Scenes from the Mosaic at the "House of Dionysus" at Sepphoris

The following images come from a Roman style villa which was discovered in Sepphoris in the Galilee. The villa's triclinium, or dining room, was decorated with an elaborate mosaic depicting various scenes from the life of Dionysus, most notably a drinking contest between the Greek god and the often deified hero Herakles.We will discuss these images at length in class. Black and white reproductions of the images do not do these mosaics justice. Take a good look at the color scans of the scenes taken from the mosaic here and be prepared to discuss the images in class.

The first panel above shows the overall plan of the mosaic.

The second panel is a close up of the center of the mosaic- the drinking contest between Dionysus and Herakles.

The top panel here shows Herakles in a drunken state. The bottom panel shows Dionysus under the influence. Both panels have the word "drunkeness" written as a superscription in Greek.

These scenes depict more scenes from the life of Dionysus; his education at the hands of nymphs, here called Bacchai, and his wedding to Ariadne, the daughter of Minos who helped Theseus escape the maze of the Minotaur. Theseus abandoned her on the island of Naxos where she was discovered by Dionysus.

This is perhaps the most famous image from the Sepphoris mosaic, sometimes called "the mona lisa" of Sepphoris. There is little identifiable iconographic significance to this particular picture. Rather, it shows the technical quality of the mosaic which rivals that of contemporary mosaics from the Roman villas in North Africa.

The top panel presumably depicts the rape of Auge, the mother of Telephelus, by Herakles.

The bottom panel shows a scene from the childhood of Dionysus. He is being bathed by nymphs who were responsible for his early education.

Here you see the depiction of Dionysus' triumphant arrival to the East. After Alexander's conquests in the 330's BCE the myth of Dionysus' arrival in India was often depicted in graphic form.

Dionysos was, among other things, the god of wine. Perhaps this explains the incorporation of a depiction of three lenobate or "grape-treaders."

Having looked at these images, who do you think lived in the villa at Sepphoris? Can we say anything about them? What was their religion? How wealthy were they? What were their interests? What was their attitude towards Greco-Roman culture?

The answers to these questions (if there are any at all) are more complicated than you might at first assume.

The Ethiopic Book of Enoch

Jonah Rank
November 13, 2006
His1010x Ancient Jewish History
Instructor- Loren Spielman


The Ethiopic Book of Enoch

Remaining an almost universally extracanonical work (excepting in the Ethiopic church), the document variously referred to as I Enoch (or I En.) or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch offers the contemporary historian of early Jewish history an excellent insight into many different aspects of Judaism during the Second Temple period.
The book, in its pseudopygriphal style is attributed to (and, without a doubt, not truly written by) Enoch, the son of Jared, as mentioned in an obscure curious phrase in the fifth chapter of Genesis in which, without much explanation, the author of this section of Genesis informs the reader that Enoch was in some way “walking with God” (which, in an older mindstyle based on eschatological centrism, had been often interpreted as meaning that Enoch had a special relationship with the Divine and even never died but had rather ascended to Heaven [somewhat akin to the anachronistically formed story of Elijah the Prophet ascending to Heaven in a chariot of fire and never having been able to die]). The heavy messianic yearning and eschatological imagery in I Enoch is an inundating factor in the flow of this work: from a quote in which God refer’s to God’s own Son, and the seemingly pedestrian nature of the existence of the relationships that exist between Enoch and the angels and God. Furthermore, the text here seems to stray ideologically from most past mainstream forms of Israelite religion as, while Genesis did embrace breeding, much of I Enoch consists of shunning vices and sins that had previously not been seen necessarily as vices (cf. I En. 8:2, et al).
It is difficult to date I Enoch precisely; however, it is known that I Enoch, because of its references to various matters accomplished in the reign of Herod the Great, was written after the beginning of Herod the Great’s reign. The surmising of various historians has led many ancient Jewish historians to agree that this work was created circa the 2nd or 1st Century BCE.
Furthermore, the book at hand is claimed to have been written originally in Hebrew, according to Rabbi Joseph Halevi. Yet, none of the manuscripts found of the Enoch documents has been able to verify successfully with any certainty that Enoch I was originally written in Hebrew. The earliest transcriptions of I Enoch appear in Ethiopic (most fully), in Greek (noticeably fragmentarily), and – as found in the Qumran caves – in Aramaic. (Charles, an academic hoping to compromise the notion of its Hebrew origins and the Aramaic tendencies of the text interestingly has juggled the two and decided that the Aramaic is infused with Hebrew terminologies so that the Hebrew and the Aramaic are indecipherable one from another.
The text begins with an introduction where Enoch mentions briefly apocalyptically of the “Day of Judgment” and the happy fates of the “elect”. Enoch is then granted an explanation of all of the secrets of the natural scientific universe origins of the book are not so clear. In the second of a common series of dividing up the Ethiopic Book of Enoch into five sections, Enoch begins to prophecize about the “last day.” The third and intermediate section is a bit of a break and actually presumably the entirety of another extracanonical work, The Book of the Courses of the Heavenly Luminaries (discussing them in terms of the windows of space and the various new mathematically improved calendar for accuracy in which 364 days occur a year [rather than presumably the 354 lunar year often followed by contemporary Jews]). In the fourth section, a history beginning with the Children of Israel and ending with the Hasmonean dynasty’s beginning is recalled. In the fifth section and final section, Enoch reviews a history of Israel again from the theophany at Mount Sinai, and the writer’s voice disappears temporarily to insert another extracanonical work, The Book of Noa, and then Enoch leaves the reader with instructions for how to live better lives.
The Book of Enoch, despite its theological deviations from previous historical Israelite rite practices, it seems that certain eschatological and apocalyptic notions that seem innovative within this work, are matters that sometimes do consent and conform with later Rabbinic standards as recorded in the Talmud.

