persian Period Judaea: Neglected Insights from Eastern Europe." JNES 50 (1991): 281-287. Dodge, H. "The Architectural Impact of Rome in the East." In Architecture and Architectural Sculpture in the Roman Empire. Edited by M. Henig, 108-120. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology, 1990. Dombrowski, B. "in'il in lQS and 1:0 KOlVOV: An Instance of Early Greek and Jewish Synthesis." HTR 59 (1966): 293-307. Duggan, M. W. The Covenant Renewal in Ezra-Nehemiah (Neh 7: 72b--1O:40): An Exegetical, Literary, and Theological Study. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Duncan-Jones, R. P. "City Population in Roman Africa." JRS 53 (1963): 85-90. - - - . The Economy of the Roman Empire: Quantitative Studies. 2nd ed. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982. Dunn, 1. D. G. "Judaism in the Land oflsrael in the First Century." In Judaism in Late Antiquity. Part II: Historical Synthesis. Edited by J. Neusner, 229-261. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1995. Eddy, S. K. The King Is Dead: Studies in the Near Eastern Resistance to Hellenism, 334-331 B.C.E. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. Edmondson, J. C. "Dynamic Arenas: Gladiatorial Presentations in the City of Rome and the Construction of Roman Society during the Early Empire." In Roman Theater and Society: E. Togo Salmon Papers. Vol. I. Edited by W. J. Slater, 69-111. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Edwards, D. R. Religion and Power: Pagans, Jews, and Christians in the Greek East. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Efron, 1. Studies on the Hasmonean Period. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1987. Eissfeldt, O. The Old Testament: An Introduction. New York: Harper & Row, 1965. Elayi, 1., and 1. Sapin. Beyond the River: New Perspectives on Transeuphratene. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Elderkin, G. W. "Architectural Details in Antique Sepulchral Art." AJA 39 (1935): 518-525. Eliade, M. Cosmos and History: The Myth of the Eternal Return. New York: Harper & Row, 1959.

434

- - - . The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. New York: Harper & Row, 1961. - - - . "Sacred Architecture and Symbolism." In Symbolism, the Sacred, and the Arts. Edited by D. Apostolos-Cappadona, 105-129. New York: Crossroad, 1986. Eliav, Y. Z. "The Roman Bath as a Jewish Institution: Another Look at the Encounter between Judaism and the Greco-Roman Culture." JSJ 31 (2000): 416-454. Elsner, 1. "The Origins of the Icon: Pilgrimage, Religion and Visual Culture in the Roman East as 'Resistance' to the Centre." In The Early Roman Empire in the East. Edited by S. Alcock, 178-199. Oxford, UK: Oxbow, 1997. Emerton, 1. "Did Ezra Go to Jerusalem in 428 B.C.?" JTS 17 (1966): 1-19. Engels, D. Roman Corinth. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990. Eph 'al, I. "Changes in Palestine during the Persian Period in Light of Epigraphic Sources." IEJ 48 (1998): 106-119. - - - . "Syria-Palestine under Achaemenid Rule." In CAH. Vol. N. Edited by J. Boardman, N. G. L. Hammond, D. M. Lewis, andM. Ostwald, 139-164. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. - - - . "The Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries B.C.: Maintenance and Cohesion." Orientalia 47 (1978): 74-90. Eppstein, V. "The Historicity of the Gospel Account of the Cleansing of the Temple." ZNW 55 (1964): 42-58. Erskine, A. The Hellenistic Stoa: Political Thought and Action. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Eshel, E., and A. Kloner. "An Aramaic Ostracon of an Edornite Marriage Contract from Maresha, Dated 176 B.C.E." IEJ 46 (1996): 1-22. Eshel, H. "4QMMT and the History of the Hasmonean Period." In Reading MMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by J. Kampen and M. 1. Bernstein, 53-65. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996. - - - . "Jerusalem under Persian Rule: The City's Layout and the Historical Background" (in Hebrew). In The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period. Edited by S. Ahituv and A. Mazar, 327-343. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2000. Eskenazi, T. "Current Perspectives on Ezra-Nehemiah and the Persian Period." Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 1 (1993): 59-86. - - - . In an Age of Prose: A Literary Approach to Ezra-Nehemiah. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. - - - , and E. P. Judd. "Marriage to a Stranger in Ezra 9-10." In Second Temple Studies. Vol. II: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards, 266-285. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1994. Farmer, W. R. Maccabees, Zealots and Josephus: An Inquiry into Jewish Nationalism in the Greco-Roman Period. New York: Columbia University Press, 1956. Favro, D. The Urban Image of Augustan Rome. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Feldman, L. H. Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World: Attitudes and Interactions from Alexander to Justinian. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993.

435

- - - . Josephus and Modern Scholarship (1937-80). New York: de Gruyter, 1984. - - - . "Some Observations on the Name of Palestine." HUCA 61 (1990): 1-23. Fiensy, D. A. ''The Composition of the Jerusalem Church." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Vol. IV: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham, 213-236. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Filmer, W. E. ''The Chronology of the Reign of Herod the Great." JTS 17 (1966): 283-298.

Fine, S. "A Note on Ossuary Burial and the Resurrection of the Dead in First-Century Jerusalem." JJS 51 (2000): 69-76. - - . "Why Bone Boxes?" BAR 27, no. 5 (2002): 39-44. Finegan, 1. The Archeology of the New Testament. Rev. ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. Finkelstein, L. ''The Men of the Great Synagogue (circa 400-170 B.C.E.)." In CHJ. Vol. II: The Hellenistic Age. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 229-244. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. - - - . The Pharisees and the Men of the Great Synagogue (in Hebrew). New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1950. Finley, M. I. The Ancient Economy. 2nd ed. London: Hogarth, 1985. Fischel, H. Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature. New York: Ktav, 1977. - - - . "Story and History: Observations in Graeco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism." American Oriental Society, Middle Western Branch [Semi-Centennial Vol.]. Edited by D. Sinor, 59-88. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969. Fischer, M. L. Marble Studies: Roman Palestine and the Marble Trade. Konstanz, Germany: Universitatsverlag Konstanz, 1998. Fischer, T. "Hasmoneans and Seleucids: Aspects of War and Policy in the Second and First Centuries B.C.E." In Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays. Edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks, 3-19. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1990. - - . "Maccabees, Books of." In ABD. Vol. Iv. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 439-450. New York: Doubleday, 1992. - - . "Zur Seleukideninschrift von Hefzibah." ZPE 33 (1979): 131-138. Fishbane, M. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1988. - - - . "Use, Authority and Interpretation of Mikra at Qumran." In Mikra. Edited by M. 1. Mulder, 339-377. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1988. Fittschen, K., and G. Foerster, eds. Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the TIme of Herod in the Light ofArchaeological Evidence. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Fitzmyer, 1. A. The Acts of the Apostles. New York: Doubleday, 1998. - - . "Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D." CBQ 32 (1970): 501-531. - - - . A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1979. - - - , and D. J. Harrington. A Manual of Palestinian Aramaic Texts. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978. Fleishman, J. "An Echo of Optimism in Ezra 6: 19-22." HUCA 69 (1998): 15-29.

436

Flusser, D. "Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes in Pesher Nahum" (in Hebrew). In Essays in Jewish History and Philology: In Menwry of Gedaliahu Alon. Edited by M. Dorman, S. Safrai, and M. Stem, 133-168. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1970. Foerster, G. "Architectural Fragments from 'Jason's Tomb' Reconsidered." IEJ 28 (1978): 152-156. - - - . "Art and Architecture in Palestine." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. II. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stem, 971-1006. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. - - - . "Hellenistic and Roman Trends in the Herodian Architecture of Masada." In Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light ofArchaeological Evidence. Edited by K. Fittschen and G. Foerster, 55-72. G6ttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. - - - . "Sarcophagus Production in Jerusalem from the Beginning of the Common Era up to 70 C.E." In Sarkophag-Studien. Vol. I. Edited by G. Koch, 295-310. Mainz am Rhein, Germany: von Zabern, 1998. F6rtsch, R. "The Residences of King Herod and Their Relations to Roman Villa Architecture." In Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Edited by K. Fittschen and G. Foerster, 73-119. GOttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Fraade, S. "Interpretive Authority in the Studying Community at Qumran." JJS 44 (1993): 46-69. - - . "To Whom It May Concern: 4QMMT and Its Addressee(s)." RQ 76 (2000): 507-526. Fraenkel,1. Darchei Ha-aggadah V'hamidrash. Givataim, Israel: Massada, 1991. - - - . "Hermeneutic Problems in the Study of the Aggadic Narrative" (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 47 (1978): 139-172. Fredriksen, P. Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. New York: Knopf, 2000. Frey, J.-B. Corpus Inscriptionum Iudaicarum. 2 vols. Rome: Pontificio Istituto, 1936-1952. Frezouls, E. "Recherches sur les theatres de 1'0rient syrien." Syria 36 (1959): 202-227. - - - . "Recherches sur les theatres de 1'0rient syrien. II: Le theatre et la cite." Syria 38 (1961): 54-86. Frova, A. Scavi di Caesarea Maritima. Rome: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1966. Fry, V. R. L. The Warning Inscriptions from the Herodian Temple. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms, 1975. Fuks, G. "Josephus and the Hasmoneans." JJS 41 (1990): 166-176. Gabba, E. "The Finances of King Herod." In Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel: Collected Essays. Edited by A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks, 160-168. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1990. - - - . "The Social, Economic and Political History of Palestine 63 B.C.E.--C.E. 70." In CHJ. Vol. III: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury and W. D. Davies, 94-167. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Gafni, I. "Bringing Deceased from Abroad for Burial in Eretz Israel: On the Origin of the Custom and its Development" (in Hebrew). Cathedra 4 (1977): 113-120.

437

- - - . "Jerusalem in Rabbinic Literature" (in Hebrew). In The History of Jerusalem: The Roman and Byzantine Periods (70-638 C.E.). Edited by Y. Tsafrir and S. Safrai, 35-59. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1999. - - - . "Josephus and 1 Maccabees." In Josephus, the Bible, and History. Edited by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, 116-131. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1989. Gager, J. Reinventing Paul. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Galling, K. "The 'Gola-List' According to Ezra 2INeherniah 7." JBL 70 (1951): 149-158. Gamrnie, J. G., and L. G. Perdue, eds. The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Garner, G. "How Many People? Archaeology and Population Numbers." Buried History 22 (1986): 39-48. Gebhard, E. R. "The Theater and the City." In Roman Theater and Society: E. Togo Salmon Papers. Vol. I. Edited by W. J. Slater, 113-127. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996. Geiger, J. "Herodes Philorhomaios." Ancient Society 28 (1997): 75-88. - - - . "Language, Culture and Identity in Ancient Palestine." In Greek Romans and Roman Greeks: Studies in Cultural Interaction. Edited by E. N. Ostenfeld, 233-246. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 2002. Geller, M. "New Sources for the Origins of the Rabbinic Ketubah." HUCA 49 (1978): 227-245. Gera, D. "The Battle of Beth Zechariah and Greek Literature" (in Hebrew). In The Jews in the Hellenistic-Roman World: Studies in Memory of Menahem Stern. Edited by A. Oppenheimer, I. Gafni, and D. Schwartz, 25-53. Jerusalem: Shazar Institute, 1996. - - - . Judaea and Mediterranean Politics: 219-161 B.C.E. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1998. Geraty, L. ''The Khirbet el-Kom Bilingual Ostracon." BASOR 220 (1975): 55-61. Geva, H. "Excavations at the Citadel of Jerusalem, 1976-1980." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 156-167. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. - - - , ed. Jewish Quarter Excavations in the Old City of Jerusalem. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. - - . ''The 'Tower of David' -Phasael or Hippicus?" IEJ 31 (1981): 57-65. Gibson, S. "The 1961-67 Excavations in the Armenian Garden, Jerusalem." PEQ 119 (1987): 81-96. - - . "The Stone Vessel Industry at Hizma." IEJ 33 (1983): 176-188. Gichon, M. "Roman Bath-Houses in Eretz-Israel" (in Hebrew). Qadmoniot 11, nos. 42-43 (1978): 37-53. Gilboa, A. "The Intervention of Sextus Julius Caesar, Governor of Syria, in the Affair of Herod's Trial." SCI 5 (1979-1980): 185-194. Golan, D. "Josephus, Alexander's Visit to Jerusalem, and Modem Historiography" (in Hebrew). In Josephus Flavius, Historian of Eretz Israel in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Edited by U. Rappaport, 29-56. Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 1982.

438

Goldin, J. Studies in Midrash and Related Literature. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1988. Goldstein, J. A. 1 Maccabees. New York: Doubleday, 1976. - - - . 2 Maccabees. New York: Doubleday, 1984. Golinkin, D. "Jerusalem in Jewish Law and Customs: A Preliminary Typology." In Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by L. I. Levine, 408-423. New York: Continuum, 1999. Golvin, J. C. L'amphitheatre romain: Essai sur l£l theorisation de saforme et de sesfunctions. 2 vols. Paris: Centre Pierre, 1988. Goodblatt, D. The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1994. - - - . ''The Place of the Pharisees in First Century Judaism: The State of the Debate." JSJ 20 (1989): 12-30. - - - . "Priestly Ideologies of the Judean Resistance." Jewish Studies Quarterly 3 (1996): 225-249. - - - . ''The Tmditions on the Beginnings of Organized Jewish Education" (in Hebrew). Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel 5 (1980): 83-103. - - - . "The Union of Priesthood and Kingship in Second Temple Judea" (in Hebrew). Cathedra 102 (2001): 7-28. Goodenough, E. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. 13 vols. New York: Pantheon, 1953-1968. Goodman, M. ''The First Jewish Revolt: Social Conflict and the Problem of Debt." JJS 33 (1982): 417-427. - - - . "Galilean Judaism and Judaean Judaism." In CHJ. Vol. III: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury and W. D. Davies, 596-617. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. - - - . The Ruling Cl£lss of Judaea: The Origins of the Jewish Revolt against Rome A.D. 66-70. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Gordis, R. Koheleth: The Man and His Word. New York: Bloch, 1955. Gordon, R. "Religion in the Roman Empire: The Civic Compromise and Its Limits." In Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by M. Beard and J. North, 235-255. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. - - - . ''The Veil of Power: Emperors, Sacrificers and Benefactors." In Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. Edited by M. Beard and J. North, 201-219. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1990. Grabbe, L. L. Ezra-Nehemiah. London: Routledge, 1998. - - - . An Introduction to First Century Judaism. Edinburgh, UK: Clark, 1996. - - - . Judaic Religion in the Second Temple Period: Belief and Practice from the Exile to Yavneh. London: Routledge, 2000. - - - . Judaismfrom Cyrus to Hadrian. 2 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992. - - - . "What Was Ezra's Mission?" In Second Temple Studies. Vol. II: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards, 286-299. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1994.

439

Graf, D. F. '''The Persian Royal Road System." In Achaemenid History. Vol. VIII: Continuity and Change. Edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, and M. Cool Root, 167-189. Leiden, Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1994. Grafman, R. "Nehemiah's 'Broad Wall.' " IEJ 24 (1974): 50-51. Gray, R. Prophetic Figures in Late Second Temple Jewish Palestine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. Greenhut, Z. '''The Caiaphas Tomb in North Talpiyot, Jerusalem." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 219-222. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Grimal, P. "The Hellenistic East in the Third Century." In Hellenism and the Rise ofRome. Edited by P. Grimal, H. Bengston, and N. Caskel, 124-206. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1968. Grintz, 1. M. The Book of Judith (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1986. - - - . "Hebrew as the Spoken and Written Language in the Last Days of the Second Temple." JBL 79 (1960): 32-47. Gruen, E. "Hellenism and Persecution: Antiochus IV and the Jews." In Hellenistic History and Culture. Edited by P. Green, 238-274. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993. - - - . The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome. 2 vols. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984. - - - . "The Origins and Objectives ofOnias' Temple." SCI 16 (1997): 47-70. - - - . "The Purported Jewish-Spartan Affiliation." In Transitions to Empire: Essays in Greco-Roman History, 360-146 B.C.£. Edited by R. W. Wallace and E. M. Harris, 254-269. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1996. Gundry, R. H. "The Language Milieu of First-Century Palestine: Its Bearing on the Authenticity of the Gospel Tradition." JBL 83 (1964): 404--408. Gutman, Y. "The Historical Value of3 Maccabees" (in Hebrew). Eshkolot 3 (1959): 49-72. Gutmann, 1. '''The Second Commandment' and the Image in Judaism." In No Graven Images: Studies inArt and the Hebrew Bible. Edited by 1. Gutmann, 3-18. New York: Ktav, 1971. Guttmann, A. Rabbinic Judaism in the Making: A Chapter in the History of the Halakhah from Ezra to Judah I. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970. Hadas, M., ed. Aristeas to Philocrates (Letter ofAristeas). New York: Harper, 1951. - - - , ed. and trans. Third and Fourth Maccabees. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1953. Hallo, W. W. "Jerusalem under Hezekiah: An Assyriological Perspective." In Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by L. I. Levine, 36-50. New York: Continuum, 1999. Halpern, B. "A Historiographic Commentary on Ezra 1-6: A Chronological Narrative and Dual Chronology in Israelite Historiography." In The Hebrew Bible and Its Interpreters. Edited by W. H. Propp, B. Halpern, and D. N. Freedman, 81-142. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. - - . '''The Ritual Background of Zechariah's Temple Song." CBQ 40 (1978): 167-190.

440

Hamrick, E. W. ''The Fourth Wall of Jerusalem: A 'Barrier' Wall of the First Century AD." Levant 13 (1981): 262-266. - - - . "The Northern Barrier Wall in Site T." In Excavations in Jerusalem, 1961-1967. Vol.!. Edited by A. D. Tusbingham, 213-232. Toronto: Royal Ontario Museum, 1985. - - . The Third Wall of Agrippa I." BA 40 (1977): 18-23. Hanson, K. C. ''The Herodians and Mediterranean Kinship-Part III: Economics." Biblical Theology Bulletin 20 (1990): 10--21. - - - , and D. E. Oakman. Palestine in the Time of Jesus: Social Structures and Social Conflicts. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1998. Hanson, R. "Jewish Apocalyptic against Its Near Eastern Environment." RB 78 (1971): 31-58. Harding, G. L. Baalbek. Beirut: Khavats, 1963. Harrington, H. K. "Did the Pharisees Eat Ordinary Food in a State of Ritual Purity?" JSJ 26 (1995): 42-54. Harris, W. V. War and Imperialism in Republican Rome. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1979. Hayes, C. "Intermarriage and Impurity in Ancient Jewish Sources." HTR 92 (1999): 3-36. Hayward, C. T. R. The Jewish Temple: ANon-Biblical Sourcebook. London: Routledge, 1996. Hayward, R. "The Jewish Temple at Leontopolis: A Reconsideration." JJS 33 (1982): 429-443. Hengel, M. Acts and the History of Earliest Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979. - - - . Between Jesus and Paul: Studies in the Earliest History of Christianity. London: SCM, 1983. - - - . The "Hellenization" of Judaea in the First Century after Christ. London: SCM, 1989. - - - . Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. - - - . The Pre-Christian Paul. London: SCM, 1991. - - - . The Zealots: Investigations into the Jewish Freedom Movement in the Period from Herod 1 until 70 A.D. Edinburgh, UK: Clark, 1989. - - - , and C. K. Barrett. Conflicts and Challenges in Early Christianity. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 1999. - - - , and R. Deines. "E. P. Sanders' 'Common Judaism,' Jesus, and the Pharisees." JTS 46 (1995): 1-70. Hennessy, 1. B. "Preliminary Report on Excavations at the Damascus Gate, Jerusalem, 1964--Q6." Levant 2 (1970): 22-27. Hershkovitz, M. "Decorated Lamps with Human Faces from the Excavations in the Jewish Quarter in Jerusalem" (in Hebrew). E118 (1985): 43-45. Hezser, C. ''The (In)Significance of Jerusalem in the Talmud Yerushalmi." In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. Vol. II. Edited by P. Schafer and C. Hezser, 11-49. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr, 2000. Hill, C. C. Hellenists and Hebrews: Reappraising Division within the Earliest Church. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992.