SOURCES CITED:
“Enoch, Ethiopic Book of.” Encyclopaedia Judaica: CD-ROM Edition. CD-ROM. Jerusalem: Keter, 1997.
Pratt, John P. Book of Enoch. 1883. Richard Laurence. November 13, 2006 http://www.johnpratt.com/items/docs/enoch.html.

The Jewish Diaspora Before 117 CE

Hopefully, by next class we will have reached the beginning stages of the first Jewish revolt against Rome. We will then take a brief jaunt back in time to discuss the Jewish Diaspora. We have already discussed this topic to some extent when we covered the Ptolemaic period. We will take a more indepth look at Jews living outside of Palestine on Thursday.

Please take another quick look at the Letter of Aristeas. Don't focus so much on the story of the translation of the Septuagint. The letter actually gives us a rather rich view about how some Diaspora Jews may have viewed the high priest, the temple, and Jerusalem. The philospophical discussions between the Ptolemaic king and the Jewish delegates is also worth another look.

If you have not already done so, make sure that you have read the material from John Barklay's "Jews in the Mediterranean Diaspora." The readings were sent to you a week ago as attachments to an email and are now available on the website.

You can also find them here , here and here.
In addition, I would like to start our section on the Diaspora by discussing the following list of names. Come to class prepared to discuss which figures you think are Jewish and which are not:


Iosepos
Joshua
Jason/Jesus
Sabbathios
Shelamzion

(the following three names roughly translate as "gift of god" or "god-given")
Dositheos
Theodotos
Theodoros

Artimodoros
Apollodoros
Horus
Gelasios (laughter in Greek)

Haggai son of Diaphoros (Greek for "different" or "excellent")
Hanniah father of Tasa ("the guardian" in Egyptian)
Apollonios son of Jason
Dositheos son of Artimodoros
Ezekias son of Ezekias

The Arrival of Rome and Herod

If you have not started already, I suggest diving into the readings for the Arrival of Rome and Herod, and Judaea under Roman rule.

The first reading for tomorrow's class, Josephus BJ I: 184-215 describes the early careers of Herod and his brother Phasael. The background is, of course, the civil war between Pompey the Great and Julius Caesar. Think about how Antipater and his two sons use this conflict to their advantage.

Herod, who eventually became the Roman client king over the Jews, early in his career met with harsh criticism. He was called to trial for his brutal treatment of a group of brigands, bringing him into near open conflict with Hyrcanus and prominent Jews from the Jerusalem community. How might this incident point to some of the political tensions that were brewing in early Roman Palestine during the high priesthood of Hyrcanus II?

The second reading, Josephus BJ: 401-428 , describes some of the building projects that Herod was responsible for after being crowned king.

Josephus Ant 18:261-209

Jennifer Abrams
October 9, 2006
His1010x Ancient Jewish History
Loren Spielman
Josephus Ant 18:261-309
The story described by Josephus in this passage recounts yet another test of the Jewish people’s commitment to their laws. Petronius is sent by Gaius, who is a leader under Caesar, to Judea on a mission to erect a statue of Gaius in the Temple: if possible with the consent of the Jews, or if necessary, by force.
In response to this decree, the Jews petition Petronius “not to use force to make them transgress and violate their ancestral code” (157). They even go so far as to beseech Petronius to kill them before assembling the statue so they would not have to go against the law. Here we see the extreme commitment of the Jewish people to their laws, so much that they are willing to give their lives. They are utterly sure that G-d will be with them because they have chosen to defend his decrees. From their defiant response, Petronius discovers it will not be a peaceful process to put the statue of Gaius up in the Temple.
As Petronius travels to survey the response in the North, the Jews neglect their fields and continuously offer themselves to be killed rather than transgress. The lack of harvesting leads to a great deal of banditry. Petronius is influenced by the universally negative response and writes a letter to Gaius to procrastinate the war, in hopes of changing his mind. Petronius gives a speech to the Jews to let them know about the letter and to try to pacify them. After this speech, G-d provids rain, which is extremely welcome in the midst of the severe drought, to show Petronius that G-d agrees with him. In his letter, Petronius outlines the detrimental effects of destroying the tens of thousands of Jews on the economy and after the speech, Petronius says it is a bad idea to fight against a people whose G-d was with them.
At the same time, Gaius’s friend, King Agrippa, whom he greatly looks up to, is visiting him. After providing him with many gifts, Gaius offers to grant any request of King Agrippa. The request King Agrippa makes is to abandon the mission to put the statue in the Temple. Because he had promised to grant the request, Gaius sends a letter to Petronius saying that if he already had erected the statue, he should leave it, but if he has not, he does not need to erect the statue.
Gaius receives the letter from Petronius and is upset because he thinks the Jews are challenging his authority. Gaius then writes to Petronius saying since Petronius is defying the decree on which he was sent, he should do whatever he wants; however, before this letter even reaches Petronius, another letter arrives announcing Gaius’s death.
In the end, the leaders and the people prefer Petronius to Gaius “since Gaius had vented his wrath against them without mercy” (177).
From this text, we can see the devotion of the Jewish people to their law and their G-d. They were even willing to incur death to avoid breaking the laws. Additionally, we see the societal value of mercy because of the support given to Petronius in his decisions to procrastinate and ultimately eliminate the extermination of the Jews because of their unwillingness to have a statue of a leader erected in their Temple.
Works Cited
Josephus. Jewish Antiquities XVIII. 18:261-309.