441

Hillier, B., and J. E. Hanson. The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Himmelfarb, M. Ascent to Heaven in Jewish and Christian Apocalypses. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993. - - - . "Judaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees." Poetics Today 19, no. 1 (1998): 19-40. - - - . " 'A Kingdom of Priests': The Democratization of the Priesthood in the Literature of Second Temple Judaism." Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 6 (1997): 89-104. Hoehner, H. HerodAntipas. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972. Hoglund, K. G. Achaemenid Imperifll Administration in Syria-Palestine and the Missions of Ezra and Nehemiah. Atlanta: Scholars, 1992. Holladay, C. "Eupolemus, Pseudo-." InABD. Vol. II. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 672-673. New York: Doubleday, 1992. - - - . Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors. 2 vols. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983-1989. - - . "Hecataeus, Pseudo-." In ABD. Vol. III. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 108-109. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Hollingsworth, T. H. Historical Demography. London: Camelot, 1969. Hollis, F. Archaeology of Herod's Temple. London: Dent, 1934. Hope, V. "A Roof over the Dead: Communal Tombs and Family Structure." In Domestic Space in the Roman World: Pompeii and Beyond. Edited by R. Laurence and A. Wallace-Hadrill, 69-88. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1997. Hopkins, K. Conquerors and Slaves. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1978. Horbury, W. "The 'Caiaphas' Ossuaries and Joseph Caiaphas." PEQ 126 (1994): 32-48. - - - . "Herod's Temple and 'Herod's Days.'" In TemplumAmicitiae: Essays on the Second Temple Presented to Ernst Bammel. Edited by W. Horbury, 103-149. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1991. - - - . "The Proper Name in 4Q468g: Peitholaus?" JJS 50 (1999): 310-311. Horsley, R. A. "High Priests and the Politics of Roman Palestine: A Contextual Analysis of the Evidence in Josephus." JSJ 17 (1986): 23-55. - - - . "Popular Prophetic Movements at the Time of Jesus: Their Principal Features and Social Origin." Journalfor the Study of the New Testament 26 (1986): 3-27. - - - , and J. S. Hanson. Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements at the Time of Jesus. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985. Houghton, A. Coins of the Seleucid Empire from the Collection ofArthur Houghton. New York: American Numismatic Society, 1983. Humphrey, J. H. " 'Amphitheatrical' Hippo-Stadia." In Caesarea Maritima. A Retrospective after Two Millennia. Edited by A. Raban and K. G. Holum, 121-129. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1996. - - - . Roman Circuses: Arenasfor Chariot Racing. London: Batsford, 1986. Hurvitz, A. "Terms and Epithets Relating to the Jerusalem Temple Compound in the Book of Chronicles: The Linguistic Aspect." In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in

442

Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited by D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, 165-183. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. nan, T. "The Attraction of Aristocratic Women to Pharisaism during the Second Temple Period." HTR 88 (1995): 1-33. - - - . "The Greek Names of the Hasmoneans." JQR 78 (1987): 1-20. - - - . Mine and Yours Are Hers: Retrieving Women s History from Rabbinic Literature. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997. Iliffe, J. "The 8ANATOI: Inscription from Herod's Temple: Fragment of a Second Copy." QDAP 6 (1938): 1-3. Isaac, B. H. "Cassius Dio on the Revolt of Bar Kokhba." SCI 7 (1983-1984): 68-76. - - - . "A Donation for Herod's Temple in Jerusalem." IEJ 33 (1983): 86-92. [= B. H. Isaac, The Near East under Roman Rule: Selected Papers (Mnemosyne Suppl. 177), 21-28. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1998.] - - - , and A. Oppenheimer. ''The Revolt of Bar Kokhba: Ideology and Modem Scholarship." JJS 36 (1985): 33-60. Isserlin, B. S. J. "Israelite Art during the Period of the Monarchy." In Jewish Art: An Illustrated History. Edited by C. Roth, 75-118. Greenwich, CT: New York Graphic Society, 1971. Jacobs, M. "Romische Thermenkultur im Spiegel des Talmud Yerushalmi." In The Talmud Yerushalmi and Graeco-Roman Culture. Vol. I. Edited by P. Schafer, 219-311. Ttibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1998. Jacobson, D. M. "The Plan of the Ancient Haram el-Khalil in Hebron." PEQ 113 (1981): 73-80. - - - . "Three Roman Client Kings: Herod of Judaea, Archelaus of Cappadocia and Juba of Mauretania." PEQ 133 (2001): 22-38. - - - , and S. Gibson. "A Monumental Stairway on the Temple Mount." IEJ 45 (1995): 162-170. Jacoby, D. "La population de Constantinople a l'epoque byzantine: un probleme de demographie urbaine." Byzantion 31 (1961): 81-109. Janzen, D. "The 'Mission' of Ezra and the Persian-Period Temple Community." JBL 119 (2000): 619-643. Japhet, S. "Composition and Chronology in the Book of Ezra-Nehemiah." In Second Temple Studies. Vol. II: Temple and Community in the Persian Period. Edited by T. C. Eskenazi and K. H. Richards, 189-216. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1994. - - - . "From King's Sanctuary to the Chosen City." In Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Centrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by L. I. Levine, 3-15. New York: Continuum, 1999. - - - . " 'History'and 'Literature'in the Persian Period: The Restoration of the Temple." In Ah, Assyria . .. Studies in Assyrian History and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim Tadmor [Scripta Hierosolymitana 33]. Edited by M. Cogan and I. Eph'al, 174-188. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1991.

443

- - - . The Ideology of the Book of Chronicles and Its Place in Biblical Thought. Frankfurt am Main, Germany: P. Lang, 1989. - - - . "The Relationship between Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah." VT 43 (1991): 298-313. - - - . "Sheshbazzar and Zerubbabel against the Background of the Historical and Religious Tendencies of Ezra-Nehemiah." Z4.W94 (1982): 66-98. - - - . "The Supposed Common Authorship of Chronicles and Ezra-Nehemiah InvestigatedAnew." VT 18 (1968): 330-371. - - - . 'The Temple in the Restoration Period: Reality and Ideology." Union Seminary Quarterly Review 43 (1991): 195-251. Jeremias, 1. Jerusalem in the Time of Jesus: An Investigation into Economic and Social Conditions during the New Testament. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969. Ji, C. C. "A New Look at the Tobiads in 'Iraq al-Amir." IA 48 (1998): 417-440. Johnson, 1. H. 'The Persians and the Continuity of Egyptian Culture." In Achaemenid History. Vol. VIII: Continuity and Change. Edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, and M. Cool Root, 149-159. Leiden, Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor het N abije Oosten, 1994. Jones, A. H. M. The Greek City from Alexander to Justinian. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1940. - - - . The Herods of Judaea. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1938. Jongman, W. The Economy and Society of Pompeii. Amsterdam: Gieben, 1988. Juster, 1. Les juifs dans l'empire romain. 2 vols. Paris: Geuthner, 1914. Kahn, L. C. "King Herod's Temple of Roma and Augustus at Caesarea Maritima." In Hellenic and Jewish Arts: Interaction, Tradition and Renewal. Edited by A. Ovadiah, 123-141. Tel Aviv: Ramot, 1998. Kanael, B. "The Partition of Judea by Gabinius." IEJ 7 (1957): 98-106. Kasher, A. "Alexander of Macedon's Campaign in Palestine" (in Hebrew). Bet Miqra 20 (1975): 187-208. - - - . "Herod and the Jewish Diaspora" (in Hebrew). In Studies on the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods [Teuda 12]. Edited by B. Isaac and A. Oppenheimer, 11-22. Tel Aviv: Ramot, 1996. - - - . Jews, Idumaeans, and Ancient Arabs. Ttibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1988. - - - . Josephus Flavius: Against Apion (in Hebrew). 2 vols. Jerusalem: Shazar Center, 1996. Kaufman, A. S. "New Light upon Zion: The Plan and Precise Location of the Second Temple." Ariel 43 (1977): 63-99. - - - . The Temple of Jerusalem: Tractate Middot, Reconstructing an Early Version (in Hebrew). Part I. Jerusalem: Har Year'eh Press, 1991. Kaufmann, Y. The History of Israelite Religion (in Hebrew). 8 vols. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1955-1956. Kee, H. "Defming the First Century C.E. Synagogue." NTS 41 (1995): 485-500. - - - . "Defining the First-Century C.E. Synagogue: Problems and Progress." In Evolution of the Synagogue: Problems and Progress. Edited by H. C. Kee and L. H. Cohick, 7-26. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1999.

444

- - - . "Early Christianity in the Galilee: Reassessing the Evidence from the Gospels." In The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by L. I. Levine, 3-22. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. - - - . "The Transformation of the Synagogue: after 70 C.E.: Its Import for Early Christianity." NTS 36 (1990): 1-24. Kennard, J. "Judas of Galilee and His Clan." JQR 36 (1946): 281-286. Kenyon, K. Digging up Jerusalem. London: Benn, 1974. - - - . Jerusalem: Excavating 3000 }ears ofHistory. London: Thames & Hudson, 1967. - - . "Excavations in Jerusalem, 1965." PEQ 98 (1966): 73-88. - - - . "Some Aspects of the Impact of Rome on Palestine." Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1970): 181-191. Kindler, A. "The Hellenistic Influence on Hasmonean Coins" (in Hebrew), In The Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt. Edited by B. Bar-Kochva, 289-308. Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1980. - - - . "Silver Coins Bearing the Name of Judea from the Early Hellenistic Period." IE] 24 (1974): 73-76. Kittel, G., and G. Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. 10 vols. Translated by G. W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964-1976. Klein, R. W. "Ezra and Nehemiah in Recent Studies." In Magnalia Dei-The Mighty Acts of God: Essays of the Bible and Archaeology in Memory ofG. Ernest Wright. Edited by F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller Jr., 361-376. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. Klinghardt, M. ''The Manual of Discipline in the Light of Statutes of Hellenistic Associations." In Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects [Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722]. Edited by M. O. Wise, N. Golb, and J. J. Collins, 251-267. New York: New York Academy of Sciences 1994. Kloner, A. "Amphorae with Decorative Motifs on Ossuaries-Sources and Influences" (in Hebrew). In New Studies on Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Fourth Conference, December 10, 1998. Edited by E. Baruch, 48-54. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-nan University, 1998. - - - . "Columbaria in Jerusalem." In Jerusalem and Eretz Israel: Arie Kindler Volume (in Hebrew). Edited by J. Schwartz, Z. Amar, and I. Ziffer, 61-66. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-l1an University, 2000. - - - . "Hippodrome/Amphitheater in Jerusalem" (in Hebrew). In New Studies on Jerusalem: Proceedings of the Sixth Conference, December 7,2000. Edited by A. Faust and E. Baruch, 75-86. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-l1an University, 2000. - - - . "The Necropolis of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period" (in Hebrew). Ph.D. diss. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1980. Kloppenborg-Verbin, J. S. "Dating Theodotos (CD II 1404)." JJS 51 (2000): 243-280. Knohl, I. "Between Voice and Silence: The Relationship between Prayer and Temple Cult." JBL 115 (1996): 17-30.

445

Knoppers, G. N. "Intermarriage, Social Complexity and Ethnic Diversity in the Genealogy of Judah." JBL 120 (2001): 15-30. Koch, K. "Ezra and the Origins of Judaism." Journal of Semitic Studies 19 (1974): 173-197. Kochman, M. "Yehud Medinta in the Light of Seal Impressions YHWD-PHW' (in Hebrew). Cathedra 24 (1982): 3-30. Kohn, E., and C. Ewigleben, eds. Gladiators and Caesars: The Power of Spectacle in Ancient Rome. London: British Museum, 2000. Koester, H. History, Culture, and Religion of the Hellenistic Age. 2nd ed. New York: de Gruyter, 1995. Kokkinos, N. The Herodian Dynasty: Origins, Role in Society and Eclipse. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1998. Kon, M. The Tombs of the Kings (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Dvir, 1947. Kraeling, C. H. "The Episode of the Roman Standards at Jerusalem." HTR 35 (1942): 263-289. Kraemer, D. "On the Relationship of the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah." JSOT 59 (1993): 73-92. Kraft, R. 'The Multiform Jewish Heritage of Early Christianity." In Christianity, Judaism, and Other Greco-Roman Cults. Vol. III. Edited by J. Neusner, 174-199. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1975. Kugel,1. L., and R. Greer. Early Biblical Interpretation. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986. Kugler, R. A., and E. M. Schuller, eds. The Dead Sea Scrolls at Fifty. Atlanta: Scholars, 1999. Kuhrt, A. "The Cyrus Cylinder and Achaemenid Imperial Policy." JSOT25 (1983): 83-97. Kutscher, Y. "Hebrew and Aramaic Inscriptions" (in Hebrew). In Sefer Yerushalayim. Edited by M. Avi-Yonah, 349-357. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1956. Kyle, D. G. Spectacles of Death in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 1998. Lfunmer, M. "Griechische Wettkfunpfe in Jerusalem und ihre politischen Hintergriinde." KiRner Beitriige zur Sportwissenschajt 2 (1973): 182-227. - - - . "The Introduction of Greek Contests into Jerusalem through Herod the Great and its Political Significance." Physical Education and Sports in Jewish History and Culture. Vol. I. Edited by U. Simri, 18-38. Netanya, Israel: Wingate Institute, 1973. Laidlaw, A. ''The Tomb of Montefiore: A New Roman Tomb Painted in the Second Style." Archaeology 17 (1964): 33-42. Landau, Y. H. "A Greek Inscription found near Hefzibah." IEJ 16 (1966): 54-70. Laurence, R. "Local Identity: Neighbours and Neighbourhoods." In Roman Pompeii: Space and Society. Edited by R. Laurence, 38-50. London: Routledge, 1994. Lauterbach, 1. Z. Rabbinic Essays. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951. Lee, T. R. Studies in the Form of Sirach 44-50. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. Leith, N. 1. W. "Israel among the Nations: The Persian Period." In The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Edited by M. D. Coogen, 367-419. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Lemonon, J. P. Pilate et Ie gouvernement de la Judie: Textes et Monuments. Paris: Gabalda, 1981. LeMoyne, 1. Les sadduciens. Paris: Gabalda, 1972.

446

Lenardon, R. J. The Saga ofThemistocles. London: Thames & Hudson, 1978. Levenson, J. "The Jerusalem Temple in Devotional and Visionary Experience." In Jewish Spirituality. Vol. I: From the Bible through the Middle Ages. Edited by A. Green, 32--61. New York: Crossroad, 1987. Levick, B. M. Roman Colonies in Southern Asia Minor. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1967. Levine, L. I. The Ancient Synagogue: The First Thousand Years. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. - - - . Caesarea under Roman Rule. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1975. - - - . "The First-Century Synagogue: Critical Reassessments and Assessments of the Critical." In Religion and Society in Roman Palestine: Reconstructions from Archaeology and Texts. Edited by D. Edwards and C. T. McCollough. London: Routledge, in press. - - - . "From the Beginning of Roman Rule to the End of the Second Temple Period" (in Hebrew). In The History of Eretz Israel. Vol. IV: The Roman Period from the Conquest of Pompey to the Ben Kozba War (63 B.C.E.-135 C.E.). Edited by M. Stern, 11-280. Jerusalem: Keter, 1984. - - - . "Hasmonean Jerusalem: A Jewish City in a Hellenistic Orbit." Judaism 46, no. 2 (1997): 140-146. - - - . "The History and Significance of the Menorah in Antiquity." In From Dura to Sepphoris: Studies in Jewish Art and Society in Late Antiquity [Suppl. 40 to Journal of Roman Archaeology]. Edited by L. Levine and Z. Weiss, 131-153. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000. - - - . ed. The Jerusalem Cathedra. Vol. I. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1981. - - - . "The Jewish-Greek Conflict in First Century Caesarea." JJS 25 (1974): 381-397. - - - . "Josephus' Description of the Jerusalem Temple: War, Antiquities, and Other Sources." In Josephus and the History of the Greco-Roman Period. Edited by F. Parente and J. Sievers, 233-246. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1994. - - - . Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence? Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998. - - - . "On the Political Involvement of the Pharisees under Herod and the Procurators" (in Hebrew). Cathedra 8 (1978): 12-28. - - - . "The Political Struggle between Pharisees and Sadducees in the Hasmonean Period" (in Hebrew). Studies in the History of Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: SchaUt Memorial Volume. Edited by A. Oppenheimer, U. Rappaport, and M. Stern, 61-83. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1981. - - - . Roman Caesarea: An Archaeological-Topographical Study [Qedem 2]. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1975. Levy, B. "Tyrian Shekels and the First Jewish War." Proceedings of the XIth International Numismatic Congress 1 (1991): 267-274. - - - . "Tyrian Shekels: The Myth of the Jerusalem Mint." Journal for the Society of Ancient Numismatics 19, no. 2 (1995): 33-35.

447

Lewis, N. The Documents from the Bar-Kokhba Period in the Cave of Letters: Greek Papyri. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University, and Shrine of the Book, 1989. Lichtenstein, H. "Die Fastenrolle: Eine Untersuchung zur jUdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte." HUCA 8-9 (1931-1932): 257-35l. Lieberman, S. Greek in Jewish Palestine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1942. - - - . Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. 2nd ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. - - - . "Martyrs of Caesarea." Annuaire de l'institut de philologie et d'histoire orientales et slaves 7 (1939-1944): 395-445. - - - . "Some Aspects of After-Life in Early Rabbinic Literature." In H. A. Wolfson Jubilee Volume. Vol. II. Edited by S. Lieberman, 495-530. Jerusalem: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1965. - - - . Tosefta Ki-Fshutah (in Hebrew). 10 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955-1988. Liebmann-Frankfort, T. "Rome et Ie conflict judeo-syrien (164-161 avant notre ere)." AntCl38 (1969): 101-120. Lieu, J. "Epiphanius on the Scribes and Pharisees (Pan. 15.1-16.4)." JTS 39 (1988): 509-524. Lightstone, J. N. "Judaism of the Second Commonwealth: Toward a Reform of the Scholarly Tradition." In Truth and Compassion: Essays on Judaism and Religion in Memory of Rabbi Dr. Solomon Frank. Edited by H. Joseph, 1. N. Lightstone, and M. D. Oppenheim, 31-40. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1983. Lipschits, O. "The History of the Benjaminite Region under Babylonian Rule" (in Hebrew). Zion 64 (1999): 271-310. Lloyd, A. B. "The Inscription of Udjahorresnet: A Collaborator's Testament." JEA 68 (1982): 166--180. Lomas, K. "Urban Elites and Cultural Definition: Romanization in Southern Italy." In Urban Society in Roman Italy. Edited by T. J. Cornell and K. Lomas, 107-120. London: UCL, 1995. Longenecker, B. W. 'The Wilderness and Revolutionary Ferment in First-Century Palestine: A Response to D. R. Schwartz and J. Marcus." JSJ 29 (1998): 322-326. Luria, B. Z. 'The Location of the Akra at the Northern Part of the Temple Mount" (in Hebrew). Cathedra 21 (1981): 31-40. Luttwak, E. N. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976. MacDonald, W. L. The Architecture of the Roman Empire. Vol. II: An Urban Appraisal. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1986. Machinist, P. "The First Coins of Judah and Samaria: Numismatics and History in the Achaemenid and Early Hellenistic Periods." In Achaemenid History. Vol. VIII: Continuity and Change. Edited by H. Sancisi-Weerdenburg, A. Kuhrt, and M. Cool Root, 365-380. Leiden, Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1994.

448

MacMullen, R."The Epigraphic Habit in the Empire." AJP 103 (1982): 233-246. - - - . Paganism in the Roman Empire. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1981. - - - . Roman Social Relations 50 B.C. to A.D. 284. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1974. - - - . Romanization in the Time of Augustus. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Macready, S., andF. H. Thompson, eds. RomanArchitecture in the Greek World. London: Society of Antiquaries, 1987. Magen, Y. "Ancient Israel's Stone Age." BAR 24, no. 5 (1998): 46-52. - - - . "Jerusalem as a Center of the Stone Vessel Industry during the Second Temple Period." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 244-256. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. - - - . "Tombs Decorated in Jerusalem Style in Samaria and the Hebron Hills" (in Hebrew). Qadmoniot 35, no 123 (2002): 28-37. Magness, J. "The Community of Qumran in Light of Its Pottery." In Methods of Investigation of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Khirbet Qumran Site: Present Realities and Future Prospects [Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 722]. Edited by M. O. Wise, N. Golb, and J. J. Collins, 39-48. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1994. - - . "Where Is Herod's Tomb at Herodium?" BASOR 322 (2001): 43-46. Maier, P. L. "The Episode of the Golden Shields at Jerusalem." HTR 62 (1969): 109-12l. Mantel, H. "The Causes of the Bar Kokhba Revolt." JQR 58 (1967-1968): 224-242, 274-296. - - - . Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965. Ma'oz, Z. U. "More on the Town-Plan of Jerusalem in the Hasmonean Period" (in Hebrew). EI 19 (1987): 326-329. - - - . "On the Hasmonean and Herodian Town-Plan of Jerusalem" (in Hebrew). EI 18 (1985): 46-57. Margalith, O. "The Political Role of Ezra as Persian Governor." ZAW 98 (1986): 110-112. Mason, H. J. Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis. Toronto: Hakkett, 1974. Mason, S. "Chief Priests, Sadducees, Pharisees and Sanhedrin in Acts." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting, Vol. IV: The Book ofActs in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham, 115-177. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. - - - . Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees: A Composition-Critical Study. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1991. - - - . "Was Josephus a Pharisee? A Re-Examination of Life 10-12." JJS 40 (1989): 31-45. Massyngberde Ford, J. Revelation. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975. Mathea-Fortsch, M. "Scroll Ornamentations from Judaea and Their Different Patterns." In Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of

449

Archaeological Evidence. Edited by K. Fittschen and G. Foerster, 177-196. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. Matthews, S. "Ladies' Aid: Gentile Noblewomen as Saviors and Benefactors in the Antiquities." HTR 92 (1999): 199-218. Mattingly, D. J. "Beyond Belief? Drawing a Line Beneath the Consumer City." In Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City. Edited by H. M. Parkins, 210-218. London: Routledge, 1997. - - - , and J. Salmon. "The Productive Past: Economies Beyond Agriculture." In Economies Beyond Agriculture in the Classical World. Edited by D. J. Mattingly and J. Salmon, 3-14. London: Routledge, 2001. - - - , D. Stone, L. Sterling, and N. ben Lazrag. "Leptiminus (Tunisia): A 'Producer' City?" In Economies Beyond Agriculture in the Classical World. Edited by D. J. Mattingly and J. Salmon, 66--89. London: Routledge, 2001. Mazar, A. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 B.C.E. New York: Doubleday, 1990. - - - . "A Survey of the Aqueducts Leading to Jerusalem" (in Hebrew). The Aqueducts of Ancient Palestine. Edited by D. Amit, 169-195. Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 1989. Mazar, B. Beth She'arim. Vol. I. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1974. - - - . "Herodian Jerusalem in the Light of the Excavations South and South-West of the Temple Mount." IEJ28 (1978): 230-237. - - - . The Mountain of the Lord. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1975. - - - . "The Royal Stoa in the Southern Part of the Temple Mount." In Recent Archaeology in the Land of Israel. Edited by H. Shanks and B. Mazar, 141-147. Washington, DC, and Jerusalem: Biblical Archaeology Society and Israel Exploration Society, 1984. McEvenue, S. 'The Political Structure in Judah from Cyrus to Nehemiah." CBQ 43 (1981): 353-365. McFall, L. "Was Nehemiah Contemporary with Ezra in 458?" Westminster Theological Journal 53 (1991): 263-293. McLaren, J. S. Power and Politics in Palestine: The Jews and the Governing of Their Land 100 Be-AD 70. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Meeks, W. The First Urban Christians: The Social World of the Apostle Paul. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1983. M€leze Modrzejewski, J. The Jews of Egypt: From Rameses II to Emperor Hadrian. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1995. Mendels, D. "Hecataeus of Abdera and a Jewish 'Patrios Politeia' of the Persian Period (Diodorus Siculus XL, 3)." Z4W95 (1983): 96--110. - - - . Identity, Religion and Historiography: Studies in Hellenistic History. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1998. - - - . The Land of Israel as a Political Concept in Hasmonean Literature. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1987. - - - . The Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

450

Meshorer, Y. Ancient Jewish Coinage. 2 vols. Dix Hills, NY: Amphora, 1982. - - - . "One Hundred Ninety Years of Tyrian Shekels." In Studies in Honor of Leo Mildenberg. Edited by A. Houghton, S. Hurter, P. Erhart Mottahedeh, and 1. Ayer Scott, 171-179. Wetteren, Belgium: Editions NR, 1984. - - - . A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2001. Meyers, C. L., and E. M. Meyers. "Demography and Diatribes: Yehud's Population and the Prophecy of Second Zechariah." In Scripture and Other Artifacts: Essays on the Bible and Archaeology in Honor of Philip J. King. Edited by M. D. Coogan, 1. C. J. Exum, and L. E. Stager, 268-285. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994. - - - . Haggai, Zechariah 1-8. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1987. Meyers, E. M. Jewish Ossuaries: Reburial and Rebirth. Rome: Biblical Institute, 1971. - - - . "Second Temple Studies in the Light of Recent Archaeology: Part I: The Persian and Hellenistic Periods." Current Research: Biblical Studies 2 (1994): 25-42. Meyshan, J. "The Symbols on the Coinage of Herod the Great and Their Meaning." PEQ 91 (1959): 109-121. Mildenberg, L. "Yehud: A Preliminary Study of the Provincial Coinage of Judea." In Greek Numismatics and Archaeology: Essays in Honor of Margaret Thompson. Edited by O. Morkhoim and N. W. Waggoner, 183-196. Wetteren, Belgium: Editions NR, 1979. Milgrom, J. The JPS Torah Commentary: Numbers. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1990. - - - . Leviticus 1-16. New York: Doubleday, 1991. Millar, F. "The Backgound to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections of Martin Hengel's 'Judaism and Hellenism.' " JJS 29 (1978): 1-21. - - - . The Emperor in the Roman World. Rpt. ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992. - - - . "The Greek City in the Roman Period." In The Ancient Greek City-State. Edited by M. H. Hansen, 232-260. Copenhagen: The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 1993. - - - . The Roman Empire and Its Neighbors. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1967. - - - . The Roman Near East, 31 Be-AD 337. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993. Millard, A. Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Mitchell, S. Cremna in Pisidia: An Ancient City in Peace and War. London: Duckworth, 1995. Momigliano, A. Essays in Ancient and Modern Historiography. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1982. - - - . "Flavius Josephus and Alexander's Visit to Jerusalem." Athenaeum 57 (1979): 442-448. - - - . On Pagans, Christians, and Jews. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1987.

451

- - - . "Rebellion within the Empire." In CAR. Vol. X: The Augustan Empire, 44 B.C.-A.D. 70. Edited by S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, 850-865. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1934. Moore, C. A. Daniel, Esther and Jeremiah: The Additions [Anchor Bible 44]. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1977. - - - . "Esther, Additions to." In ABD. Vol. II. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 626-633. New York: Doubleday, 1992. - - - . "Tobit, Book of." In ABD. Vol. VI. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 585-594. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Moore, G. F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927-1930. - - - . "Simeon the Righteous." In Jewish Studies in Memory of Israel Abrahams. Edited by G. A. Kohut, 348-364. New York: Jewish Institute of Religion, 1927. Mor, M. "Samaritan History: The Persian, Hellenistic and Hasmonean Period." In The Samaritans. Edited by A. D. Crown, 1-18. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1989. Morgenstern,1. "Jerusalem-485 B.C." HUCA 27 (1956): 101-179. Mouritsen, H. "Mobility and Social Change in Italian Towns during the Principate." In Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City. Edited by H. M. Parkins, 59-82. London: Routledge, 1997. Munck,1. The Acts of the Apostles. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1967. Murphy-O'Connor, 1. "Demetrius I and the Teacher of Righteousness (1 Mace. x, 25--45)." RB 83 (1976): 400-420. - - - . "The Essenes and Their History." RB 81 (1974): 215-244. - - - . "G. 1. Wightman, The Walls of Jerusalem" [Review]. RB 102 (1995): 433-437. - - - . The Holy Land: An Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Mussies, G. "Greek in Palestine and the Diaspora." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. II. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stem, 1040-1064. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Naeh, S. "Did the Tannaim Interpret the Script of the Torah Differently from the Authorized Reading?" (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 61 (1992): 401--448. Naor, M., ed. King Herod and His Times [Edan 5] (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 1987. Naveh, J. "A New Tomb-Inscription from Giv'at Hamivtar." In Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974. Edited by Y. Yadin, 73-74. New Haven, CT, and Jerusalem: Yale University Press and the Israel Exploration Society, 1976. - - - , and 1. C. Greenfield. "Hebrew and Aramaic in the Persian Period." In CHJ. Vol. I: Introduction: The Persian Period. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 115-129. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Netzer, E. "Ancient Ritual Baths (Miqvaot) in Jericho." In The Jerusalem Cathedra. Vol. II. Edited by L. I. Levine, 106-119. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1982.

452

- - - . Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho: Final Reports of the 1973-1987 Excavations. Vol. I. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 2001. - - . "Herod's Family Tomb in Jerusalem." BAR 9, no. 3 (1983): 52-59. - - - . "The Palaces Built by Herod-A Research Update." In Judaea and the GrecoRoman World in the Time of Herod in the Light ofArchaeological Evidence. Edited by K. Fittschen and G. Foerster, 7-54. G6ttingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. - - - . The Palaces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1999. - - - . "Tyros, The 'Floating Palace.' " In Text and Artifact in the Religions of Mediterranean Antiquity: Essays in Honour of Peter Richardson. Edited by S. G. Wilson and M. Desjardins, 340--353. Waterloo, Ont.: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2000. - - - , and S. Ben-Arieh. "Remains of an Opus Reticulatum Building in Jerusalem." 1EJ 33 (1983): 163-175. Neusner, J. Development ofa Legend: Studies on the Traditions Concerning Yohanan ben Zakkai. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1970. - - - . "The Fellowship (Haburah) in the Second Jewish Commonwealth." HTR 53 (1960): 125-142. - - - . From Politics to Piety: The Emergence ofPharisaic Judaism. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Ktav, 1973. - - - . The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70. 3 vols. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1971. - - - , W. S. Green, and E. S. Frerichs. Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Newsom, C. Songs of the Sabbath Sacrifice: A Critical Edition. Atlanta: Scholars, 1985. Nicholson, E. 'The Centralisation of the Cult in Deuteronomy." VT 13 (1963): 380--389. Nickelsburg, J. C. "Enoch, First Book of." In ABD. Vol. II. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 508-516. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Nielsen, I. Hellenistic Palaces: Tradition and Renewal. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1994. - - - . Thermae et Balnea: The Architecture and Cultural History of Roman Public Baths. 2 vols. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1990. Nock, D. 'The Roman Army and the Roman Religious Year." HTR 45 (1952): 187-252. North, R. 'The Qumran Reservoirs." In The Bible in Current Catholic Thought. Edited by J. L. McKenzie, 100--132. New York: Herder & Herder, 1962. Oates, W. J. "The Population of Rome." Classical Philology 29 (1934): 101-116. Olmstead, A. T. History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1948. Olyan, S. M. "Ben Sira's Relationship to the Priesthood." HTR 80 (1987): 261-286. Oppenheimer, A. The 'Am Ha-Aretz: A Study in the Social History of the Jewish People in the Hellenistic-Roman Period. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1977. Oster, R. Jr. "Supposed Anachronism in Luke-Acts' Use of LYNArQrH: A Rejoinder to H. C. Kee." NTS 39 (1993): 178-208.

453

Packer, J. E. "Housing and Population in Imperial Ostia and Rome." JRS 57 (1967): 80-95. Paltiel, E. Vassals and Rebels in the Roman Empire: Julio-Claudian Policies in Judaea and the Kingdoms of the East. Brussels: Latomus, 1991. Parkin, T. G. Demography and Roman Society. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1992. Parkins, H. "The 'Consumer City' Domesticated? The Roman City in Elite Economic Strategies." In Roman Urbanism: Beyond the Consumer City. Edited by H. M. Parkins, 83-111. London: Routledge, 1997. Parsons, E. A. The Alexandrian Library: Glory of the Hellenic World. London: CleaverHume Press, 1952. Patrich,1. "The Golden Vine, The Sanctuary Portal, and Its Depiction on the Bar-Kokhba Coins." JA 19-20 (1993-1994): 56-61. - - - . "Herod's Theater in Jerusalem-ANew Proposal." Unpublished manuscript. - - - . "The Mesibbah of the Temple According to Tractate Middot." IEJ 36 (1986): 215-233. - - - . "A Sadducean Halakha and the Jerusalem Aqueduct." In The Jerusalem Cathedra. Vol. II. Edited by L. I. Levine, 25-39. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1982. - - - . "The Structure of the Second Temple-A New Suggestion for Reconstruction" (in Hebrew). Qadmoniot21, nos. 81-82 (1988): 32-40. Patterson, J. R. "The City of Rome: From Republic to Empire." JRS 82 (1992): 186-215. Paul, S. "Jerusalem-A City of Gold." IEJ 17 (1967): 259-263. Perring, D. "Spatial Organisation and Social Change in Roman Towns." In City and Country in the Ancient World. Edited by J. Rich and A. Wallace-Hadrill, 273-294. London: Routledge, 1991. Peters, J. P., and H. Thiersch. Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of Marissa. London: Palestine Exploration Fund, 1905. Pixner, B. "The History of the 'Essene Gate' Area." ZDPV 105 (1989): 96-104. - - - . "Jerusalem's Essene Gateway: Where the Community Lived in Jesus' Time." BAR 23, no. 3 (1997): 23-31, 64-66. - - - , and D. Chen. "Mt. Zion: The 'Gate of the Essenes' Re-excavated." ZDPV 105 (1989): 85-95. Pltimacher, E. "Luke: Luke as Historian." In ABD. Vol. IV. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 398-402. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Porten, B. Archives from Elephantine. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1968. - - - . "Restoration of a Holy Nation." Dor L'Dor 7 (1979): 127-135. - - - , and A. Yardeni. Textbook ofAramaic DocumentsfromAncient Egypt. Jerusalem: Department of Jewish History, Hebrew University, 1986. Potter, D. S. Prophets and Emperors: Human and Divine Authority from Augustus to Theodosius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994. Price, 1. Jerusalem under Siege: The Collapse of the Jewish State 66-70 C.E. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1992. Pritchard, J. B. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955.

454

Pucci Ben Zeev, M. "Did the Jews Enjoy a Privileged Position in the Roman World?" REJ 154 (1995): 23-42. - - - . "Greek and Roman Documents fonn Republican Times in the Antiquities: What Was Josephus' Source?" SCI 13 (1994): 46-59. - - - . Jewish Rights in the Roman World: The Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius. Tiibingen, Gennany: Mohr Siebeck, 1998. - - - . "Jewish Rights in the Roman World: New Perceptions." In Studies on the Jewish Diaspora in the Hellenistic and Roman Periods [Teuda 12]. Edited by B. Isaac and A. Oppenheimer, 39-53. Tel Aviv: Ramot, 1996. - - - . "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. Purvis, J. D. ''The Samaritans." In CHJ. Vol. II: The Hellenistic Age. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 591-613. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1989. - - . ''The Samaritans and Judaism." In Early Judaism and Its Modern Interpreters. Edited by R. A Kraft and G. W. E. Nickelsburg, 81-98. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. Qimron, E., and J. Strugnell, eds. Qumran Cave 4: Miqsat Ma'aie Ha-Torah [DJD 10]. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1994. Rabello, A. M. "Herod's Domestic Court? The Judgment of Death for Herod's Sons." The Jewish Law Annual 10 (1992): 39-56. Rabin, C. "Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees." JJS 7 (1956): 3-11. - - - . "Hebrew and Aramaic in the First Century." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. II. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stem, 1007-1039. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Ragette, F. Baalbek. Park Ridge, NJ: Noyes, 1980. Rahmani, L. Y. "Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs I-IV (1)" BA 44 (1981): 229-235. - - - . "Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs I-IV (2)" BA 45 (1981): 43-53. - - - . "Ancient Jerusalem's Funerary Customs and Tombs I-IV (3)" BA 45 (1982): 109-119. - - . A Catalogue ofJewish Ossuaries in the Collection of the State ofIsrael. Jerusalem: Israel Antiquities Authority and Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994. - - . "Jason's Tomb." IEJ 17 (1967): 61-100. - - . "Ossuaries and Ossilegium (Bone-Gathering) in the Late Second Temple Period." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 191-205. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Rajak, T. "Hasmonean Kingship and the Invention of Tradition."In Aspects of Hellenistic Kingship. Edited by P. Bilde, T. Engberg-Pedersen, L. Hannestad, and J. Zahle, 99-115. Aarhus, Denmark: Aarhus University Press, 1996. - - - . "The Hasmoneans and the Uses of Hellenism." In A Tribute to Geza Vermes: Essays in Jewish and Christian literature [Suppl. 100 to JSOTj. Edited by P. R. Davies and R. T. White, 261-280. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1990.

455

- - - . Josephus: The Historian and His Society. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984. - - - . "The Location of Cultures in Second Temple Palestine: The Evidence of Josephus." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Vol. IV: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham, 1-14. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. - - - . "Roman Intervention in the Seleucid Siege of Jerusalem?" Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies 22 (1981): 65-81. Rappaport, U. "1 Maccabees." In The Oxford Bible Commentary. Edited by 1. Barton and 1. Muddiman, 711-734. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2001. - - . "The First Judean Coinage." JJS 32 (1981): 1-17. - - - . "Hellenization of the Hasmoneans." In Jewish Assimilntion, Acculturation and Accommodation: Past Traditions, Current Issues and Future Prospects. Edited by M. Mor, 1-13. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1992. - - - . "Jewish-Pagan Relations and the Revolt against Rome in 66-70 C.E." In The Jerusalem Cathedra. Vol. I. Edited by L. I. Levine, 81-95. Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 1981. - - - . "On the Hellenization of the Hasmoneans" (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 60 (1991): 477-503. - - - . "On the Meaning of Heber ha-Yehudim" (in Hebrew). Studies in the History of the Jewish People and the Land of Israel 3 (1974): 59-67. Reed, 1. Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-Examination of the Evidence. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 2000. Regev, E. "How Did the Temple Mount Fall to Pompey?" JJS 48 (1997): 276-289. - - - . "The Individualistic Meaning of Jewish Ossuaries: A Socio-Anthropological Perspective on Burial Practice." PEQ 133 (2001): 39-49. - - - . "Pure Individualism: The Idea of Non-Priestly Purity in Ancient Judaism." JSJ 31 (2000): 176-202. - - - . "Ritual Baths of Jewish Groups and Sects in the Second Temple Period" (in Hebrew). Cathedra 79 (1996): 3-21. - - - . "The Temple Impurity and Qumran's 'Foreign Policy' in the Early Hasmonean Period" (in Hebrew). Zion 64 (1999): 133-156. - - - . 'The Use of Stone Vessels at the End of the Second Temple Period" (in Hebrew). In Judea and Samaria Studies: Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Conference-1996. Edited by Y. Eshel, 79-95. Kedumim-Ariel, Israel: College of Judea and Samaria, 1997. Reich, N. 'The Codification of the Egyptian Laws by Darius and the Origin of the 'Demotic Chronicle.' " Mizraim 1 (1933): 178-185. Reich, R. "Archaeological Evidence of the Jewish Population at Hasmonean Gezer." IEJ 31 (1981): 48-52. - - - . "Miqva' ot." Encyclopedia ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls. Vol. I. Edited by L. H. Schiffman and 1. C. VanderKam, 560-563. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000. - - - . "Ossuary Inscriptions of the Caiaphas Family from Jerusalem." Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 223-225. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000.

456

- - - . "The Synagogue and the Miqweh in Eretz-Israel in the Second-Temple, Mishnaic, and Talmudic Periods." In Ancient Synagogues: Historical Analysis and Archaeological Discovery. Vol. I. :Edited by D. Urman and P. V. M. Flesher, 289-297. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1995. - - - . 'The Virtual Model at the Davidson Center near the Temple Mount and the Reconstruction of the Royal Stoa" (in Hebrew). Qadmoniot 35, no. 123 (2002): 48-52. Reich, R., and Y. Billig. "Excavations near the Temple Mount and Robinson's Arch, 1994-1996." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 340-352. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. - - - . "A Group of Theatre Seats Discovered near the South-Western Comer of the Temple Mount." IEJ 50 (2000): 175-184. Reinhardt, W. "The Population Size of Jerusalem and the Numerical Growth of the Jerusalem Church." In The Book of Acts in Its First Century Setting. Vol. IV: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham, 237-265. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Renov, S. "A View of Herod's Temple from Nicanor Gate in a Mural Panel of the Dura Europos Synagogue." IE] 20 (1970): 67-74. Rhoads, D. Israel in Revolution: 6-74 C.E. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Rich, 1. "Patronage and Interstate Relations in the Roman Republic." In Patronage in Ancient Society. Edited by A. Wallace-Hadrill, 117-135. London: Routledge, 1989. Richardson, L. Jr. Pompeii: An Architectural History. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1988. Richardson, P. Herod: King of the Jews and Friend of the Romans. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996. - - - . "Law and Piety in Herod's Architecture." SR 15 (1986): 347-360. Riesner, R. "Essene Gate." In ABD. Vol. II. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 618-619. New York: Doubleday, 1992. - - - . "Josephus"Gate of the Essenes'in Modem Discussion." ZDPV 105 (1989): 105-109. - - - . "Synagogues in Jerusalem." In The Book ofActs in Its First Century Setting. Vol. IV: The Book of Acts in Its Palestinian Setting. Edited by R. Bauckham, 179-210. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995. Rimon, 0., ed. 'Purity broke out in Israel' (Tractate Shabbat J3a): Stone Vessels in the Late Second Temple Period. Haifa: Hecht Museum, 1994. Ritmeyer, K., and L. Ritmeyer. "Reconstructing Herod's Temple Mount in Jerusalem." BAR 15, no. 6 (1989): 23-42. Ritmeyer, L. "Locating the Original Temple Mount." BAR 18, no. 2 (1992): 25-45, 64. - - - . The Temple and the Rock. Harrogate, UK: Ritmeyer Archaeological Design, 1996. Robinson, E. Biblical Researches in Palestine, Mount Sinai, and Arabia Petraea. Vol. I. London: Murray, 1841. Robinson, O. T. Ancient Rome: City Planning and Administration. London: Routledge, 1992. Rocca, S. "Rome and Jerusalem: The Building Policies of Augustus and Herod" (in Hebrew). M.A. thesis. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1998.