Assignments on the Exagoge

Abby Kerbel
His 1010x
Exagoge
10/6/06

The Exagoge is the story of Exodus, but in the form of a Greek tragedy. It was written by Ezekiel the Tragedian, who was Jewish writer writing in Greek. The piece can be dated to sometime after the Septuagint because based on the content of the play, Ezekiel the Tragedian had to have had extensive knowledge of the Torah in some form. In fact, when looking at the English translation of the Hebrew text of Shemot alongside the Exagoge, some of the narrative of the Exagoge seems almost word for word for what is in the biblical text. In this way we can tell that Ezekiel the Tragedian not only had familiarity with the biblical story, but an intimate knowledge of the text itself.
The story starts off with Moses, who is the main narrator throughout most of the text, recounting how the Israelites got to Egypt in the first place. This recounting of origin is a Jewish concept, as seen later in the Torah that this similar history is to be recited upon giving sacrifice in the Mishkan, and then later the Temple. Its inclusion in the Greek tragedy gives the tragedy a Jewish touch, while still maintaining the tragic narrative form. This is one piece of evidence that this tragedy was meant to bring Judaism and the Torah to the Jews through a Greek medium, rather than Greek-ifying Judaism.
Another interesting point in the beginning of the text is when Moses is recounting how the Israelites were “suffering, oppressed, ill-treated even to this very day by ruling powers and by wicked men.” (Lines 4-6) I can’t seem to figure out what suffering the Jews are facing when Ezekiel the Tragedian is writing this, because if we assume he’s writing this still during the Ptolemaic rule, the Jews were treated quite well at this time. This line makes me wonder what he’s talking about, and whether he is alluding to something we don’t know about regarding Ptolemaic rule and the Jews.
Further close reading of the text shows the use of Greek medium to transmit the story. It says that the Jews built walls and towers out of the bricks they were making. Egypt at the time of the actual Exodus, as far as I know, did not have walled cities with towers, and this seems like a more Greek concept. It’s the small details like this that make the Jewish story more Greek without compromising its Jewish identity. These little particulars are those things in the story that the Greek Jews can latch on to as identifiably Greek, and then this further draws them into the story and peaks their interest, making this very identity laden story easier for Greek Jews to handle.
While the text of the Exagoge for the most part is very close to the actual story of the Exodus, there is a hint of commentary or interpretation within the play. When Moses meets Sepphorah in the play, he asks where he has ended up, and her reply is Libya. She further goes on to explain that Aethiops also live in the land. This seems to be a way of explaining the issue many had with Moses marrying Sepphorah and also a Cushite woman. By taking the liberty to put this information in, Ezekiel the Tragedian may have tried to solve some of the contradictions of the Torah to make it easier to understand. At the same time though, a character named Chus is introduced alongside of Sepphorah. Chus looks like Cush, which would then present the idea that the Cushite woman was indeed separate from Sepphorah, and then Ezekiel would be contradicting himself. This slip up might be evidence of Ezekiel the Tragedian’s own indecision on the matter.
This play seems to be a way to bring the Septuagint to the Greek speaking Jews of the time. Just because the Jews spoke Greek, does not necessarily mean that they had access to the text of the Septuagint. The Exagoge is an example of how Judaism can still fit into Greek containers, so to speak, without compromising it. Ezekiel the Tragedian does take some poetic license with some parts but on the whole keeps true to the details of the biblical story. The ability to do this within the acculturation of Hellenistic society should be noted as example that Hellenization does not have to mean assimilation.

Some Assignments on the Letter of Aristeas

Matthew Platt
Ancient Jewish History
Loren Spielman
“Letter of Aristeas”

The, “Letter of Aristeas”, is the primary source for the compilation of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible. Despite going on many tangents, it clearly portrays to the reader how the Septuagint came into existence. The story is portrayed through the eyes of Aristeas, presumably a Jew from Alexandria, Egypt. The letter is apparently a correspondence between Aristeas, and his brother in Palestine, Philocrates. Originally the text was written in Greek, however it was not written with the best grammar or style.
The letter opens with Aristeas greeting his brother Philocrates, telling him that he has tried to the best of his abilities to give him an accurate narrative of the events at hand. He continues to explain to Philocrates how a group had been gathered whose mission was the translation of the Hebrew Bible into Greek, something that they accepted upon themselves enthusiastically. He also mentions how he had taken advantage of this moment and had gotten King Ptolemy Philadelphus to release the Jewish prisoners of war that his father, King Ptolemy son of Lagos, had captured.
Aristeas tells of Demetrius of Phalerum who, on his selection as keeper to the king’s library, took upon himself the task of collecting all the books in the world. The king soon asked Demetrius about the completeness of his library, to which he answers, that news had reached him of a Jewish text that was worthy of inclusion into the library. Upon hearing this, the king asks what had stopped Demetrius from obtaining the Jewish text, to which Demetrius replies that there isn’t a Greek translation of the text, and that it is only found in the language of the Jews. After learning of this problem, the king soon writes to the high Priest of the Jews, Eleazar, asking for his help to finish this task. At this point in the narrative, Aristeas chooses to make his first tangent. He attempts to convince the king to release the Jews that had been exiled from Judea by the king’s father. As a way to persuade the king, Aristeas points out that the Jews will not only translate the text but also interpret it as well, and how they would be more willing to do so if there wasn’t such a large number of Jews in subjection within his kingdom. The king promptly releases not only the Jews that had been taken under his father, but also all the Jews that had been taken before and afterwards as well.
Once these exiled Jews were released, the king then asked Demetrius about the status on the translation of the Hebrew Bible. To this Demetrius responds, that although he had received a transcription of the Jewish books, they were translated somewhat carelessly and were not satisfactory for inclusion into the library. He goes onto say that this is most likely due to the fact that this translation didn’t receive royal patronage, and asks the king for permission to send a letter to Eleazar, requesting six men from each tribe, who understand Jewish law, so that they could decide on a translation that will be accepted by the majority, to which the king agrees.
The king writes another letter to Eleazar, telling him what he wishes to accomplish, and thanks him in advance as well as complimenting the Jewish people and the Jewish G-d. He names both Aristeas and Andrea of the chief bodyguards, Jewish men from Alexandria who were regarded as important, as part of the delegation to Jerusalem; he also offers many gifts to the Jewish Temple, something he continues to do throughout the story. Eleazar soon responds to the king, agreeing to all of the king’s requests, pledging not only his obedience but also his friendship. Aristeas then names all seventy two people that were chosen from the twelve tribes. At this point Aristeas goes into another digression, now explaining the details of the gifts given to the Jewish temple, by the king.
From one topic Aristeas then jumps to another, explaining his journey to Jerusalem, which he gives in great detail. When he finally comes back to the subject of the translation, Aristeas explains that the men chosen were all well versed in both Hebrew and Greek texts, but immediately he is side tracked yet again. He goes into a lengthy description of a discussion that he had with Eleazar the High Priest. When Aristeas finishes his story, he then discusses the arrival of the Jewish delegation to Egypt. How the king received the delegation at once, which was not the custom of the kings court. This showed the great respect that the king had for both Eleazar and the Jewish people. The delegation had brought the king a gift, a copy of the Law written on fine skins in Hebrew.
The king then, in a course of seven days, asks each member of the delegation question concerning a wide variety of topics. He, as well as the gathered assembly of philosophers, is impressed with the answers that the members provide. This is especially notable; when it is pointed out that they answered the questions almost instantly. According to Aristeas, three days later Demetrius took the delegation and showed them their rooms, and gave them anything that they needed in order to finish the task. After seventy two days, the delegation finished the translation of the Hebrew Bible; something that Aristeas points out was miraculous in its own right. The Jews of Alexandria then proceeded to place a curse on anyone who dared to change this translation in any way, due to the fact that all the members had agreed upon this translation.