457

Rofe, A. "The Reliability of the Sources about David's Reign: An Outlook from Political Theory." In Minchil: Festgabe fUr Rolf Rendtorff zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Blum, 217-227. Neukirchen, Germany: Neukirchener-Vluyn, 2000. Rogers, G. M. The Sacred Identity of Ephesos: Foundation Myths of a Roman City. London: Routledge, 1991. Roller, D. W. The Building Program ofHerod the Great. Berkeley: University of Califomia Press, 1998. Rooke, D. W. Zadok's Heirs: The Role and Development of the High Priesthood in Ancient Israel. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000. Rosen, H. B. Hebrew at the Crossroads of Cultures: From Outgoing Antiquity to the Middle Ages. Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 1995. Roslar, M. "Song of Songs in Light of Hellenistic Erotic Poetry" (in Hebrew). Eshkolot 1 (1954): 33-48. Rubenstein, J. The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods. Atlanta: Scholars, 1995. Rubin, N. "Secondary Burials in the Mishnaic and Talmudic Periods: A Proposed Model of the Relationship of Social Structure to Burial Practice" (in Hebrew). In Graves and Burial Practices in Israel and the Ancient Period. Edited by 1. Singer, 248-269. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1994. Runesson, A. The Origins of the Synagogue: A Socio-Historical Study. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2001. Russell, J. C. The Control of Late Ancient and Medieval Population. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1985. - - - . Late Ancient and Medieval Population. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1958. Safrai, S. "Education and the Study of the Torah." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. II. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 945-970. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. - - - . Pilgrimage at the Time of the Second Temple (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Am Hassefer, 1965. - - - . "Relations between the Diaspora and the Land of Israel." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. 1. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 184-215. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. - - - . "Religion in Everyday Life." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. II. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 793-833. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. - - - . ''The Temple." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. II. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 865-907. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. Saldarini, A. J. "The Gospel of Matthew and Jewish-Christian Conflict in the Galilee." In The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by L. 1. Levine, 23-38. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. - - . "Pharisees." In ABD. Vol. V. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 289-303. New York: Doubleday, 1992. - - - . Philrisees, Scribes and Sadducees in Palestinian Society: A Sociological Approach. Wilmington, DE: Glazier, 1988.

458

- - - . "Scribes." In ABD. Vol. V. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 1012-1016. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Salmon, P. Population et depopulation dans ['empire romain. Brussels: Latomus, 1974. Sanders, E. P. Jesus and Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985. - - - . Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM, 1990. - - - . Judaism: Practice and Belief63 B.C.E.-66 C.E. London: SCM, 1992. - - - . Paul and Palestinian Judaism. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977. Sanders, 1. T. Ben Sira and Demotic Wisdom. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. Saulnier, C. "Lois romaines sur les juifs." RB 88 (1981): 161-198. Schacht, R. M. "Estimating Past Population Trends." Annual Review of Anthropology 10 (1981): 119-140. Schaeder, H. H. Esra der Schreiber. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1930. Schafer, P. "Die Flucht Johanan b. Zakkais aus Jerusalem und die Griindung des 'Lehrhauses'in Jabne." In ANRW. Sec. II. Vol. 19,2. Edited by W. Haase and H. Temporini, 43-101. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1979. - - - . "The Hellenistic and Maccabean Periods." In Israelite and Judaean History. Edited by 1. H. Hayes and 1. M. Miller, 539-604. London: SCM, 1977. - - - . Judeophobia: Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997. Schalit, A. "The End of the Hasmonean Dynasty and the Rise of Herod." In The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. VII: The Herodian Period. Edited by M. AviYonah, 44-70. Jerusalem: Massada, 1975. - - - . "The Fall of the Hasmonean Dynasty and the Roman Conquest." In The World History of the Jewish People. Vol. VII: The Herodian Period. Edited by M. AviYonah, 26-43. Jerusalem: Massada, 1975. - - - . King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1960. - - - . Konig Herodes: Der Mann und sein Werk. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969. - - - . "The Letter of Antiochus III to Zeuxis Regarding the Establishment of Jewish Military Colonies in Phrygia and Lydia." JQR 50 (1959-1960): 289-318. Schaper, 1. "The Pharisees." In CHJ. Vol. III: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury and W. D. Davies, 402-427. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Schein, B. E. "The Second Wall of Jerusalem." BA 44 (1981): 21-26. Schick, C. "Herod's Amphitheater, Jerusalem." PEFQSt (1887): 161-166. Schiffman, L. "The Conversion of the Royal House of Adiabene in Josephus and Rabbinic Sources." In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, 293-312. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1987. - - - . Halakhah at Qumran. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1975. - - - . Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994. - - - . Sectarian Law in the Dead Sea Sect: Courts, Testimony and the Penal Code. Chico, CA: Scholars, 1983. - - . "Temple Scroll." In ABD. Vol. VI. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 348-350. New York: Doubleday, 1992.

459

- - - . "Was There a Galilean Halakhah?" In The Galilee in Late Antiquity. Edited by L. I. Levine, 143-156. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1992. - - - . Who Was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav, 1985. Schiirer, E. The History o/the Jewish People in the Age 0/ Jesus Christ (175 B.C-A.D. 135). Rev. ed. 3 vols. Edinburgh, UK: Clark, 1973-1987. Schwartz, D. R. "4Q468g: Ptollas?" JJS 50 (1999): 308-309. - - - . Agrippa I: The Last King 0/ Judaea. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1990. - - - . "Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Jerusalem." In Historical Perspectives: From the Hasmoneans to Bar Kokhba in Light o/the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by D. Goodblatt, 45-56. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2001. - - - . "Josephus and Philo on Pontius Pilate." In The Jerusalem Cathedra. Vol. III. Edited by L. I. Levine, 26-45. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1983. - - - . "Josephus' Tobiads: Back to the Second Century?" In Jews in a Graeco-Roman World. Edited by M. Goodman, 47-61. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1998. - - - . "MMT, Josephus and the Pharisees." In Reading 4QMMT: New Perspectives on Qumran Law and History. Edited by J. Kampen and M. Bernstein, 67-80. Atlanta: Scholars, 1996. - - - . "On Abraham Schalit, Herod, Josephus, the Holocaust, Horst R. Moehring, and the Study of Ancient Jewish History." Jewish History 2 (1987): 9-28. - - - . "Pontius Pilate." In ABD. Vol. V Edited by D. N. Freedman, 395-401. New York: Doubleday, 1992. - - . "P. Richardson's Herod" [Review]. JQR 88 (1998): 348-355. - - - . Studies in the Jewish Background o/Christianity. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr, 1992. Schwartz, J. "Archeology and the City." In The City in Roman Palestine. Edited by D. Sperber, 149-187. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. - - - . "On Priests and Jericho in the Second Temple Period." JQR 69 (1988): 23-48. Schwartz, S. "The Composition and Publication of Josephus' 'Bellum ludaicum' Book 7." HTR 79 (1986): 373-386. - - - . "Herod, Friend of the Jews." In Jerusalem and Eretz Israel: Arie Kindler Volume. Edited by J. Schwartz et aI., 67-76. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-Han University, 2000. - - - . Imperialism and Jewish Society (200 B.CE. to 640 CE.). Princeton, NJ, and Oxford, UK: Princeton University Press, 2001. - - - . "Israel and the Nations Roundabout: I Maccabees and the Hasmonean Expansion." JJS 42 (1991): 16-38. - - - . Josephus and Judaean Politics. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1990. - - - . "Language, Power and Identity in Ancient Palestine." Past and Present 148 (1995): 3-47. Scurlock, J. "167 BeE: Hellenism or Reform?" JSJ 31 (2000): 125-161. Seccombe, D. "Was There Organized Charity in Jerusalem before the Christians?" JTS 29 (1978): 140-143.

460

Segal, A. Theaters in Roman Palestine and Provincia Arabia. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1995. - - - . Town Planning and Architecture in Provincia Arabia: The Cities along the Wa Traiana Nova in the 1st-3rd Centuries C.E. [BAR International Ser. 419]. Oxford, UK: BAR, 1988. Segal, M. Z. The Complete Book of Ben-Sira (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1958. Segal, P. ''The Penalty of the Warning Inscription from the Temple of Jerusalem." IEJ 39 (1989): 79-84. Sevenster,1. N. Do You Know Greek? How Much Greek Could the First Jewish Christians Have Known? Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1968. Shaked, S. "Iranian Influence on Judaism: First Century B.C.E. to Second Century C.E." In CHJ. Vol. I: Introduction: The Persian Period. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 308-325. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. - - . "Qumran: Some Iranian Connections." In Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Edited by Z. Zevit, S. Gitin, and M. Sokoloff, 277-281. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Shanks, H. "Is This King David's Tomb?" BAR 21, no. 1 (1995): 62-67. - - . "The Jerusalem Wall That Shouldn't Be There." BAR 13, no. 3 (1987): 46-57. Shatzman, I. "The Integration of Judaea into the Roman Empire." SCI 18 (1999): 49-84. Shaver, J. R. "Ezra and Nehemiah: On the Theological Significance of Making Them Contemporaries." In Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Formation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp [Suppl. 149 to JSOTj. Edited by E. C. Ulrich, P. R. Davies, J. W. Wright, and R. P. Carroll, 76-86. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1992. Sherk, R. K. The Roman Empire: Augustus to Hadrian. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1988. - - - . Rome and the Greek East to the Death ofAugustus. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Shiloh, Y. Excavations at the City of David I, 1978-1982 [Qedem 19]. Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1984. - - . "Jerusalem: Persian Period." In NEAEHL. Vol. II. Edited by E. Stern, 709-712. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993. - - . "Population of Iron Age Palestine." BASOR 239 (1980): 25-35. Shotwell, W. A. "The Problem of the Syrian Akra." BASOR 176 (1964): 10-19. Sievers, J. The Hasmoneans and Their Supporters: From Mattathias to the Death of John Hyrcanus l. Atlanta: Scholars, 1990. - - - . "Jerusalem, the Akra, and Josephus." In Josephus and the History of the GrecoRoman Period. Edited by F. Parente and 1. Sievers, 195-209. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1994. Simons, 1. J. Jerusalem in the Old Testament. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1952.

461

Sivan, R., and G. Solar. "Excavations in the Jerusalem Citadel, 1980-1988." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand. ed. Edited by H. Geva, 168-176 Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Sjl'lqvist, E. "Kaisareion." Opuscula Romana 1 (1954): 86-108. Small, D. E. "Late Hellenistic Baths in Palestine." BASOR 266 (1987): 59-74. Smallwood, E. M. "The Chronology of Gaius' Attempt to Desecrate the Temple." Latomus 16 (1957): 3-17. - - - . 'The Date of the Dismissal of Pontius Pilate from Judaea." JJS 5 (1954): 12-21. - - - . "Gabinius' Organisation of Palestine." JJS 18 (1967): 89-92. - - - . "High Priests and Politics in Roman Palestine." JTS 13 (1962): 14-34. - - - . The Jews under Roman Rule: From Pompey to Diocletian. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1976. - - - . "Philo and Josephus as Historians of the Same Event." In Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity. Edited by L. H. Feldman and G. Hata, 114-129. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1987. - - - . Philonis Alexandrini: Legatio ad Gaium. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1961. Smith, D. L. "The Politics of Ezra: Sociological Indicators of Postexilic Judaean Society." In Second Temple Studies. Vol. I: Persian Period [Suppl. 117 to JSOTj. Edited by P. R. Davies, 73-97. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1991. Smith, G. E. A Guide to the Roman Amphitheater. Los Angeles: Westland, 1984. Smith, M. "11 Isaiah and the Persians." JAOS 83 (1963): 415-421. - - - . "Ezra." In Ex orbe religionum. Edited by 1. Neusner, 141-143. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1972. - - - . "The Gentiles in Judaism, 125 BCE--C:E 66." In CHJ. Vol. Ill: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury and W. D. Davies, 192-249. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. - - - . "Goodenough's 'Jewish Symbols' in Retrospect." JBL 86 (1967): 53-68. - - - . Jesus the Magician. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978. - - - . "Palestinian Judaism from Alexander to Pompey." In Hellenism and the Rise of Rome. Edited by P. Grimal, H. Bengston, and N. Caskel, 250-266. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1968. - - - . "Palestinian Judaism in the First Century." In Israel: Its Role in Civilization. Edited by M. Davis, 67-81. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1956. - - - . Palestinian Parties and Politics That Shaped the Old Testament. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. - - - . "Zealots and Sicarii: Their Origins and Relations." HTR 64 (1971): 1-19. Sokoloff, M. A Dictionary of Jewish Palestinian Aramaic. Ramat Gan, Israel: Bar-l1an University Press, 1990. Sonne, I. "The Schools of Shammai and Hillel Seen from Within." In Louis Ginzberg Jubilee Volume. Edited by A. Marx, S. Lieberman, S. Spiegel, and S. Zeitlin, 275-291. New York: American Academy for Jewish Research, 1945. Sperber, D. Midrash Yerushalem: A Metaphysical History ofJerusalem. Jerusalem: WZO Torah Education, 1981.

462

- - - . "A Note on Hasmonean Coin-Legends. Heber and Rosh-Heber." PEQ 97 (1965): 85-93. - - - . "Social Legislation in Jerusalem during the Latter Part of the Second Temple Period." JSJ 6 (1975): 86-95. Sporty, L. D. "The Location of the Holy House of Herod's Temple: Evidence from the Post Destruction Period" [part 1]. BA 53 (1990): 194-204. - - - . ''The Location of the Holy House of Herod's Temple: Evidence from the Post Destruction Period" [part 2]. BA 54 (1991): 28-35. Stark, R. The Rise of Christianity. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1997. Stegemann, H. The Library of Qumran: On the Essenes, Qumran, John the Baptist, and Jesus. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1998. Sternberger, G. Jewish Contemporaries of Jesus: Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995. - - - . ''The Sadducees-Their History and Doctrines." In CHJ. Vol. III: The Early Roman Period. Edited by W. Horbury and W. D. Davies, 428--443. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1999. Stem, E. Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: The Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian Periods (732-332 BeE). New York: Doubleday, 2001. - - - . ''The Archaeology of Persian Palestine." In CHJ, Vol. I: The Persian Period. Edited by W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein, 88-114. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. - - - . Material Culture of the Land of the Bible in the Persian Period, 538-332 B.C. Warminster, UK: Aris & Phillips, 1982. - - - . ed. New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land. 4 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society and Carta, 1993. - - - . "Pagan Yahwism: The Folk Religion of Ancient Israel." BAR 27, no. 3 (2001): 20-29. Stem, M. "Aspects of Jewish Society: The Priesthood and Other Classes." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. II. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stem, 561-630. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976. - - - . The Documents on the History of the Hasmonean Revolt (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1965. - - - . Greek and l.o,tin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974-1984. - - - . Hasmonean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Shazar Center, 1995. - - - . "Judaea and Her Neighbors in the Days of Alexander Jannaeus." In The Jerusalem Cathedra. Vol. I. Edited by L. I. Levine, 22-46. Jerusalem: Yad BenZvi, 1981. - - - . "Nicholas of Damascus as a Historical Source for Jewish History for the Herodian and Hasmonean Eras" (in Hebrew). In Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period. Edited by M. Amit, M. D. Herr, and I. Gafni, 445-464. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1991.

463

- - - . "The Province of Judaea." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. I. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 308-376. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. - - - . "The Reign of Herod and the Herodian Dynasty." In The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. I. Edited by S. Safrai and M. Stern, 216-307. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. - - - . "The Relations between Judaea and Rome during the Rule of John Hyrcanus" (in Hebrew). Zion 26 (1961): 1-22. - - - . "Social and Political Realignments in Herodian Judaea." In The Jerusalem Cathedra. Vol. n. Edited by L.1. Levine, 40--62. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1982. - - - . Studies in Jewish History: The Second Temple Period (in Hebrew). Edited by M. Amit, M. D. Herr, and I. Gafni. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1991. Stevenson, G. H. "The Imperial Administration." In CAH. Vol. X: The Augustan Empire, 44 B.C.-A.D. 70. Edited by S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, 182-217. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1934. - - - . 'The Year of the Four Emperors." In CAH. Vol. X: The Augustan Empire, 44 B.C.-A.D. 70. Edited by S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, and M. P. Charlesworth, 808-839. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1934. Stevenson, J. ed. A New Eusebius. London: SPCK, 1957. Stolper, M. W. Entrepreneurs and Empire: The Murasu Archive, the Murasu Firm, and Persian Rule in Babylonia. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archiiologisch Instituut, 1985. Stone, M. E. "Apocalyptic Literature." In Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period. Edited by M. Stone, 383-441. Assen, Netherlands: Van Gorcum, 1984. - - - . "The Book of Enoch and Judaism in the Third Century B.C.E." CBQ 40 (1978): 479-492. - - - . "Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature." In Magnalia Dei-The Mighty Acts of God: Essays of the Bible and Archaeology in Memory of G. Ernest Wright. Edited by F. M. Cross, W. E. Lemke, and P. D. Miller Jr., 414-452. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1976. - - - . Scriptures, Sects and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts. Cleveland, OH: Collins, 1980. Strobel, A. "Die Wasseranlagen der Himet Qumran." ZDPV 88 (1972): 55-86. Sukenik, E. L., and L. A. Mayer. The Third Wall ofJerusalem: An Account of Excavations. Jerusalem: Hebrew University, 1930. Sullivan, R. D. "The Dynasty of Judaeain the First Century." InANRW. Sec. n. Vol. 8. Edited by W. Haase and H. Temporini, 296-354. Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1977. - - - . Near Eastern Royalty and Rome, 100-30 BC. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1990. Swain, S. Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50-250. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1996. Sweet, J. P. M. "The Zealots and Jesus." In Jesus and Politics of His Day. Edited by E. Bammel and C. F. D. Moule, 1-10. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Syme, R. The Roman Revolution. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1939.

464

Tabori, Y. The Passover Ritual throughout the Generations (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1996. Tadmor, H. "The Historical Background of the Edict of Cyrus" (in Hebrew). In Oz LeDavid: Jubilee Volume in Honor of David Ben-Gurion [Society for Bible Study in Israel 15], 450-473. Jerusalem: Society for Bible Study in Israel, 1964. - - - . "Sennacherib's Campaign to Judah: Historical and Historiographic Considerations" (in Hebrew). Zion 50 (1985): 65-80. Taubler, E. "Jerusalem 201 to 199 B.C.E.: On the History of a Messianic Movement." JQR 37 (1946-1947): 1-30, 125-137,249-263. Talmon, S. The World of Qumran from Within. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1989. Talshir, Z. 1 Esdras: From Origin to Translation. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 1999. Tarler, D., and 1. M. Cahill. "David, City of." In ABD. Vol. II. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 52-67. New York: Doubleday, 1992. Taylor, 1. "A Second Temple in Egypt: The Evidence for the Zadokite Temple of Onias." JSJ 29 (1998): 297-321. Taylor, N. H. "Popular Opposition to Caligula in Jewish Palestine." JJS 32 (2001): 54--70. Tcherikover, V. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1961. - - - . "The Third Book of Maccabees as a Historical Source." In Scripta Hierosolymitana 7. Edited by A. Fuks and I. Halperin, 1-26. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961. - - - . "Was Jerusalem a 'Polis'?" IEJ 14 (1964): 61-78. - - - , A. Fuks, and M. Stem. Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. 3 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957-1964. Thomas, 1. Le mouvement baptiste en Palestine et Syrie (150 avo J.-e.-300 ap. J.-e.). Gembloux, France: J. Duculot, 1935. Tigay, 1. H. Deuteronomy: The JPS Torah Commentary. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1996. - - - . You Shall Have No Other Gods: Israelite Religion in the Light of Hebrew Inscriptions. Atlanta: Scholars, 1986. Toner, 1. P. Leisure and Ancient Rome. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 1995. Towner, W. S. "Hermeneutical Systems of Hillel and the Tannaim: A Fresh Look." HUCA 53 (1982): 101-135. Toynbee, 1. M. C. Death and Burial in the Roman World. London: Thames & Hudson, 1971. Treu, K. "Die Bedeutung des Griechischen fur die Juden im romischen Reich." Kairos 15 (1973): 123-144. Tsafrir, Y. Eretz Israel from the Destruction of the Second Temple to the Muslim Conquest. Vol. II: Archaeology and Art (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1984. - - - . "The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem." RB 82 (1975): 501-521. - - - . "The Walls of Jerusalem in Nehemiah's Days" (in Hebrew). Cathedra 4 (1977): 31-42. Turnheim, Y. "Hellenistic Elements in Herodian Architecture and Decoration." In Hellenic and Jewish Arts. Edited by A. Ovadiah, 143-170. Tel Aviv: Ramot, 1998.