Your Upcoming Midterm Exam

As a study aid, I am distributing a review sheet that lists most of the people, places and terms we have studied so far during the semester. They are drawn from your readings and my lectures. This list is by no means exhaustive and I reserve the right to give terms on the exam which do not come from this list. A few of the terms may seem completely unfamiliar because we have not yet covered them in class. You will not be responsible for this material. The death of John Hyrcanus will serve as the chronological limit for the midterm. The material that we cover on Tuesday will not be covered on the exam.

The first section of the exam will consist of ten identifications. Each identification will consist of four parts: a) simple identification b) significant achievement or characteristic c) place d) date- the proper century will suffice (make sure to indicate BCE or CE).

For example:

Maimonides-- philosopher, reconciled Judaism and Aristotelianism, Egypt (Spain would also do), 12th century CE.

Shulhan Arukh -- code, first major codification of Jewish law after Mishneh Torah, Tsefat (Land of Israel, Palestine also acceptable), 16 th C CE.

The first section will be worth 20 pt. Each part of the ID's will then be 1/2 pt each. Students often forget to answer all 4 parts (usually they leave out place since for the most part we only cover Palestine. Make sure to give a full answer- I am essentially giving you a gift here.) Each answer should be no more than one line. The section as a whole should take you no longer than 10 min.

The second section will be a choice of 4 short essays. Each essay should be no longer than 1 or 2 paragraphs (around 3 to 5 sentences). This section is worth 38 pts and should take you no longer than 20 minutes or so.

The last section of the exam will be a longer essay question. The essay will count for 48 pts of the exam and should take you around 45 min. Make sure that you plan accordingly.

Your essay should, first and foremost, demonstrate that you have a solid grasp of the primary sources we have covered thus far. I do not want you to simply reiterate what I have said in class. Don't be concerned with whether or not you know the right answers (in many cases there is none). Concentrate on providing a good answer that stems from a critical reading of the primary sources. Use the secondary materials and class lectures as a way to contextualize your own ideas. Be as specific and clear as possible.

Above all else, make sure that you answer the question. For example, I might ask: 1) Describe the three changes that Herod instituted in his kingdom 2) What was the significance of these changes? [No- we have not covered Herod's reign yet]. An essay which presented a general account of Herod's reign and discussed whether or not he was an inherently good or evil ruler would not sufficiently answer the question. An essay which identified three significant changes initiated by Herod but failed to directly address the significance of these changes would also be insufficient. I realize that this advice seems self-evident, but you would be surprised how common errors such as these can be.