465

Tzaferis, v., N. Feig, A. Onn, and E. Shukron. "Excavations at the Third Wall, North of the Jerusalem Old City." In Ancient Jerusalem Revealed. Expand ed. Edited by H. Geva, 287-292. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2000. Urbach, E. E. "Class-Status and Leadership in the World of the Palestinian Sages." Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 2 (1968): 38-74. - - - . The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1979. Van Beek, G. W. "A Population Estimate for Marib: A Contemporary Tell Village in North Yemen." BASOR 248 (1982): 61--67. Van Dam, R. Saints and Their Miracles in Late Antique Gaul. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993. van der Horst, P. W. "Was the Synagogue a Place of Sabbath Worship before 70 CE?" In Jews, Christians and Polytheists in the Ancient Synagogue: Cultural Interaction during the Greco-Roman Period. Edited by S. Fine, 18--43. London: Routledge, 1999. VanderKam,1. C. The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1994. - - - . Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition. Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984. - - - . "Ezra-Nehemiah or Ezra and Nehemiah?" In Priests, Prophets and Scribes: Essays on the Fonnation and Heritage of Second Temple Judaism in Honour of Joseph Blenkinsopp [Suppl. 149 to JSOT]. Edited by E. C. Ulrich, P. R. Davies, 1. W. Wright, and R. P. Carroll, 55-75. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1992. - - . "Jubilees, Book of." In ABD. Vol. Ill. Edited by D. N. Freedman, 1030--1032. New York: Doubleday, 1992. - - - . "The Origins and Purposes of the Book of Jubilees." In Studies in the Book of Jubilees. Edited by M. Albani, J. Frey, A. Lange, 3-24. Tiibingen, Germany: Mohr Siebeck, 1997. - - - . "Simon the Just: Simon lor Simon II?" In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Edited byD. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz, 303-318. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. van der Spek, R. J. "Did Cyrus the Great Introduce a New Policy towards Subdued Nations? Cyrus in Assyrian Perspective." Persica 10 (1982): 278-283. van der Woude, A. S. "Wicked Priest or Wicked Priests? Reflections on the Identification of the Wicked Priest in the Habakkuk Commentary." JJS 33 (1982): 349-359. van Henten, 1. W. ''The Honorary Decree for Simon the Maccabee (1 Macc. 14:25--49) in Its Hellenistic Context." In Hellenism in the Land of Israel. Edited by 1. J. Collins and G. E. Sterling, 116-145. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001. - - - . The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 1997. Vermes, G. The Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin, 1995. - - . ''The Essenes and History." JJS 32 (1981): 18-31. Vincent, L. H. "Encore la troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem." RB 54 (1947): 90-126. - - . "Le Lithostrotos Evangelique." RB 59 (1952): 513-530.

466

- - - . "La troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem (1)." RB 36 (1927): 516-548. - - - . "La troisieme enceinte de Jerusalem (2)." RB 37 (1928): 80-1()(), 321-339. - - - , and M. A. Steve. Jerusalem de l'ancien testament: Recherches d'arche610gie et d'histoire. Paris: Gabalda, 1954. - - - , E. J. H. MacKay, and E-M. Abel. Hebron: Le Haram ai-Khalil: Sepulture des Patriarches. Paris: Leroux, 1923. von Hesberg, H. "The Significance of the Cities in the Kingdom of Herod." In Judaea and the Greco-Roman World in the Time of Herod in the Light of Archaeological Evidence. Edited by K. Fittschen and G. Foerster, 9-25. Gottingen, Germany: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996. von Voigtlander, E. N. The Bisitun Inscription of Darius the Great: Babylonian Version. London: Lund Humphries, 1978. Wacholder, B. Z. Eupolemus: A Study of Judaeo-Greek Literature. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1974. Wachtel, N. "L'acculturation." In Faire de l'histoire: nouveaux problemes. Vol. I. Edited by 1. Le Goff and P. Nora, 124-146. Paris: Gallimard, 1974. Waldman, N. W. The Recent Study of Hebrew: A Survey of the Literature with Selected Bibliography. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1989. Wallace-Hadrill, A. Augustan Rome. London: Bristol Classical, 1993. - - - . "Elites and Trade in the Roman Town." In City and Country in the Ancient World. Edited by J. Rich andA. Wallace-Hadrill, 241-272. London: Routledge, 1991. - - - , ed. Patronage in Ancient Society. London: Routledge, 1989. Ward-Perkins, J. B. Roman Imperial Architecture. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1981. - - - , and M. H. Ballance. "The Caesareum at Cyrene and the Basilica at Cremna, with a note on the inscriptions of the Caesareum by J. M. Reynolds." PBSR 26 (1958): 137-194. Watts, J. W., ed. Persia and Torah: the Theory ofImperial Authorization ofthe Pentateuch. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001. Weinberg, 1. The Citizen-Temple Community. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1992. - - - . "Jerusalem in the Persian Period" (in Hebrew). In The History of Jerusalem: The Biblical Period. Edited by S. Ahituv and A. Mazar, 307-326. Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2000. Weinfeld, M. Justice and Righteousness in Israel and the Nations (in Hebrew). Jerusalem: Magnes, 1985. - - - . The Organizational Pattern and the Penal Code of the Qumran Sect. Fribourg, Switzerland: Editions Universitaires, 1986. - - - . "Universalism and Particularism in the Period of Exile and Restoration" (in Hebrew). Tarbiz 33 (1964): 228-242. Weippert, H. Paliistina in Vorhellenistischer Zeit. Munich: Beck'sche, 1988. Weiss, Z. "Adopting a Novelty: The Jews and the Roman Games in Palestine." In The Roman and Byzantine Near East. Vol. II: Some Recent Archaeological Research [Journal of Roman Archaeology 31]. Edited by J. Humphrey, 23-49. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1999.

467

- - - . "Buildings for Entertainment." In The City in Roman Palestine. Edited by D. Sperber, 47-91,94--102. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998. Weiss Halivni, D. Midrash, Mishnah, and Gemara: The Jewish Predilectionfor Justified Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1986. Weitzman, S. "Forced Circumcision and the Shifting Role of Gentiles in Hasmonean Ideology." HTR 92 (1999): 37-59. Wenke, R. J. "Imperial Investments and Agricultural Developments in Parthian and Sasanian Khuzestan: 150 B.C. to A.D. 640." Mesopotamia 10-11 (1975-1976): 31-221. Wenning, R. "Die Dekapolis und die Nabamer." ZDPV 110 (1994): 1-35. Werman, C. "The Book of Jubilees in Hellenistic Context" (in Hebrew). Zion 66 (2001): 275-296. - - - . "Jubilees 30: Building a Paradigm for the Ban on Intermarriage." HTR 90 (1997): 1-22. White, L. H. "Urban Development and Social Change in Imperial Ephesos." In Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia. Edited by H. Koester, 27-81. Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1995. Whittaker, C. R. "Do Theories of the Ancient City Matter?" In Urban Society in Roman Italy. Edited by T. J. Cornell and K. Lomas, 9-26. London: UCL, 1995. Widengren, G. 'The Persian Period." In Israelite and Judaean History. Edited by J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller, 489-538. London: SCM, 1977. Wiedemann, T. Emperors and Gladiators. London: Routledge, 1992. Wightman, G. J. "Temple Fortresses in Jerusalem. Part I: The Ptolemaic and Seleucid Akras." Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 9 (1989-1990): 29-40. - - - . "Temple Fortresses in Jerusalem. Part II: The Hasmonean Baris and Herodian Antonia." Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeological Society 10 (19901991): 7-35. - - - . The Walls of Jerusalem: From the Canaanites to the Mamluks. Sydney: Meditarch, 1993. Wilkinson, J. "Ancient Jerusalem: Its Water Supply and Population." PEQ 106 (1974): 33-51. - - - . "The Streets of Jerusalem." Levant 7 (1975): 118-136. Will, E. "Qu'est-ce Qu'une Baris?" Syria 64 (1987): 253-259. Williams, M. The Jews among the Greeks and Romans: A Diaspora Sourcebook. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Williamson, H. G. M. Ezra and Nehemiah. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1987. - - - . 'The Governors of Judah under the Persians." Tyndale Bulletin 39 (1988): 59-82. - - - . Israel in the Books of Chronicles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977. - - - . "Judah and the Jews." In Achaemenid History. Vol. XI: Studies in Persian History-Essays in Memory of David M. Lewis. Edited by M. Brossius and A. Kuhrt, 145-163. Leiden, Netherlands: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, 1998.

468

- - . "Nehemiah's Walls Revisited." PEQ 116 (1984): 81-88. Wilson, B. Magic and the Millennium. London: Heinemann, 1973. Winston, D. "Iranian Components in the Bible, Apocrypha and Qumran." History of Religion 5 (1966): 183-216. Wood, B. G. "To Dip or to Sprinkle? The Qumran Cisterns in Perspective." BASOR 256 (1984): 45--60. Woolf, G. Becoming Ronum: The Origins of Provincial Civilization in Gaul. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1998. - - - . "Becoming Roman, Staying Greek: Culture, Identity and the Civilizing Process in the Roman East." Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society 40 (1994): 116-143. - - - . "Beyond Romans and Natives." World Archaeology 28 (1997): 339-350. - - - . "The Roman Urbanization of the East." In The Early Roman Empire in the East. Edited by S. Alcock, 1-14. Oxford, UK: Oxbow, 1997. Wright, B. G. III. "Jewish Ritual Baths-Interpreting the Digs and the Texts: Some Issues in the Social History of Second Temple Judaism." In The Archaeology of Israel: Constructing the Past, Interpreting the Present. Edited by N. A. Silberman and D. Small, 190-214. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic, 1997. Yadin, Y. "The Gate of the Essenes and the Temple Scroll." In Jerusalem Revealed: Archaeology in the Holy City 1968-1974. Edited by Y. Yadin, 90-91. New Haven, CT, and Jerusalem: Yale University Press and the Israel Exploration Society, 1976. - - - . The Temple Scroll. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, Hebrew University, and Shrine of the Book, 1983. - - - , and J. Naveh. Masada-The Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965, Final Reports. Vol. I: Aramaic and Hebrew Ostraca and Jar Inscriptions. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1989. Yamauchi, E. M. Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1990. Yavetz, Z. Plebs and Princeps. Oxford, UK: Clarendon, 1969. Yegtil, F. K. Baths and Bathing in Classical Antiquity. New York: Architectural History Foundation, 1992. - - - . "Memory, Metaphor, and Meaning in the Cities of Asia Minor." In Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures. Edited by E. Fentress, 133-153. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000. Zakovitch, Y. "The First Stages of Jerusalem's Sanctification under David: A Literary and Ideological Analysis." In Jerusalem: Its Sanctity and Cenntrality to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by L. I. Levine, 16-36. New York: Continuum, 1999. - - - . The Song of Songs: Introduction and Commentary (in Hebrew). Tel Aviv: 'Am Oved,1992. Zanker, P. "The City as Symbol: Rome and the Creation of an Urban Image." In Romanization and the City: Creation, Transformations, and Failures. Edited by E. Fentress, 25-41. Portsmouth, RI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 2000. - - - . Pompeii: Public and Private Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1998.

469

- - - . The Power of Images in the Age of Augustus. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan, 1988. Zeitlin, S. "The Warning Inscription of the Temple." JQR 38 (1947-1948): 111-116. Zimmermann, F. The Book of Tobit. Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1958. Zisso, B. '''Qumran-Type' Graves in Jerusalem: Archaeological Evidence of an Essene Community?" DSD 5 (1998): 158-171. Zlotnick, D., ed. The Tractate "Mourning, " New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1966. Zlotnick-Sivan, H. "The Silent Women of Yehud: Notes on Ezra 9-10." JJS 51 (2000): 3-18. Zorn, J. R. "Estimating the Population Size of Ancient Settlements: Methods, Problems, Solutions, and a Case Study." BASOR 295 (1994): 31-48. Zucker, H. Studien zur jiidischen Selbstverwaltung im Altertum. Berlin: Schocken, 1936.

Critical Editions Avot de R. Nathan (in Hebrew). Edited by S. Schechter, New York: Feldheim, 1945. Genesis Rabbah (in Hebrew). 2 vols. Edited by J. Theodor and C. Albeck. Jerusalem: Wahrmann, 1965. Josephus. 9 vols. Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1958-1965. Lamentations Rabbah (in Hebrew). Edited by S. Buber. Vilna: Romm, 1899. Leviticus Rabbah (in Hebrew). 5 vols. Edited by M. Margulies. Jerusalem: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1953-1960. Midrash Tannaim (in Hebrew). 2 vols. Edited by D. Hoffmann. Berlin: Itzkowski, 1909. Pesiqta de Rav Kahana (in Hebrew). 2 vols. Edited by B. Mandelbaum. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1962. Philo. 11 vols. Cambridge, MA: Loeb Classical Library, Harvard University Press, 1949-1962. Sifra (in Hebrew). Edited by I. H. Weiss. New York: Om, 1946. Tosefta. Orders Zera'im-Neziqin [through Bava Batm] (in Hebrew). Edited by S. Lieberman. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary, 1955-1988. - - - . Orders Neziqin [from Sanhedrin] to Tohorot (in Hebrew). Edited by M. Zuckermandel. Jerusalem: Bamberger & Wahrmann, 1937.

470

Illustration Credits

D. T. Ariel and Y. Shoham, "Locally Stamped Handles and Associated Body Fragments of the Persian and Hellenistic Periods," Excavations of the City of David. 1978-1985, VI (Qedem 41) (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 2000): Figure 15 N. Avigad, Discovering Jerusalem (Nashville, TN, and Jerusalem: Thomas Nelson and Israel Exploration Society, 1983): Figures 5, 18, 23, 70, 86, 88, 89,90,95,96,97, and 100 D. Barag: Figure 29 M. Ben-Dov, In the Shadow of the Temple: The Discovery of Ancient Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Keter, 1985): Figures 57 and 60 Daily Bible Study (www.execulink.coml-wblankl): Figures 1 and 33 H. Davis: Figures 4, 14, 17, 55, and 75 H. Geva, ed., Ancient Jerusalem Revealed (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1994): Figure 24s and 51 Holyland Hotel (Jerusalem): Figures 43, 44, 45, 46, 50, 68, 80, 83, 84,92, and 93 G. Hurvitz, The City of David: Discoveriesfrom the Excavations (Jerusalem: Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University, 1999): Figure 13 Institute of Archaeology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem: Figures 1,2,3,7, 11,21,25, 26,32,34,35,36,37,40,41,47,48,53,61,62,63,65,72, 76, 77, 78, 79,81,82, 87,91,94,98, and 99 Israel Antiquities Authority: Figure 30 1. C. Lavender, Classical Numismatic Group, (www.historicalcoins.com): Figure 12 E. Mazar, The Complete Guide to the Temple Mount Excavations (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Shoham, 2(00): Figures 42,56, and 59 (artist: B. Balogh); 58 (artist: B. Balogh; photograph courtesy of Temple Mount Excavations); and 69 (artist: N. Cohen) Y. Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar-Kochba (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1997): Figures 9, 10,20,28, and 31

471

E. Netzer, The Palnces of the Hasmoneans and Herod the Great (in Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Yad Ben-Zvi, 1999): Figure 22 L. Ritmeyer: Figure 49 D. R. Schwartz, "Josephus and Philo on Pontius Pilate," in L.1. Levine, ed., The Jerusalem Cathedra, vol. III (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi, 1983): Figure 73 H. Shanks, ed., Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, rev. ed. (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1999): Figures 8 and 19 E. M. Smallwood, The Jews under Roman Rule (Leiden: Brill, 1976): Figure 38 E. Stem: Figure 6 E. Stem, Excavations at Dor, Final Report [lA, Qedem Reports 1] (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1995): Figure 74 (adapted) E. Stem, ed., NEAEHL, vol. II (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993): Figures 52, 54,64, 71, and 85 C. Sugarman: Figures 66 and 67 Y. Tsafrir, "The Location of the Seleucid Akra in Jerusalem," RB 82 (1975): Figures 16 and 27

472

Subject Index

Abba Shaul b. Botnit, 241nll3, 346 Abraham (patriarch), 207n84 Absalom's tomb, 118, 213,261,323,372 Abu-Tor, Herodian theater in, 206 Actium (Greece), 167 Actium games, 20ln62 Additions to Greek Esther, 117, 145 Adiabene family, 156,248,321,322,339,370 Adoraim, 159 Aelia Capitolina, 395 Aelius Gallus, 168n70, 199 Aeneas son of Antipater, 116 agora, and Temple Mount, Herodian, 233, 258 Agrippa I: and aristocracy, 298; and Caesarea, sponsorship of entertainment in, 300; and coinage, figural images on, 299; contributions to Temple and, 236, 347; Dor incident and, 298, 299n64, 299-300; entertainment institutions in Beirut and, 300; and non-Jewish community of Caesarea, 297-98; palace of, 327; purity laws and, 2%, 298; reign of, 296n44, 296-302; and sanhedrin(synedrion), role of, 269; statuary in Caesarea and, 299; and taxes, remittance of, 300; and Temple, laws and regulations about, 296, 298; Temple funds, building of Third Wall and use of, 300; and Third Wall, building of, 109, 110, 300, 314-18; Tiberian conclave incident and, 301, 363 Agrippa II: and Ananus, deposition of, 307-8; attacks on Samaritans, and role of, 304, 364; and garments for high priest, disposal of, 364; Herod's palace and, 326, 326n56, 333, 333n77; and high priest, appointments of, 308, 309, 363; and sanhedrin(synedrion), role of, 269; speech on benefits of and Roman rule, 157, 301, 310-11, 325, 333, 364; and Temple, restora-

tion of, 242; unemployment upon completion of Temple Mount and, 309-10 Agrippeum, 169n79, 200 Agrippias (Anthedon), 168 Agrippina, 304 Akra: Hasmonean era and, 96, 112; Seleucid era and,66,66n82, 72n95, 75-78,7~ 84,86.See also Lower City (Akra) Albinus, 306, 309, 356 Alcimus, 73, 77nI09, 81, 85, 86 Alexa family, 366 Alexander Balas, 86, 87 Alexander (brother of Philo), 237 Alexander Jannaeus: and Aramaic inscnptlons, use of, 275; coinage and, 97, 97,98,114, 1J5; Diogenes and, 118nl04; foreign mercenaries and, 98, 104, 105, Ill; Herod, compared to, 191; hostilities during reign of, 104-5, 105n51; Jericho palace complex and, 98; Pharisees and, 118; realm of, 91nl, 109; and Second Wall, construction of; titles and nickname of, 97, 97, 105; tomb of, 114, 338 Alexander (of Egypt), 369-70 Alexander son of Theodorus, 164 Alexander (son of Aristobulus II), 159, 163 Alexander son of Dorotheus, 115 Alexander (son of Herod), 172, 179 Alexander son of Jason, 115, 116 Alexander the Great, xiii, 45, 46, 67 Alexandra, 166, 197 Alexandria, 370, 373, 397-98; Jewish community of, 276-77 Alexas, 298 Amasis,1O Amathus, 159 amphitheater: Herod, and building of, 156, 170,

473 190, 192; Jewish community, and reactions to Jerusalem, 204; location of, 204n68, 205, 206n77, 339; Roman era, and building of, 201-2 Amyntas, 152n6, 168n73 Ananias son of Nebedaeus, 309, 326--27, 335, 354,354n16 Ananus family, 353, 354 Ananus (high priest), 268---{i9 Ananus son of Ananus, 307-9, 353, 356, 375-76, 386,405 Ananus son of Seth, 288 Andronikos, 75n104 aniconic images; coinage and, 146; Hasmonean era and, 146; Herod, and use of, 182, 255-56n2, 389; laws and regulations about, 389-90; post-Destruction era and, 418. See also figural images Anthrongaeus, 185 Antigonus, 49, 156, 160n34, 162, 163, 182n155, 183n161, 189n8 Antigonus of Socha, 73, 120 Antiochus III: battle of Magnesium and, 151; conquest of Jerusalem and, 54, 67, 381; edicts of, 65-67, 68-69, 139, 244nl27, 381; the Great, 50. Antiochus IV: conquest of Jerusalem and, 73-74, 74n102, 75, 96n14, 143; paganism and, 101n29; peace agreement with Jewish community, 82, 84-85; religious persecution and, 78-79, 79n112; and Temple, robbery of, 372n118 Antiochus V, 54, 77n 109 Antiochus VII, 96, 102-4, 108 Antipas (brother of Archelaus), 184 Antipas (son of Herod), 160n33, 362 Antipater (father of Herod): and ethnarch, role of, 160, 160n33; Julius Caesar, and aid from, 160; leadership of, 154; political leader of Jewish community and, 148n236, 159-60; rule of, 155, 161 Antipater (son of Herod), 172, 179 Antipater son of Jason, 115, 116 Antonia palace-fortress: about, 169, 170, 194-96, 195; and garments for high priest, storage of, 195; Herod, and building of, 113,167,169,170, 190; revolt against Roman Empire and, 407, 408, 409; and Temple Mount, soldiers overseeing activities on, 195, 195n31, 199n49, 286 Apamea (Asia Minor), treaty of, 80n115, lSI Apamea (Syria), 247, 370 apocalypticism: Ben Sira and, 64n77; 1 Enoch, and references to, 63-64; Hellenistic era and, 64, 64n75, 64n77; revolt against Roman Empire and, 388-89, 403; Second Temple period and, 393