If you have any questions, problems or concerns, please feel free to contact me by email, post a question on the blog, or set up an appointment to meet with me.

All the best. חג שמח
-LRS

The Hasmoneans and the Fragmentation of the Seleucid Empire

I thought it might be helpful to you to see the way in which the Maccabean revolt is characterized by an expert in Seleucid history. The following excerpt from a book called From Samarkhand to Sardis by Susan Shermin-White and Amelie Kuhrt uses the revolt to describe in more detail the formation of new political units in the Seleucid empire during the second half of the second century BCE as the central power in Antioch withered and crumbled. These petty Hellenistic kingdoms for the most part modeled themselves after the imperial government they had managed to win independence from. The Hasmoneans were no exception. The narrative provided by I and II Macc allows specialists in Seleucid history to look more closely at the manner in which new political entities in the empire may have emerged:

"An aspect of the Seleucid state in this period that has been given great, perhaps undue, prominence by some historians in relation to the question of its disintegration is the appearance of 'separatist states'; that is, parts of the empire, such as Elymais, Persis, Mesene, Commagene and Judaea apparently sought to establish separate, independent local dynasties, although the chronology of these secessions is not always clear. From the late 160s on, southern Babylonia seems to have split off under a ruler named Hyspaosines who was probably the Seleucid satrap (Tarn 1938, 214; see above); similarly, in Elymais Kamnaskires I (Strabo XVI 1,18; Tarn 1938,466) also became independent, possibly a little later at the time of the Parthian conquest by Mithridates I (Le Rider 1965, 353-435; Frye 1984, 273). From some point either in the third or early in the second century a local dynasty of governors (frataraka) ruled in Persis, but under the suzerainty of the Seleucid kings. Rather like Kamnaskires and Hyspaosines, they too seem to have become independent rulers only by c. 140 as a result of the upheavals caused by the Parthian advance (Frye 1984, 159-61; Wiesehofer 1986; 1988; in press; Koch 1988; cf. above pp. 30; 76-7). At an unknown date in Antiochus IV's reign Commagene, too, seems to have become a separate state under local rulers who gradually built the region into an independent hellenistic kingdom using Seleucid dynastic names and drawing heavily on Iranian and Greek cultural traditions (cf. Dorner 1975; Colledge 1987, 158-9). Where the ultimate allegiance of such rulers was to lie depended inevitably on the power struggles between the Parthians and Seleucids. It is impossible to make any inferences, on the basis of the tiny bits of evidence for these moves, as to how Seleucid rule was perceived at this time within these regions.

The one area that is well documented in this respect is Judaea, which throws light on the kinds of local complexities and rivalries that could arise in a subject community under Seleucid imperial rule. The central texts on which reconstruction of the events rests are I and II Maccabees, extremely hard to analyse because of their highly emotive, biased and even, at times, fictitious character. They reflect a later perception of the revolt against Seleucid rule as a 'Holy War' in which Israel stood alone against the massed hostile forces of the Macedonian and Greek world. They have therefore become a manifesto for the evolving history of Jewish orthodoxy and the definition of Judaism and Jewish identity - all of which has an importance quite divorced from the realities of the fairly small-scale local upheaval that the revolt really was. As with other communities, Antiochus III, like other kings before him, had recognised and actively confirmed and supported the rights of the Jewish ethnos to live under its own laws (the Torah) and social conventions subject to the usual Seleucid tax demands, as well as including hefty grants of immunity to leading sections within the community (cf. above pp. 51-2). It seems clear from Maccabees that a group, called by the text Hellenisers (the exact meaning of which is unclear) and led by the high-priest Jason of Jerusalem, presented themselves as captivated by Greek culture and some typical Greek urban practices. They appear to have begun a move to turn Jerusalem from an ethnos centered on the temple with its traditional cult into a polis of Greek type and with a Greek dynastic name, Antioch (cf. above 183-4). They themselves approached the king, Antiochus IV, and thought to have asked for city status, to which the king appears to have agreed - a fact of some interest since, by doing so, he revoked the policy of his father, Antiochus III. In what way this movement resulted in some interruption and a temporary transformation of the Yahweh cult remains highly ambiguous and fiercely debated (Bickerman 1937; Hengel 1974; 1980; Millar 1978), although the fact that it did so cannot be doubted. A group of pious Jews are presented as being outraged at the sight of their fellow-Jews exercising nude in the gymnasium and wearing new-fangled clothes, such as the, to them, curious Greek hat, thepetasos (I Maccabees 2.15; II Maccabees 4.7-14; cf. above pp. 183-4), and, of course, as horrified at the perversion of traditional religious practices. Firm repressive action, using military force, was taken by the Seleucid authorities against the aggressively orthodox rebels who attempted to impose their beliefs and cultic conventions on the Judaean peoples by brutal means. That this persecution of Jews by Antiochus IV was limited to Judaea and probably needs to be understood primarily in political, rather than specifically religious, terms is clear from a petition sent to Antiochus by the Samaritans and granted by him…