Apollonius son of Alexander, 116 Apostolic Council, 385, 386 aqueducts: Archelaus, and construction of, 186; Hasmonean era and, 215; Herod, and building of, 170, 175, 192, 215; Jerusalem, and repairs of, 216nll0; Pontius Pilate, and completion of, 216, 290; post-Destruction, and repairs of, 216nll0 Aquilas, 274 Ara Pacis, Augustus, and building of, 190 Arabia, and Aelius Gallus, miliary campaign of, 168n70 Aramaic language: Alexander Jannaeus, and inscriptions in, 275; Greco-Roman era, and use o~ 270, 271, 274-75, 274-76, 275n81; Hasmonean era and use of, 275; and Hebrew language, abandonment of, 37, 37n119; Jewish community of Jerusalem, and use of, 36--37, 95, 414; literature, and use of, 275; targum (translations) and, 30, 37 Archelaus: and aqueduct systems, building of, 186; domestic issues and, 183; ethnarch and, 184; and Herod, 153n8; and high priests, appointment of, 186; and Jericho, building of, 186; and Nicholas, 171; political role of, 160033; reign of, 186; and Roman emperor, 183-84; Temple Mount, and throne of, 234-35; and Titus, 153n8 archons (rulers), Greco-Roman era and, 266 arcosolia, 213,372 Aretas,98 Areus, king of Sparta, 55 Aristobulus son of Amyntas, 116 Aristobulus (son of Herod), 172, 179 Aristobulus I: Baris fortress-palace and, 113; realm of, 91n1; coinage and, 114; dates for, 9lnl, 98; Essenes and, 130; foreign relations with Rome and, 147; Ituraeans, and conversion to Judaism, 96; title of, 98 Aristobulus II: gold industry and, 347; popular support for, 147, 156; priests, military leadership and role of, 118; revolts against Roman Empire and, 159, 163; and Roman emperor, 147 Aristobulus III, 166, 182 aristocracy: and Agrippa I, 298; Diaspora Jewry and, 369; Greco-Roman era and, 273,274,279; Hasmonean era, and role of, 365; Hellenistic era, and role of, 53-54, 68; Hellenization, and effects on, 144; and Herod, 165, 171-72, 175; Herod's theater in Jerusalem and, 206; infighting among, 367; Jesus' trial, and role of, 378; ossuaries and, 265; Pharisees and, 127; Roman era, and role of, 286, 307, 365-69; of Rome, l65n58; Sadducees and, 127; sanhedrin (synedrion), and role of, 269; Second Temple period, and role of, 399; Upper City and, 339; urban development and, 156

474 Annenia, 152 Arsinoe II, coinage, and image of, 54 Artaxerxes I, 5, 23 Artaxerxes III, 42 Artemis at Ephesos, 253n179, 348 Artemis at Perge, 252 Asclepius at Pergamon, 252 Ashdodites, 15, 26n75 Augustus (Octavius), 163; and Actian triumphal arches, building of, 190; character of, 191; and Herod, 167-68, 175, 182n159, 190-91, 200,201,217; Jewish community in Rome, and rights of, 178, 178nI39; oath of allegiance and, 174nll1; and priests, role of, 171n85; and Rome, urban development of, 190,217,222, 222n16; sanhedrin (synedrion), consultation with, 172; and temples, restoration of, 190, 190n19 Auranitis (Hauran), 168 Avtalion, 277, 346 Babylonian Jewry, 177,250,341,370,413 Bacchides, 85, 86 Bagoas,176 Bagohi (Bagavahya), 34 Bar-Kokhba: era, 242, 270, 318n15; revolt, 403, 418 Bar-Qatros inscription, 331-32, 332 Barabbas, 291 Barclay Gate, 230 Baris, 112, 112-13 Barnabas (of Cyprus), 370 basilica, on Temple Mount, 232, 233, 233-35 Basilica Iulia, Augustus, and building of, 190 Batanaea, 168 baths, Greek and Roman public, 141n209, See also ritual baths (miqva' at) Bathyra, 368 Beautiful Gate, 239 Beirut, 300, 370 Ben Hinnom Valley, 346 Ben Sira: about, 53; apocalypticism and, 64n77; and Hebrew language, use of, 271; on high priests, status of, 53; on Simon (High Priest), 52-53, 60, 68; writings of, 62-63, 145n223 Berenice I, coinage, and image of, 54 Berenice (Cyrene), 370 Berenice (sister of Agrippa 11), 310, 327, 333, 367 Bet Adashim (House of Lentils), 339 Bet Afunim (House of Peas), 339 BetEI,246 Bethany, 250, 332, 339 Bethesda Pool (Sheep Pool), 214, 338 Bethso, 130, 131 Bethpage,250,339,360 Bezetha quarter (New City), 337-40, 346,407

Bezetha (Saint Anne) Valley, 319n18 Bible, Greek translation of, 274. See also Pentateuch; Torah Birket e1-Hamra, 213, 215 Birket es-Sultan, 215 Birket Isra'il (Pool of Israel), 214 Bithynia, 161,370 Bnei Hezir, tomb of, 114, 114n87, 117,118,144, 323 Boethus family, 354 Boethusians, 186 Book of Decrees, Sadducees ideology and, 125 boule (city council), Greco-Roman era and, 266, 325,325n51 bouleuterion (council building), Herodian era and, 156, 170,266,325,325 bullae, 34, 34, 40 burial: grave sites and, 333; and graves, Mount of Olives, 339; Greco-Roman era and, 274, 279; Hasmonean era and, 54, 98, 98n19, 99; Hellenistic era and, 54; Hellenization and, 213,256,261-63; Herodian era and, 206-13, 211n98, 212,256, 261--{)3; Red Heifer ritual, 140, 229-30n49; society, 263, 263n30. See also tombs Burnt House, 331-32,411, 411,411n64 Caesarea: Agrippa I and, 297-98, 300; and amphitheater, subsidies for building, 201; building techniques and, 193, 194, 227; custom levies and, 189; building activity in, 156, 226n37; entertainment institutions and, 204n68; fortresses and, 173; Herodian palaces and, 326n56; and Jewish community, 182n155; non-Jewish community vs. Jewish community in, 181n150; plan of, 188; and Roman emperors, homage to, 168, 175,200; Roman soldiers and, 402; statuary in, 299; temple built by Pontius Pilate in, 292; and theater, subsidies for building, 20 I. See Jewish community of Caesarea Caesareum, 200, 232, 232n57, 258 Caiaphas, Joseph (high priest): and Ananus, 353; palace of, 326, 327; and Pilate, 289; tomb of, 210,210, 289; Vitellius, and deposition of, 294 Caligula, Gaius. See Gaius Caligula Camith family, 354 Campus Martium, Augustus, and building of structures in, 190 Cappadocia, 152 Capua, Diaspora Jewry and, 370 Cestius Gallus, 310, 405, 406 Chalcis, 370 Chamber of the Bouleutin, 325n51 Chamber of Hewn Stone, 242 Christian community, 119,237,382-87, 386n62, 393

475 Christian Quarter, 319 Cilicians, 111,370 City of David, 41, 43, 56, 209, 318-19, 332 city walls, Jerusalem's: First Wall, 106-7, 107, 110-11n71, 196-197,333; fortifications of, xv, 190; Hellenistic era and, 88; Hyrcanus I, and restoration of, 108n62; Persian era and, 19, 23-27,24, 25, 26n75, 43; Second Wall, 106, 109-11, 110, l1On70, 110-11n71, 314, 407; Third Wall, 109, 110, 300, 314-18, 315n8, 316n9, 317, 318n16 Claudius, 266, 267, 295, 30On66,301n75, 364 Cleopatra, 166, 172 Coele-Syria, 50-51, 57-58, 58n43 coinage: figural images and Pontius Pilate, 291-92n27; Greek inscriptions and, 97,97; Hasmonean era and, 95, 97, 97-98, 104, 114,115, 142, 146; Hebrew inscriptions and, 104, 115; Hellenistic era and, 54-55; Herod and, 18On147, 255-56n2; Herodian era and, 174, 174,299; Persian era and, 35, 38-39, 39, 39n128, 40, 54; silver coins for use by pilgrims, 249n156; ofYehud, 54-55 commercial quarter in Jerusalem, 335-37, 336, 339,345-46 Compsus, 368 contributions to Temple: Agrippa I and, 236, 347; Apostolic Council and, 386, 386n62; Cicero on Diaspora Jewry and, 137nI85; Diaspora Christianity and, 386, 386n62; Diaspora Jewry and, 137nI85, 189, 247-48; Egyptian Jewish community and disputes about, 137nI84; fourth-year vineyard produce and, 138, 141, 248, 414; gold industry and, 347, 347n148, 347n149; half sheqel, and annual, 247-48, 414; Hasmonean era and, 137; Helena of Adiabene and, 236, 248, 321, 347; Jewish community of Judaea and, 137nI85, 248; material donations, 236-37, 245; Second Temple era and, 400, 414; shofar, and collection of, 347, 347n150 Coponius, 229-30n49, 287, 288 Corinthus, 172 Cornelius (Roman citizen), 366 Cornelius son of Ceron, 365 Cos, 201, 247 Costobar, 166,307, 367n95 Court of the Gentiles, 233n60 Court of the Israelites, 240, 241, 244 Court of the Priests, 240-41, 244 courts. See judicial courts, Temple Mount and; sacred courts, Temple Mount and Crassus, 160, 372n118 Cremna, 232n57 Cross Valley, 319, 319n18 Cumanus, 235, 304, 364 Cyrene, Caesareum at, 200, 232, 232n57

Cyrene, Diaspora Jewry and, 370 Cyrus, 4, 5, 8-11, 13,221 Cyrus Cylinder, 9, 9-10 Damascus, 201, 373,400 Damascus Document (Dead Sea sect), 379 Damascus Gate, 318n16, 323 Daphne, 161 Darius, 5,10, 15-19, 16, 221 David: conquest of Jerusalem by, xv; tomb of, 104, 190,209,209-10,322-23. See also City of David Davidic dynasty, 11-12,43, 43n139, 104, I04n46 Dead Sea scrolls, 139-40 Dead Sea sect, 379, 383 Decapolis, 159 dekaprotoi, Greco-Roman era and, 266, 266n40 Delos, 370 Demetrius I, 85, 86, 87 Demetrius II, 66 Demetrius III, 105 Demetrius Poliorcetes, 49 demography: Alexandria, popUlation of, 341, 341n114; and Christian community, population of, 382; Diaspora Jewry, and population of Jerusalem, 340, 414; and Essenes, number of, 122; Hasmonean era, and population of Jerusalem, 54n31, 91-92, 106-14, 107, 110, 111,112, 340; Herodian era, and population of Jerusalem, 156, 172, 173, 212, 340; nonJewish community, and population of Jerusalem, 100, 100n74, 172n95, 173; Persian period, and population of Jerusalem and, 342-43; pilgrimages to Jerusalem, and effects on population of Jerusalem, 340-41; Roman era, and population of Jerusalem, 313, 340-43, 341n114, 342n119, 343n126, 349, 359--60, 359--60n43; siege of Jerusalem, numbers killed in, 410 Diadochi, 47 Diaspora Jewry: Africa and, 370; and Agrippa I, 299n64, 299-300; Alexandria and, 370, 373, 397-98; aristocracy and, 369; contributions to Temple and, 137nI85, 189,247-48; destruction of Temple, and effects on, 418; Greco-Roman era, and role of, 272-73, 281; Hellenists and, 384; and Herod, 177-78,373; and Jewish community, 369-73. See also Jewish community Diodorus son ofJason, 116 Diogenes, 118nl04, 128n148 Dolabella, edicts, and privileges of Diaspora Jewry, 165 Dominus Flevit necropolis, 262 Dor,159,298,299-3oo,299n64 Dorotheus son of Nathanael, 365 Dorus of Jerusalem, 305n88

476 Dositheus, 117 Double Gate. See Huldah Gates dove/pigeon raising industry, 348, 369. See also sacrifices Drusus,200 Dung Gate, 323-24, 324n44, 346 Dura Europos synagogue, 397 Ecclesiastes (Qohelet), about, 61-62 economy: Agrippa I, and assistance to Diaspora Jewry, 300, 300n66; arcosolia, and effects of economic activities in Jerusalem, 344n130; banks, and role of Temple Mount, 236; charity, contributions for, 249, 249n156; and Hasmonean era, and effects on, 343-44; Hellenistic era, and influences on, 56-57; Herod, taxation and, 172, 175, 185, 189, 189n 10; and Herodian era, and effects on, 343-44; and revolt against Roman Empire, causes for, 402; and Second Temple period, economic activities in Jerusalem during, 34~; and Temple Mount, Herodian, 235-37; Temple reconstruction and, 14, 18; trade issues, Hellenistic era and, 57, 69; unemployment upon completion of Temple Mount, 309-10. See also contributions to Temple education, 129, 255, 398, 398nl09; instruction and gatherings on Temple Mount, 237, 368--69, 379, 380 Egypt: burial, customs for, 262; coexistence of cultures and, 40, 4On130; contributions to Temple, Jewish community and disputes about, 137nl84; high priests and, 171; ketubah (marriage contract), 145; under Persian Empire, 5; Ptolemaic dynasty, xvii, 47 Eighteen Decrees (gezerot), 308, 378n17 Eleazar b. Zadoq, 346, 398 Eleazar (Boethusian high priest), 186 Eleazar (martyr), 381 Eleazar son of Ananus, 288, 307, 310 Eleazar son of Boethus (high priest), 353 Eleazar son of Deinaeus, 304 Eleazar son of Jairus, 310-11 Eliezer b. Jacob, 241nl13 Elionaeus son ofCantheras (Cithaerus), 298n54 Elnathan, 34 Emeq Refa'im, 205 Ennion of Sidon, 261, 330 1 Enoch,61,63--64, 132,275,393 entertainment institutions: Agrippa I, and building of, 300; amphitheaters, Herod's building of, 156,170,190,192; Beirut and, 300; Caesarea and, 300; Greco-Roman era and, 279, 280; Hellenization of, 192; Herod, and building of, 170,181,190,201--6; hippodromes, 156, 170, 190,201-2,204n68,205n73,320n24,320-21;

theaters, Herod's building of, 156, 190, 192, 206,206n77,334,335 ephebium, Greco-Roman era and, 266 Ephesos, 355 equus publicus (knighthood), 366 1 Esdras, 20 Esebonitis, 173 Eshkolot tomb, 261 Essenes: about, 119, 130-32,383; Hasmonean era and, 136-37; and Hebrew, use of, 271; Hellenization, and effects on, 145-46; and Herod, 176, 176n124; Herodian era, and oath of allegiance, 174n127; Josephus on, 88, 123; legitimacy of Temple and, 245n134; locations of, 121, 130nI59, 130n160; Pharisees compared to, 380n29; population of, 122; prophets vs. political and religious rulers, 101; Upper City, and residences of, 332, 333; washing hands before prayer, Jewish community and, 139 ethnarchs, 160, I6On33, 184 Euarestus of Cos, 179 Eupolemus son of John, 73, 85, 115, 144 Eurycles, 154n15, 179 exegesis, forms of: Hellenization and, 256, 276-78,277n89,278n93 Exodus story, compared to return from Bablylonia, 8,43 Ezechias (Hezekiah), xv, 37, 49, 52n20, 161 Ezekiel the Tragedian, 73n99 Ezra: about, 4, 20-22; apocalypticism and, 393; on intermarriage, 21-22, 94; on Jew, definition of a, 21-22; religious isolationism and, 38; and Torah, public reading of, 29, 30; urban development of Jerusalem and, xvi Fadus,303-4 farrrines, 175, 182, 183,402,402n9 Felix,304-6,354,401 Festus, 286, 306, 308 figural images: coinage and, 142, 291-92n27, 292; Hasmonean era, and avoidance of, 142-43, 143n216; Herod and, 182, 191, 20On50, 203, 204, 205, 255-56n2, 256; human images on coinage, 38-39,39, 39n128, 54; Pontius Pilate, and Jewish laws and regulations about, 289, 291-92n27; Second Commandment, 143; and Tobiad Hyrcanus' palace, 142; tombs, Hasmonean era and, 142-43, 143n216. See also aniconic images; coinage First Temple, 14,82,227, 227n40, 258 First Temple period, xiii, xv-xvi, 39,43,91,242; seal impressions and, 106 First Wall of Jerusalem, 106-7,107, 110-11n71, 196-97,333 Flaccus, 247 Florus, 306,309,310, 366,372nI18,401

477 foreign mercenaries, 47, 98, 104, 105, 111, 172 fortresses, built by Herod, 173 Forum Augusti, 190 Forum Iulium, 190 Forum Romanum, 190 forum, Temple Mount as, 233 Foundation Stone, Temple Mount, and location of, 238,238n87 Fourth Philosophy. See Sicarii French Hill, tombs on, 156 Gaba, 173 Gabath Saul, 274 Gabinius, 154-55, 159-60,268,365 Gaius Caligula, 186n170, 236, 286, 294, 363 Galilee, 159,249-50,275,291,304,405 Gamaliel the Elder: 224n23; Christian activities and, 298; instruction and gatherings on Temple Mount, 237, 368-69, 379, 380; on 'eruv laws, 376; Greco-Roman era and use of Aramaic language by, 275; letters of, 231, 275; and Peter, defense of, 368; sanhedrin (synedrion), and role of, 379; Temple construction, and role of, 379 Gate of the Essenes, 130, 333 Gaulanitis (Golan), 168 Gauls, 172 Gaza, 113,159,266 Gennath Gate, 109-10 gerousia: Hellenistic era and, 53-54, 68, 80, 82, 84,269; Hever Ha-Yehudim and, ]]5 Geshem the Arab, 26 Gezer, 96, 140, 141 Go1ah Chamber, 241-42 Golan (Gau1anitis), 168 gold industry, 347n148, 347n149, 347-48 Golden Gate (Sha'ar Ha-Rahamim), 229 golah community: Persian era and, 13, 14-15,21, 36,37-38,42 Golgotha, 338 Grapte, 321 Greece, 5, 370 Greeklanguage,59n48,272-74,276,414 gymnasia, 7, 175,201,266 gymnasiarch, Herod and subsidies for, 201 Hadrian, 196, 395 haftarah (reading of Prophets), 30, 397 Haggai, 16, 17,42 Hakkoz, 116 Hammam Lif synagogue, 397 Hananel the Babylonian, 166, 171 Hananiah,34, 157 Hanina, 381 Hanukkah, 82-84,82nI21,82nI23,97nI7 Hasidians, 60-61, 61n60, 85, 119,381 Hasmonean dynasty, 93n4, 93-95,166,175,222

havurah (religious association), 122,381, 381n35 Hebrew inscriptions: coinage and, 104, IJ5, 142, 146; Greco-Roman era and, 270-71; Hasmonean era and, 95, 106, 142, 146; seal impressions and, 106; stamped jar handles, Hellenistic era and, 59, 59n49; and Temple Mount, Herodian, 229,229; tombs and, 117,118,271 Hebrew language: 37, 37n119, 270-72, 276, 414 Hecataeus of Abdera: on centrality of Temple, Hellenistic era and, 51,53, 54, 54n31; 246; on Ptolemy, and conquests of Jerusalem, 48-49; on Second Temple period, and topographic size of Jerusalem, 342, 342n121; on Temple, 59; writings of, 51n18, 54n31 Helcias (brother of Julius Archelaus), 367 Helcias the Elder, 298, 363, 366-67 Helena of Adiabene: contributions to Temple and, 236,248,321,347; famine, and distribution of grain by, 321; palaces of, 156, 321, 321, 335, 339,348; tomb of, 211, 261, 321 Heliopolis (Baalbek), 300 Helix, 162 Herculaneum, 327n59 Herod: Alexander Jannaeus, compared to, 191; Alexandra, and death by, 166; alliances and, 161; and amphitheater, building of, 156, 170, 190, 192; aniconic images and, 182, 255-56n2, 389; and Antigonus, war with, 162-63; and aqueducts, building of, 170, 175, 192,215; and Archelaus, 153n8; Aristobulus Ill, and death by, 166, 171; and aristocracy, massacre of, 365; and aristocracy, 165, 171-72, 175; assemblies in Jerusalem and, 172-73; athletic games and, 192,200,201,206; and Augustus, 167-68,175, 182n159, 190-91, 200, 201, 217; and Baba family, 166; bodyguards of, 172; building projects and, 187-217, 216nl11, 216n112; building techniques of, 193, 194; capital punishment and, 173, 180; character of, 170, 175-76, 181, 185n169, 188, 191; and Citadel in Jerusalem, building of, 193-94; and cities, construction of, 168; Cleopatra, and lands leased to, 166; client kings, and political role of, 153n8; coinage and, 18On147, 255-56n2; conquest of Jerusalem, 163, 164, 164n50; custom levies and Caesarea, 189; dates for building Caesarea, 156; dates for building of Caesarea, 226n37; and David's tomb, robbery of, 209; defensive installations in Jerusalem and, 167; and Diaspora Jewry, 177-78, 373; division of lands of, 184, 184, 186; domestic issues and, 183; domestic tensions and, 165-66, 167, 173, 179-81; economic issues during reign of, 188n6, 188-89, 189n8, 189n9; family tree of, 179; fortresses and, 173; funds for building programs and, 188, 221n8, 222; governor of Galilee, 160; and Hasmonean

478 dynasty, 166, 175, 222; Hellenization of architecture and, 232-35; Hyrcanus II, and death by, 166; and intennarriage, 181, 182, 255-56n2; and Jews, 182n155, 203-5; Jewish heritage of, 182n155, 183n161, 188; land acquisitions of, 168, 169; laws and regulations, Jewish, 255-56n2; and Marcus Agrippa, 169, 169n79, 200; Mariamme, and death by, 166; and Mark Antony, 166; and Nabataeans, war with, 166-67, 181; and Nicholas of Damascus, 103, 157, 171, 177; and non-Jews, 181, 181n150, 188; oath of allegiance and, 173-74, 174n11l, 174nI27, 176; plan of Caesarea, 188; political issues and, 165-78, 255; and priests, role of, 17ln85; reign of, ISS-56, 181-83; ritual baths (miqva'ot), and building of, 191; and Roman emperors, homage to, 168, 175,200; Romanization of Jerusalem and, 192, 201-2; and Rome, 168, 169, 181; sanhedrin (synedrion), domestic issues and resolution by consultation with, 172,268; Second Wall and, 110, llOn70, 314; siege of Jerusalem, llO-lln71; and spies, network of, 173; statuary and, 174, 182, 204; subsidies for gymnasiarch and, 201; Syria, and procuratorial status of, 168, 168n74, 189; and Temple, building of, xvii, 191,220-21, 221n7, 223-24, 225; Temple Mount and, 170, 190, 193-94, 219-42; thievery and, 173; titles and, 174,174; tomb at Herodium, 190,206; and construction of towers in Jerusalem, 167, 170, 190, 196-98, 197, 197n39; urban development of Jerusalem and, xv, 156, 169, 189; will documents and, 179, 188. See also Herodian palaces Herod Antipas (son of Herod), 29 Herod of Chalcis (brother of Agrippa I), 295, 363 Herod (of Tiberias), 368 Herodian dynasty: and Pontius Pilate, 361-62; Roman era, and role of, 286, 361-65; tombs o~ 190,206,208,208 Herodian palaces: Agrippa II and, 326, 326n56, 333, 333n77; Antonia palace-fortress and, 113, 167, 169, 170, 190; Avi-Yonah on, 201; Baris fortress-palace and, 113; Caesarea and, 326n56; Josephus on, 199-200; Roman era, and governor's residence in, 334; Upper City and, 326, 334, 339; urban development of Jerusalem and, 156,19O,191,196,198-201,199,199n49 Herodium, 190,206,227 Hever Ha-Yehudim, 114-15,115 Hezekiah (Ezechias), xv, 37, 49, 52n20, 161 Hezekiah (King), and Temple, purification of, 83 Hezekiah's Pool (pool of the Towers, Amygdalon), 215,338 high priests: Agrippa II, and appointments by, 309, 363; Archelaus, and appointment of, 186; Baris fortress-palace and, 113; civil war among

priestly families, 306, 307, 307n99; garments for, 195,356, 364; Hasmonean era, and role of, 146, 148; Hellenistic era, and role of, 49n8, 51-52, 52n20, 53, 86, 353; Herod, and role of, 170-71, 185; Holy of Holies and, 242-43; Jesus' trial, and role of, 378; judicial authorities, and role of sons of, 355; Persian era, and role of, 18-19,35; and Roman Empire, 355-56; Roman era, and role of, 286, 288; sanhedrin( synedrion), and role of sons of, 355; Second Temple period Jerusalem, and role of, 399-400; Temple, and role of, 243-45; and title, use of, 354-55. See also levites; priests high priestly families: Diaspora Jewry and, 369; Herodian era and, 353, 354n14; revolt against Roman Empire, and role of, 357-58; Sadducees and, 376; Second Temple period Jerusalem, and role of, 398 Hillel: appointment as Nasi, 379; Babylonian Diaspora Jewry and, 177,341,370; laws and regulations for Alexandrian Jewry and, 276-77; Patriarchate, and descendants of, 396; prozbol, and role of, 378-79 Hillel, school of, 278, 308, 308n102, 378nl7 Hinnom Valley, Herodian era tombs and, 156,208 Hippicus, tower 197, 198 hippodrome: Herod, and building of, 156, 170, 190; history of, 320; Jewish community, and use of, 32On24; locations of, 202, 204n68, 205, 320, 32On26; Roman era and building of, 201-2 Hizma, 332 Homer, 273 Horologium Solare, Augustus, and building of, 190 Hulah Valley, 168 Huldah: residence of, 337; tomb of, 230n51, 322, 323,323,337 Huldah Gates, 230-31n53, 231, 231, 235, 258, 259,322 Hyrcanus, John. See Hyrcanus I (YehohananlJohn) Hyrcanus (son of Joseph), 58, 58n43, 67, 73; figural art, and palace of, 142 Hyrcanus I (YehohananlJohn): alliances with neighboring peoples, lOOn74; Antiochus VII and, 102; Baris fortress-palace and, 112, 113; and city walls, restoration of Jerusalem's, 108n62; coinage and, 95, 97, 104, 114, 161n37; and David's tomb, robbery of, 104, 209; foreign mercenaries and Hasmonean era, 104, Ill; Idumaeans and, 96, l11n74; Ituraeans and, I 11n74; Jericho palace complex and, 98, 99; and Pharisees, 121, 127-28, 128n144; and priests, diplomatic missions of, 115-16; realm of, 88, 109; restoration of Jerusalem's city walls and, 108n62; and Sadducees, role of, 121; siege of Jerusalem by Antiochus VII and, 103, 103n41, 108n62; titles of, 97, 104;

479 tomb of, 338; and workshops in Jerusalem, 336, 336n91 Hyrcanus IT: Diaspora Jewry and, 373; foreign relations with Rome and, 147, 153n7; Herod and, 163, 166; and high priest, role of, 148n236, 160, 161, 161n37, 163; Julius Caesar, and aid from, 160; public support of, 147; and sanhedrin (synedrion), role of, 268 Idumaea, 159, 186 Idumaeans: Antipater (father of Herod), 154, 159; conversion to Judaism, 96; and Herod, 175, 181n149; revolt against Roman Empire, 405, 406,407 images, figural. See aniconic images; figural images industries in Jerusalem: gold industry, 347-48; olive and olive oil production, 346-47; dove/pigeon raising industry, 348, 369; smiths' workshops, 336; spices, use of, 347; stone industry, 348; weaving industry, 259, 324, 324n44, 346, 346n141. See also commercial quarter in Jerusalem intermarriage laws and regulations, 19, 21-22, 30, 94, 139n200 Iraq el-Emir, Tobiad Hyrcanus'palace, figural art and, 142 Ishmael son of Phiabi (15-16), 288, 353 Ishmael son of Phiabi (c. 59), 309,353, 367 isopoliteia (equal citizenship rights), 305-6 Ituraeans, 91nl, 96, 181nl49 Izates,321 Jacimus,368 Jaffa, Pompey and, 113, 159 Jaffa Gate, 319, 333 James (brother of Jesus): beliefs of, 386-87; burial location of, 323; rank of, 383, 385-86; sanhedrin (synedrion) for trial and execution 0~269, 307, 356, 357, 364,386 James (brother of John), 297 James (Jacob) son of Judah the Galilean, 304 Jason (high priest), 267, 324 Jason of Cyrene, 70, 83n 122 Jason's tomb, 114, 117, 144,144 Jason son of Eleazar: Antiochus IV and, 73-74, 74n102, 75; diplomatic mission to Rome and, 73,85, 115; Jason of Cyrene and, 70; reforms of, 69-70, 71, 73 Jehoiachin, Babylonian Jewish community and, 6 Jehoseph son of Qafa (Caiaphas), tomb of, 210,210 Jericho: Alexander Jannaeus palace complex in, 98; Archelaus, and reconstruction of, 186; amphitheaterlhippodrome, 204n68; and Cleopatra, 166; Hasmonean palace complex, 98, 99; and pottery, Herodian era, 261; ritual baths (miqva'ot) and, 140, 141,391

Jeshua b. Jozadak, 13, 17, 18, 35,42 Jesus b. Hananiah, 306 Jesus ben Elazar ben Sira. See Ben Sira Jesus of Nazareth: apocalypticism and, 393; Aramaic language used by, 274; trial and execution of, 196, 269, 353, 362, 378, 382 Jesus son of Damnaeus, 307, 309 Jesus son of Gamaliel, 307 Jesus son of Phiabi, 353 Jesus son of Sapphas, 355 Jesus son of See, 186 Jewish community: of Alexandria, 276--77; of Caesarea, 181n150, 305-6, and Herod, 182n155; of Damascus, 400; of Egypt, 137n184; ofIonia, 177; of Rhodes, 233n60, 248, 370nllO; of Rome, 178, 178n139, 364, 400 Jewish Quarter, 108, 260, 329n63 Joazar son of Boethus (high priest), 186,288,353, 355, 355n24 John (apostle), 353, 383,406 John of Gischala, 337, 405, 406, 407, 410 John (priest), 73 John son of John, 365 Jonathan son of Ananus, 294, 298n54, 305, 305n88,357 Jonathan son of Onias, 164 Jonathan the Hasmonean: burial of, lOOn26; correspondence with Sparta, 55n35, 56; dates for, 91nl; and priests, diplomatic missions of, 115; realm of, 85-89, 88, 91nl, 109; titles of, 95; urban expansion of Jerusalem, 106-7, 108--9 Joseph Cabi, son of Simon, 309, 352 Joseph of Arimathae, 366 Joseph (the Tobiad, father of Hyrcanus), Hellenistic era and political issues, 57-58, 58n44 Josephus son of Nennaeus, 164 Joshua b. Gamla, 130, 398n109 Joshua b. Perahya, and purity laws, 140 Josiah: religious reforms and, xvi, 30; Samarian province, and inclusion by, 37 Jubilees, 96; about, 135, 135n176; and Hebrew, use of, 271; on intermarriage during Hasmonean era, 139n200; and Temple, role of, 135 R. Judah, and Roman rule, 157 Judah b. Tabbai, and purity laws, 140 Judah Maccabee: Hellenization and, 97; Maccabean revolt, and role of, 79, 80, 81, 82; post-Maccabean revolt, and role of, 84, 85, I01n29; and priests, diplomatic missions of, 115. See also Hasmoneans Judah son of Hezekiah, 185 Judas of Galilee: apocalypticism and, 393; census and, 287; death of, 288; and Judas son of Hezekiah, 287 -88n 11; revolt against Roman Empire and, 157,378; Sicarii and, 396

480 Judas son of Hezekiah, 287-88nll Judas son of Sariphaeus, 180 Judas the Essene, 130,237 judicial courts, Temple Mount and, 231, 239, 242 Judith (book of), 96, 271 Julius Archelaus, 299, 366, 367 Julius Caesar, 152, 160, 160-61, 161n35, 165 Julius Capellus, 368 Justus of Tiberias, Greco-Roman era, and use of different languages, 273 Kerethites, 104 ketubah (marriage contract), 145,272,275 kukhim (loculi), 210,213,262. See also burial Lacedaemon, 370 Laodicaea, 247 Latin language, Greco-Roman era, and use of, 270,414 Leontopolis, 89, 101, 136, 245n134 Levitas, 117 levites: music and singing, 240, 244, 244n127; Nehemiah, and rights of, 28, 31, 35; and recitation of psalms incident, Roman era, 308; and sanhedrin (synedrion), role of, 269; Sukkot festival, and role of, 245; Temple, and role in, 244-45; and tithes, offering of, 31, 53, 362n55; and vestments, 308. See also high priests; priests loculi. See kukhim. Lower City (Akra): aristocracy and, 326; boundaries of, 319n18, 319n22, 319-26; destruction of Akra, 335; Diaspora Jewry and, 326; Jewish community of, 325-26; revolt against Roman Empire and, 407, 410; description of, 319, 321; social issues, and residents of, 339-40; stone vessels, 332 lower classes, Jerusalem, 273, 279, 339-40, 402 Lower Market, 339, 345 Lysias, 80, 81 Lysimachus son of Pausanias, 164 Lysimachus son of Ptolemy, 73, 74,117 Maccabean revolt, 79, 80, 81 1 Maccabees: and Deuteronomy, influence on, 94, 94n7; twenty-four priestly courses (mishmarot) and, 244 2 Maccabees: author and dates for, 82n122; and Hasmoneans, continuity and legitimacy; Hellenization, and effects on, 144, 146; and Temple, role of, 134 Macedonia, 159 Machpelah Cave (Tomb of the Patriarchs), Hebron, 193-94,206-7,207 Magnesium, battle of, 151 Malichus, 162

Mamillah Pool, 215 Marduk, 8, 10 Mariamme (daughter of Agrippa), 299 Mariamme (wife of Herod), 161, 166, 171, 172, 179, 182, 197 Mark Antony, 161n37, 162, 163, 165, 166, 167, 182n159 Mark (apostle), 160n33 markets in Jerusalem: Lower Market, 339, 345; timber market, 336; Upper Market, 339; weaving markets, 324, 346; wool market, 336 Marsus (governor of Syria), 300 Masada: capture of, 311; and dikes, Roman, 318; Herod, and building of, 193, 194,227; ritual baths (miqva'ot) and, 329n63, 391; speech by Eleazar son of J airus at, 310 Mattathias Antigonus, coinage and, 97 Matthias son of Ananus, 298n54 Matthias son of Boethus, 355 Matthias son of Margalus Margalothus, 180 Matthias son of Theophilus, 309 mausoleums: Augustus and, 190, 208n88. See also tombs Mausolus of Halicarnassus, tomb of, 211 Menahem the Sicarii, 311, 325, 378 Menelaus (high priest), 73, 74, 75, 80,85, 372n118 menorah/menorot: golden menorah, 17-18,242; in Second Temple, 43n139; Upper City, engraved on plaster, 331,331, 331n68, 332 messianic movement: charismatic religious people and, 304, 305, 305n92, 387, 393; Roman era and, 291, 291n26, 293, 403 Michmash, 85 middle classes: Greco-Roman era and, 273,279; Lower City (Akra) and, 339-40; Second Temple period and, 372 miqva'ot. See ritual baths (miqva'ot) Mithridates of Pergamon, 160, 247 Mithridates of Pontus, 152 MMT(Qumran scrolls), 122, 127, 127, 127n143, 139n200 Monobaz,321,347 Mount Gerizim, 49-50, 75n104, 96, 137nI84. See also Samaria, Samaritans Mount of Olives, 140,211,262,332,339,407 Mount Scopus, 156,210,211,211,262,332,370 Mount Zion, 84, 208, 209 music and singing, in Temple, 240, 244, 244n127 Nabataean Empire, 167, 181, 189 Nazirite tomb, 262 Neapolitanus,310 Neara (Na'aran), 186 Nebuchadnezzar, Temple treasures and, 9 N ehardea, 248 Nehemiah: autobiography of, 7, 23; about, 23,

481 30-31; character and beliefs of, 23; Jerusalem's city walls, restoration of, 23-26, 24; as official, Persian, 4, 23, 27-28, 28n82; policies of, 5-6; religious isolationism and, 38; retum to Jerusalem, and role of, 34; and Torah, public reading of, 28-29, 30; urban development of Jerusalem and, xvi Nero, 367, 406 New City (Bezetha quarter), description of, 337-40, 346 Nicanor Gate, 237, 240, 241 Nicanor (Hellenist), 384 Nicanor of Alexandria, 210, 237, 248, 369-70; tomb of 210, 211,370 Nicanor (Syrian general), 80; and Nicanor Day, 85 Nicholas of Damascus, 103, 157, 171, 177 Nicodemus, 347 Nicolaus (Hellenist), 384 Nicolaus (of Antioch), 370 Nicopolis (near Actium, Greece), 20ln62 Ninth of Av, and commemoration of destruction of Temple, 410, 418 Nisibis, 248 Nittai of Arbel, 121 Numenius son of Antiochos, 115, 116 Numidia, division of, Roman Empire and, 159 nymphaea (public fountains), 153-54 Octavius (Augustus). See Augustus olive and olive oil production, 346-47 Olympic games, Herod and, 173n 104 Onias (High Priest), 52, 70 Onias II (High Priest), 55, 57 Onias III, 74 Onias IV, 89, 136 Onias'temple, 136, 245n134, 409, 409n53 Ophel, 332, 335 Oral Law, Pharisees and, 124, 129, 145 ossuaries: aristocracy, and use of, 265; Diaspora Jewry, and use of, 370; economy and, 372; Greco-Roman era and, 272, 276; Herodian era and, 263, 263-65; post-Destruction era and, 418. See also burial paganism: Antiochus IV and, 101n29; and archisynagogos, role of, 396; 1 Enoch, and references to, 63; first fruits, and pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 259; foreign mercenaries in Jerusalem and, Ill; Hasmonean era and, 95, 96, Ill; pilgrimages to Jerusalem compared to pilgrimages of non-Jews, 252; Simhat Bet Hasho'evah ceremony (the Water-Drawing Festival), and location on Sukkot festival, 259-60. See also temples, pagan Palatine Hill, Augustus, and building of home on, 190, 190n21

Palmyra, 370 Panias (Caesarea Philippi), 168 Parmenas (Hellenist), 384 Parthian: Antigonus and, 163; Augustus, and building of, 190; Roman Empire and, 152, 159,162 Parvah Chamber, 241 Passover: Ezra, and celebration of, 43; Hasmonean era, and celebration of, 164; Herodian era and, 185; Hezekiah, and celebration of, 43; Josiah, and celebration of, 30; Moses and, 135; pilgrimages to Jerusalem and, 248-52, 250, 250n167, 251; Roman era, and Samaritans' desecration of Temple on, 288; Sabbath observances, and conflict with sacrifices for, 379, 389; and Temple, celebrations for completion of, 19. See also pilgrimages to Jerusalem Patriarchate, 396 Patroclus son of Chaireas, 164 Paul (apostle): Antonia palace-fortress and, 196; apocalypticism and, 393; beliefs of, 384-85, 386,387; and Diaspora, residence in, 370; and Greek, use of, 273; and Hebrew, use of, 271; Hellenists and, 384; high priest of Jerusalem and, 400; letters of introduction from high priest and, 400; sanhedrin (synedrion), and trial of, 269 Peace of Cali as, 5 Peitholaus rebellion, 160 Pelethites, 104 pentagram, and use on seal impressions, 106 Pentateuch, 29, 29n85, 58. See also Bible, Greek translation of; Torah Peraea, 159, 185,362 Pericles, 28, 191 Peter (apostle), 210, 297, 353, 368, 383, 385 Petra, tombs in, 213 Petronius, 294, 299n64, 300, 363 Pharisees: about, 119-20, 120nll1; Alexander Jannaeus and, 118; ideology of, 124-26; description of, 380-81; Diogenes and, 118nl04; instruction and gatherings on Temple Mount, 237; Ephraim, and representation of, 119; on execution of James, 386n58; figural art, and Second Commandment, 143; Greco-Roman era and, 273; and Hebrew, use of, 271; Hellenization, and effects on, 145; and Herod, 174nI27, 176-77; interpretations of texts and, 388-89; Josephus on, 88, 123; ossuaries and, 264; population of, 121; priests, and role of, 121; purity laws and, 122; sanhedrin (synedrion), and role of, 269; socio-political issues and, 126-30; vs. Sadduoees, 124-26 Pharos lighthouse (Alexandria), 197 Phasael: Antigonus, and death of, 163; city of, 197n41; governor of Jerusalem, 160; ran-

482 som of, 189n8; rebellion against, 162; tower in Jerusalem, 197, 198 Pheroras (brother of Herod), 207 Pheroras'wife (sister-in-law of Herod), 172, 176 Phiabi family, 353 Philip (Zamaris family), 368 Philip (brother of Archelaus), 184 Philip (Hellenist), 384 Philip II, 45 Philip (son of Herod), 362 Philo (of Alexandria): on centrality of Jerusalem for Diaspora Jewry, and contributions to Temple, 247, 253nI78; on gilded shields, placement of, 290--91; on Jewish community of Rome, rights of, 178; on Jewish community's character, 295; on pilgrimages to Jerusalem, 251, 252; on pilgrims to Jerusalem, number of, 251n169; on Sejanus, 292; on synagogues, and role of priests, 397 Philo the Elder, 73n99 Philostratos, 171 Phineas of Habata, 348 Phoenicia, 166 pilgrimages to Jerusalem: attacks on Galileans during Roman era, 250, 291, 304; and Bezetha quarter (New City), encampments in, 338; celebration of festivals, Hasmonean era and, 163; contributions to charity and, 249; gold industry, and souvenirs of, 347-48; Greco-Roman era and, 273-74; Hasmonean era, and celebration of festivals, 137, 163, 164; Herodian era and, 248-52; pilgrimages of non-Jews compared to, 252; population of Jerusalem, and effects of, 340--41; Roman era, and celebration of festivals, 164, 185; Second Temple period and, 414; Temple, and effects of, 400; and Temple Mount, Herodian, 235. See also specificfestivals Pisidians, 111 polis: Hellenization, and political system of, 255, 265,266-67; Jerusalem, and status as political issues, 71-72, 72n95, 74, 216, 267; Seleucid era, and effects on, 267 Pollion, 176 Pompeian decorative forms, and Herodian architectural styles, 192, 260--61 Pompeii, 327n59, 328n61, 328n62 Pompey: conquest of Jerusalem and, xiv, 147, 159, 163, 396; decorative architectural style, 192; and Hasmonean kingdom, conquest of, 158-59; and Jerusalem, sovereignty of, xvii; political issues and, 152 Pontius Pilate: and aqueducts, completion of, 216, 290; and Caiaphas, 289; figural images, Jewish laws and regulations about, 289, 291-92n27; gilded shields incident and, 290--91, 291n24, 361-62; and Jewish community, 290n22,