One important outcome of this conflict was the emergence of the Maccabee family as the secular and religious leaders of the Jewish Community, who eventually (in 129 under John Hyracanus) founded themselves an independent dynasty closely modeled on that of the Seleucid kings (see above p. 138). It should be emphasized, against a widespread misconception, that the revolt of the Maccabees did not lead to the secession and independence of Judaea in 164 (cf., for sample, I Maccabees 10.1-9; 10.20; 10.59-60; 13.40); rather, what is striking is the way in which the later Maccabee leaders prided themselves on their close relations with the Seleucid kings and how much they valued, and competed for the honour of being elevated to, the status of royal 'Friends' (cf., for example, I Maccabees 10.20; 10.89; 11.57-8). Only after Antiochus VII's military defeat and death and the major loss of crucial territories, in terms of economic and military Resources, did Judaea come into being as an independent petty kingdom."

from Samarkhand to Sardis p.224-8

These are the assignments from last week.
Sorry that I took so long to get them up on the website. You can also find the assignments in PDF format on the right side of the page.

Batya Weinstock
October 3, 2006
Ancient Jewish History
The First Book of Maccabees
After Alexander of Macedon defeats Darius, the Median and Persian king, he begins to not only reign over Darius’ kingdoms, but wages wars, captures land and assassinates rulers. Alexander’s successors also “[do] much evil” throughout their respective provinces. Among his evil successors is Antiochus Epiphanes, who conquers both Egypt and Jerusalem with force, brutality and arrogance. Before he seizes Jerusalem, however, the people of Israel are already facing problems with the adoption of heathen ritual and the rebellion from Jewish Law; as it states “…there arose out of Israel lawless men…they built a gymnasium in Jerusalem, in the heathen fashion, and submitted to uncircumcision, and disowned the holy agreement.”(375-376)
In Jerusalem, Antiochus enters the Beit haMikdash and “in arrogance”(376) removes items such as the altar, lampstand and “secret treasures”(376). The text mentions Antiochus’ arrogance again, on page 376 as it states, “He massacred people and spoke with great arrogance.” It’s use conveys a possible additional aspect to the relationship between Antiochus’ siege of Jerusalem and the religious disobedience taking place at that time. Perhaps the Jews associated Antiochus’ haughtiness and confidence with factual superiority and therefore strove to further imitate his and his peoples’ ways?
Despite the eager acceptance of heathen practices by many, Antiochus’ siege still spawns intense mourning throughout the land. This grief only increases as two years later, Antiochus cunningly convinces the people of Jerusalem to trust him before he un-expectantly attacks and destroys much of the city and its people. Jerusalem loses her people and with them, her sanctuary’s use and city’s religiosity. Antiochus succeeds in conforming many of the people of Israel so that they, and his own people are practicing the same rituals and following the same laws. It seems at this point in the document that the people of Israel have been split into to very different groups; one group has willingly and perhaps even eagerly adopted heathen practices while the second group was forced “to hide in every hiding place they had.”(378)
The attempt to conform the people of Israel soon turned violent as the Greeks began in “Chislev, in the once hundred and forty-fifth year”(378) to murder the men, women and families who were circumcising their sons. The document suddenly focuses on a specific family on page 379 and tells of Mattathias, a decedent of a priest who transports his family from Jerusalem to Modin. Mattathias laments to his five sons about the atrocities taking place in Jerusalem and in her temple. The family not only refuses to follow the heathen practices but Mattathias even murders a man complying to the king’s order to make a heathen sacrifice, and the commanding officer whose orders the man was following. After this act of defiance Mattathias exclaims, “Let everybody who is zealous for the Law and stands by the agreement come out after me.”(380) It is at this moment that the people of Israel not willing to comply to Antiochus’ decrees (except for Mattathius’ family) form a secluded camp in the wilderness in order to escape their oppression. Antiochus’ army attacks them on the Sabbath but the people refuse to fight due to their religious beliefs; they are all murdered -–“ to the number of a thousand.”(381) This tragedy convinces Mattathius that if attacked on the Sabbath, he and his sons must fight in order to protect themselves.
The following scene in “The First Book of Maccabees” is one that transforms the natures of Mattathius, his sons and his comrades into the stereotypical ‘Maccabees’ that are courageous and righteously violent in their attempt to retain Jewish Law within Israel. Perhaps the reason for this change is that Mattathius and his sons are joined by “Hasideans, war-like Israelites, every one a volunteer for the Law.”(382) The men advance from their hiding and begin destroying heathen altars, circumcising Israel’s children and “[rescuing] the Law from the hands of the heathen and their kings.”(382)
From this point forward, Mattathius and his sons are forceful fighters with significant motivation and a clear mission. They seem to replace fear and grief with fervor and impatience. It is interesting to note where this transformation takes place for it is immediately after their fellow rebels fall that Mattathius and his sons realize the grave danger that they and their beliefs are facing. Mattathius recognizes that unless they use force to combat their oppressors, his people will be erased not only from Jerusalem but from the “face of the earth.”(381)