290--92, 293; and pilgrims from Galilee, attacks on, 250, 291, 291n25; statuary, Jewish laws and regulations about, 289; Temple funds, and use for aqueduct system, 290, 291n25; and temple in Caesarea, building of, 292 Pontus (kingdom of), 152 pools (public reservoirs) in Jerusalem, 213-216 Popillius Laenas, 75 Poppaea, 308 Posidonius, 96, 103 praetorium, 196,334 prayer, communal, 418; priests and, 397n103; Qumran sect and, 397n103; synagogue rituals and, 397 priests: and Agrippa I, 298; Augustus, and role of, 171 n85; Court of the Priests, 240--41, 241; diplomatic missions, Hasmonean era and role of, 115-16; and economic income, sources for, 36On50, 360-61, 361; Greco-Roman era, and role of, 266; Hakkoz, 116; Hasmonean era, and role of, 95-97, 115-19, 136, 164; Hellenistic era, and support of, 68; military leadership and, 118-19; military leadership of, 118; number of priests, Second Temple period and, 53n26; residences in Upper City and, 330, 332, 360; revolt against Roman Empire, 402; ritual baths (miqva'ot) and, 140, 390; Sadducess and, 376; sanhedrin (synedrion), and role of, 269; Second Temple period, and role of, 358-61; synagogues, and role of, 396-97; Temple, and role of, 243-44, 245; Temple Mount, and location for announcements by, 229, 229; Temple reconstruction by Herod, and role of, 223; twentyfour priestly courses (mishmarot) and, 43n139, 244, 413; unclean animals, and prohibition against bringing into Jerusalem, 69; Upper City and, 339. See also high priests; levites Prochorus (Hellenist), 384 Ptolemaic dynasty, xvii, 47 Ptolemais-Acre, Herod, and building of gymnasia in, 201 Ptolemais (Cyrene), 370 Ptolemy (Herodian courtier), 172 Ptolemy (identity unclear), on Idumaeans, and conversion to Judaism, 96n13 Ptolemy (son of Levitas), 117 Ptolemy I, 48-49, 54 Ptolemy II, 54, 58 Ptolemy IV, 50, 67 Ptolemy XIII, 160 purity laws: Agrippa I and, 296, 298; burial in Jerusalem and, 322-23; corpse impurity laws and, 139, 140; gentile uncleanliness and, 139; glass vessels and, 140, 14On205; Hasmonean era and, 95,139-41, 139n200, 164; and Hillel, school of, 391; intermarriage and, 139n200;

483 lands outside of Eretz Israel and, 140; non-Jews and, 139,308; Pharisees and, 122,391; pilgrimages to Jerusalem and, 250; post-Destruction era and, 418; priests, Roman era and, 164; priests and, 164; Red Heifer ritual and corpse impurity laws, 140, 229-30n49; ritual baths, sects and Hasmonean era, 140--41; Roman era and, 390-92; Sadducees and, 391; Second Temple period and, 391, 391n82; and Shammai, school of, 391; stone vessels and, 141-42, 330-31, 332, 348, 392, 392n86; Temple, and access by converts to Judaism, 296; and Temple Mount, before entering, 230; unclean animals in Jerusalem, 68, 69, 139; and Upper City, residents, 332; washing hands before prayer and, 139. See also ritual baths (miqva'ot) Qatros family, 354, 355 Qidron Valley, 118, 156,213,346 Qimhit family, 353-54, 354nlO Qiponos Gate, 229-30n49, 288 Quirinius (governor of Syria), 287, 288, 353 Qumran: Essenes and, 131, 132; Greco-Roman era and, 270; Hellenization, and effects on, 146; history of, 86, 89, 119, 130nI59; military leadership, and role of priests, 116; MMT scrolls, 122, 127, 127, 127n143, 139n200; priests and prophets vs. political and religious rulers, 101, IOln31; ritual baths (miqva'ot) and, 140, 141, 391; Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light against the Sons of Darkness, 119; scrolls, 126, 132, 132nI68, 296; sect, 63n71, 275,383,393; Torah, and centrality of study of, 123; twentyfour priestly courses (mishmarot) and, 244; washing hands before prayer, Jewish communityand, 139. See also Essenes Red Heifer ritual, 140, 229-30n49 residential buildings, Herodian era and, 245, 260-61 Rinse Chamber, 241 ritual baths (miqva'ot): agricultural produce and, 141,390-91, 391n80; Hasmonean era and, 140, 141; Herod, and building of, 175, 191, 192; Jericho and, 140, 141, 391; Masada and, 329n63, 391; priests and, 140,390; Roman era and, 390-92, 391; sects and, 122, 140--41, 141n208; Temple Mount and, 191; Upper City and, 329n63, 329n64, 329-30, 330, 330n65, 33On66, 332, 391; weavers, and laws and regulations about, 346. See also purity laws Robinson's Arch, 229, 230 Roman-Jewish community of Jerusalem, 322, 322,326,326n54,339,395-97,396 Romanization: Herodian architectural styles, and effects of, 198-99, 208-9, 209; Herodian era

and, 216, 256-57; Herod's theater in Jerusalem and, 206; and priests, role of, 171, 171 n85 sacred courts, Temple Mount and, 233n60, 237-43, 23~ 239n96,241nI13, 244 sacrifices, offering of: Abraham and, 135; Adam and, 135; converts and, 248; materials for, 241, 245; Noah and, 135; pigeon raising industry and, 348, 369; pilgrimages to Jerusalem and, 249; revolt against Roman Empire and, 409; Seleucid era and, 18,68; Temple, and importance of, 246; Temple Mount, and location for, 240,241 Saddok (Pharisee), 287, 378 Sadducees: about, 119, 125-26, 127; instruction and gatherings on Temple Mount, 237; figural art, and Second Commandment, 143; GrecoRoman era and, 273; Hyrcanus court, and role of, 120; interpretations of texts and, 388-89; Jesus' trial, and role of, 378; Josephus on, 88, 123; and Pharisees, 376; population of, 122; priests, and role of, 121; sanhedrin (synedrion), and role of, 269; and Temple funds, uses for, 290; Upper City, and residences of, 332; vs. ideology of Pharisees, 125-26 sages, 381n39 Saint Anne (Bezetha) Valley, 319n18 Salome Alexandra, llln74, 118, 128, 128n148 Salome (sister of Herod), 179, 181, 255-56n2, 298-99,366 Salt Chamber, 241 Samaria: Hasmonean era and, 96; and Israel, kingdom of, xv; Mount Gerizim, and Samaritan temple, 49-50, 96; Persian era, and province of, 37, 37-38; and pilgrims to Jerusalem, 250; Roman era and, 186; vs. golah community, 15, 37-38,50; vs. Judaeans, 50, 50nl2 Samaritans: Agrippa II, and attacks on, 304, 364; desecration of Temple and, 288; and Herod, 176, 181n149; legitimacy of Temple and, 245n134; persecution under Roman rule and, 304 Sanballat, 26, 38 sanctuary (hekhal), Temple, and location in, 242 sanhedrin( synedrion): Agrippa I, and role of, 269; Agrippa II, and role of, 269; and aristocracy, role of, 269; Christian community and, 385; definition of, 172; Hellenization, and political system of, 255, 266, 267--69; resolution of domestic issues and, 172; supreme court on Temple Mount, 235 Sanhedrin tombs, 261,262 sarcophagi, Herodian era and, 262--63. See also burial, tombs Saul, 307 Saul (brother of Costobar), 367n95

484 Scopas,67 scribes, 359n39, 380, 381n39, 381-82, 382; Pharisees, and role as professional scribes, 380 Scythopolis (Bet Shean), 159 seal impressions, 34, 106 Sebaste: Herod, and building of, 168, 172, 173, 175,176,200,216nI12 Second Wall of Jerusalem: about, 106, 109-11, 110, 110--11n71; Alexander Jannaeus, and construction of, 110; Hasmonean era and, 110n70; Herod and, 110, 110n70, 314; revolt against Roman Empire and, 407 sects, 119-32. See alsospecijic sects S~anus,291-92n27,292

Seleucus IV, 70, 372n118 Sepphoris, 159, 185,266 sermons, and synagogue rituals, 30, 397 Seron,81 sewage facilities, Herod, and building of, 190, 192 Sextus Caesar, 161 Shanunai,schooloL278,308,308nl02,378nI7 Shavu'ot festival, 135, 185,248,249,376. See also pilgrimages to Jerusalem Sheep's Gate, 230n50 Shemaya, 277,346 Shenazzar, 12 Sheshbazzar, xvi, 12-13, 13n35, 34, 42 Showbread Table, 242 Shushan Gate, 229-30n49 Sicarii: about, 119,304-5; archives incident, and role of, 402; capture of Masada by members of, 311, 405; murder of Jonathan (high priest) by members of, 305, 305n88, 357; revolt against Roman Empire, and role of, 405 Sidon, 27 Silas (the Babylonian), 297, 298 Silwan spring, 213 Simeon bar Yohai, 157 Simeon son of Judah the Galilean, 304 Simhat Bet Hasho'evah ceremony (the WaterDrawing Festival), 239, 259-60. See also Sukkot. Simon (apostle), 355 Simon b. Gamaliel, 369, 378, 379, 404 Simon b. Shatah, 128, 129, 140, 140n205, 145 Simon bar Giora, 402, 405, 406, 407, 410 Simon II (High Priest), 50, 51n16, 52n22, 60, 67, 68,71 Simon of Cyrene, 370 Simon (royal slave in Peraea), 185 Simon son of Boethus, 171, 298n54, 353 Simon son of Camith, 288 Simon son of Dositheus, 115 Simon the Hasmonean: Antiochus VII and, 102; borders for realm of, 91nl; burial of the dead, and tombs for, 98n19, 99; and burial of the

dead, tombs for, 98, 100026; celebrati on of appointment of, 97-98, 99-101; character of, 100; coinage and, 100028; and construction of city walls, Jerusalem's, 108-9; dates for, 91nl; Hellenization and, 97; holidays, institutionalization of celebration of, 100, 100028; and non-Jewish community, expulsion of, 100; and priests, diplomatic missions of, 115; prophets vs. political and religious rulers, 101, 101n29, 101n30, 101n31; purification and fortification of Jerusalem, 100; realm of, 109; titles of, 95 Simonides, 396 smiths' workshops, location of, 336 Solomon's Pool, 215, 216 Solomon's Temple, 14,82,227, 227n40, 258 Solon of Athens, 27-28 Sons of Bathyra, 298 Sosipater son of Philip, 116 spices, use of, 347 Stephen (Hellenist): beliefs of, 384, 386; Diaspora Jewry vs., 394; legitimacy of Temple and, 245n134, 385; sanhedrin(synedrion), and trial of, 269, 385; trial and execution of, 384 stoa, and Temple Mount, Herodian, 234n62 Stobisynagogue,397 stone: architectural uses of, 192-93, 192-93n28, 193; industry, 348; vessels, archeological evidence, 330-31, 332; Bethany, and use of, 332; City of David and, 332; and purity laws, 141-42, 330-31, 332, 348, 392, 392n86 Straton son of Theodotus, 116 Strato's Tower (Caesarea), 91nl, 113, 159 Struthion Pool, 196,215 Sukkot festival, 13-14; Abraham and, 135; Alexander Jannaeus and, 105; Ezra, and celebration of, 29; Hanukkah celebration and, 83; and levites, role of, 245; and lulav and ethrog, use of, 389; pilgrimage to Jerusalem, 248,249; Simhat Bet Hasho'evah ceremony (the Water-Drawing Festival), 239, 240, 244, 259-60; and Temple, restoration of, 13-14. See also pilgrimages to Jerusalem Syllaeus the Nabataean, 181, 255-56n2 synagogues: Aramaic in inscriptions, use of, 275; Diaspora Jewry, and role of, 273, 341, 394-400; Dor incident, 298, 299n64, 299-300; postDestruction era, and role of, 418; Second Temple period and, 394-400; Theodotos inscription, 272, 322, 322, 326, 326054, 339, 395-97; of weavers, 346n141 Syria, xvii, 47, 168, 168n74, 189 Tabernacles, festival of. See Sukkot festival Tadi Gate, 230050 targum (translation), 30, 275, 397 Tattenai, 18

485 Teacher of Righteousness, Qumran sect and, 86 Temple: Agrippa I, and use of funds from, 300; Agrippa II, and restoration of, 242; Antiochus III, and reconstruction of, 68; architectural styles, and effects of acculturation, 260, 260--61; Avi-Yonah on description offa~de of, 242; centrality of, 111, 245nl34, 245-53, 281, 413,414; corridor (mesibbah), Herod, and construction of, 242n118, 258; and courts, construction of, 231, 237-43, 239, 241; dates and length of time for reconstruction by Herod, 223, 224, 225-26; description of Herodian, 223-24, 242-43; destruction of First Temple, 7; destruction of Second Temple, 409-10, 410; Hasmonean era, and role of, 111, 133-39; Herod, and building of, 170, 175, 182, 183, 219-26, 220,223-24,225; Holy of Holies and, 242-43; Jerusalem, and role of, xvi, xvii, 398-99, 399, 413; Jewish community in Rome, and contributions to, 178, 178n139; non-Jews, and prohibition against entering, 68-69; Ptolemaic era and, 59; purification and rededication of, 80, 82; repairs of, 224, 225n25; restoration, and Hellenistic era, 84, 84nl25; restoration, Persian era and, 4,11,13,14-15,18-19, 19n49; robbery of, 71,74, 75, 159, 310, 372n118; and Sadducees, role of, 121; Seleucid era, and robbery of, 71, 74,75; stone industry, and building of, 348; synagogues in Jerusalem vs., 398. See also contributions to Temple, economy Temple Mount: agora and, 233, 258; and Antonia palace-fortress, role of, 195, 195n31, 199n49, 235; and Archelaus, throne of, 234-35; basilica and, 232, 233, 233-35; building techniques for construction on, 193-94; Caesareum, and design of, 258; celebrations regarding construction of, 170; chambers on Temple Mount, 241-42; Christian community, and meeting place on, 383, 383n47; construction on, 190; dates and length of time for construction of, 223; dimensions and, 226-37, 227n44, 233; instruction and gatherings on, 237, 368-69, 379, 380; functions on, 226-37, 227n44, 233; golden eagle incident and, 180, 180n146, 181, 182, 255-56n2; Greco-Roman era, and inscriptions on walls on, 274; Haqhel ceremony, and location on, 239; Hasmonean era, and location of, 113, 113n85; Hellenization of architecture and, 232-35, 257-8; Jesus, and teaching on, 383n47;judicial courts and, 231, 235, 239, 242; pilgrimage festivals, and role of, xvii; religious life, and role of, xvii; revolt against Roman Empire and, 407; ritual baths (miqva' at) and, 191; Roman era, and construction/restoration of, 309; Royal Portico, 233; sacred courts and, 233n60, 237-43, 239, 239n%, 24ln113, 244;

sacred precincts and, 260; Scapegoat ceremony, and location on, 229-30n49; Simhat Bet Hasho'evah ceremony (the Water-Drawing Festival), 239, 259-60; and staircases, location of, 230-31, 230-31n53, 231, 240, 241, 258, 258n14, 259; traffic flow in and out of, 230-31n53, 231, 231, 258; urban development and, xvi, xvii; urban life, and role of, xvii; walls of, 156 Temple of Mars Uitor, Augustus, and building of, 190 Temple Scroll, 122, 131 temples, pagan: Artemis temple Ephesus, 236; Augustus, and building of, 222, 222n16; Augustus, and restoration of, 190, 19On19; Baalshamin temple, Palmyra, 232n58; Bel temple, Palmyra, 232, 232n58; Herod, and building of, 168, 200; Jupiter Heliopolitan, Baalbek, 232n58; Jupiter temple, Damascus, 232; Temple, and pagan customs and practices at, 259; Temple, influence of design on, 258. See also paganism Tennes, king of Sidon, 42 Tenth Legion (Fretensis), 216nllO, 407 terra sigillata, 261,261 theaters: Hellenization, and building of, 256; Herod, and building of, 156, 190, 192, 206, 206n77, 334,335; location of, 170, 175,205-6, 339; Roman era, and building of, 201-2 Themistocles, 28 Theodotion,399nll0 Theodotos inscription, 272, 322, 322, 326, 326n54, 339,395-97 Theomnas, 399nl1O Theophilus son of Ananus, 294, 298n54, 353n9 Theophrastus, on Jews of Jerusalem, 35-36 Theudas, 304, 387 Third Wall of Jerusalem: about, 109, 110, 300, 315n8, 316n9, 317, 318n16; Agrippa I, and building of, 109, 110,300,314-18; archaeological evidence for, 316-18; fortification of, revolt against Roman Empire and, 405; growth of Jerusalem, and building of, 300; maxirnalist vs. minimalist theories on topography of, 316-18, 317, 318n16; Titus' conquest of Jerusalem and, 335 Tholomaeus, 303 Thrakidas, 105 Tiberian conclave, Agrippa I and, 301, 363 Tiberias, polis and, 266 Tiberius Alexander, 304 Tiberius (emperor), 286, 292 Tigranes of Armenia, 152 Timon (Hellenist), 384 tithes, offering of: Abraham and, 135; laws and regulations about, 248; levites and, 31, 53, 362n55;

486 priests and, 360-61, 362, 362n55; and Second Tithe, observance of, 138, 248, 389, 414 Titus: Antonia palace-fortress and, 196; conquest of Jerusalem and, 335-36, 406-11; on destruction of Jerusalem, 415-16; on Jewish community, and numbers killed in siege of Jerusalem, 410; and revolt against Roman Empire, treatment of Jews during, 408, 409n51; siege of Jerusalem and, 410; and Temple, destruction of, 21902, 409053, 409-10; and three western towers in Jerusalem, 198 Tobiad family, 57-58, 67, 73 Tobias the Ammonite, 26, 30--31 Tomb of the Kings, 211,211,261,262,348 tombs: arcosolia, 213; and Bezetha quarter (New City), location of, 338; figural images on, 142-43, 143n216; Greco-Roman styles and, 262,262,262024; Hasmonean era and, 142-43, 143n216; Hebrew inscriptions and, 117, 118, 271; Herod, and building of, 156, 170, 190, 192,206-13,261--62; Herodian era and, 156, 206n78, 206-13, 208, 209, 262; kukhim (loculi), 210,213,262. See also burial Tower of David, 102, 108, 108, 198 Trachonitis, 168 Trajan's Column, 289 Transjordan, 159, 405 Transjordanian King's Highway, 189 Triple Gate. See Huldah Gates Tripolis, Herod, and building of gymnasia in, 201 Tryphon, 87, 89 Tryphon son of Theudion, 365 Tyre, 161,249n156,370 Tyrians,31 Tyropoeon Valley, 318, 319n18, 345, 346 Udjahorresnet, 10, 16,27 Umm el-'Amed tomb, 261 Upper City: archaeological evidence for, 327-32; and burning of archives, 310, 334-35, 402; aristocracy and, 326, 327n59, 328-35, 339; boundaries of, 319; Burnt House and, 331-32, 411,411, 411n64; description of, 326-35, 327; Hasmonean era palaces and, 339; Herodian palaces and, 326, 334, 339; and menorah, plaster engraved with, 331, 331, 331n68, 332; priests, and residences in, 360, 376; residential buildings and, 328, 328-35, 329, 330, 372; revolt against Roman Empire and, 407, 408, 410; ritual baths (miqva'ot) and, 329n63, 329n64, 329-30, 330, 330065, 330n66, 332, 391; stone vessels, 330--31; and theater, location of, 334, 335 Upper Market, Jerusalem, 334

Urio, 34 Uzziah,274 Valerius Gratus, 288 Varus, Varus'VVar, 185 Vespasian, 406 Vitellius: and Caiaphas, deposition of, 294; figural images, Jewish laws and regulations about, 289n19, 293; high priest appointments and, 353n9; and Jewish community, 293-94; oath of allegiance and, 174n127, 294; and Pontius Pilate, Samaritans complaints about, 293 Vitruvius (Roman architect), 193 warehouses in Jerusalem, location of, 337 VVarren's Gate, 230 water supply systems, 190,212, 343n127; Herod, and building of, 190,213-17 weaving industry, 259, 324, 324n44, 346, 346n141 VVilderness Tabernacle, 82 VVilson's Arch, 194,230,325 wine amphorae, 56-57 VVisdom of Ben Sira, 61, 62 VVomen's Court, 235, 239,239, 239n96, 241n113 VVomen's Gate, 239n95, 316 VVomen's Towers, 316 VVood Chamber, 241, 241nl13 Xerxes I, 5, 19 Xystus: Agrippa II's speech and, 310--11, 325, 333,364; building of, 170; description of, 156, 324-25, 325n50; location of, 324, 324n48, 333; role of, 216n114 Yadoa/Jaddua, 52, 52n21 Yehizqiah, 34, 38 Yeho'azar,34 Yehohanan son of Theophilus, 353n9 Yehud, 31-32n97, 32, 36,40. See also Judaea Yeshua son of Phiabi, 171 Yohanan b. Zakkai, 237, 368, 404 Yohanan (father of Eupolemus), 116 Yom Kippur, holy day of, 164n50, 229-30n49, 239, 239096,243 Yose b. Yo'ezer of Zeredah, 121, 140 Yose b. Yohanan, 121, 140 R. Yosi, and Roman era, 157 Zamaris, 368 Zealots, revolt against Roman Empire and role of, 405,406,407 Zechariah, 17,42; tomb of, 118,213,261,323,372 Zenon, travels of, 57, 57 Zerubabbel, xvi, 12-13, 17, 18,34,42