The Apocrypha, The First Book of Maccabees

Josephus BJ 2:184-203 by Adam Weiler

Adam Weiler
Loren Spielman
Ancient Jewish History Assignment

Josephus BJ 2:184-203

What struck me the most interesting about this source is the Jewish commitment to the laws of their fathers. The Jews are willing to go to war against Rome or even be killed as long as a statue of Emperor Gaius (or any image for that matter) is not placed in their temple. It appears that unlike the Persians and the Hellenistic Rulers, the Roman Caesars did not have much regard for the Jewish Law.
Unlike Gaius, Petronius is much more reasonable. He listens to the Jew's complaints and tries to find a solution. In the end he even defends the Jew's case to Gaius –under the risk of death. This may indicate that although the Jews had strained (at best) relationships with Roman Caesars, with other Romans, maybe Romans actually located in Judea and the surrounding area they had better relationships. This source shows how important the Temple is to the Jews- they are willing to die rather then desecrate it. Also the fact that the Jews in mass appeal to Petronius is interesting. Either this matter was so important that people just flocked to the cause or perhaps the Jews had no efficient and or official person that could serve as an "ambassador" between them and the Romans and so they had to send a crowd instead. How much of what Josephus says is actually true I do not know. However, I do think that we can learn from this text that the Jews held their ancestral laws to be very important and that relations between them and Rome were shaky.
Josephus Ant. 18: 261-309
This text tells much of the same story but with some changes and extra details.
Here Aristobulus, brother of King Agrippa, Helcias the Elder, other powerful members of the house and the civic leaders appeal to Petronius to write to Gaius and get him to change his verdict rather then let things turn to war. The local rulers and people of power did not any violence in the region they wanted their stability. Another detail is the friendship between King Agrippa and Gaius. At a banquet thrown in his honor Gaius promises Agrippa whatever he wants. Agrippa asks that Gaius cancels his order to erect a statue in the Jewish Temple. At first Gaius agrees but when he gets Petronius's letter that says the Jews will revolt if he erects the statue. He gets angry at Petronius and decides to have him killed (luckily for Petronius Gaius is assassinated soon). What's interesting is that here Josephus claims that the Jews would have never revolted. They would have been willing to die but not to actually revolt.
These sources seem to be conflicting. Although the one in Antiquities may just be a more fleshed out version of what was written in the Jewish Wars. But we can certainly see from both that the Jews valued their law (which I am assuming is based on the Torah) and that the local leaders and people of power wanted peace and stability and were willing to let the Jews practice their religion and law to achieve this peace. The Emperor all the way in Rome seem to care less about stability of a little region and more about his general honor and whether his orders were being carried out.

Gabriella Theisen
The First Book of Macabees

The overall portrayal of the story clearly reveals the first book of the Maccabees to have been written by a Jew. The narrator is extremely traumatized by the events that took place, and he feels extremely invested in the temple and the Jewish people‘s plight and survival, for example, “ The very earth was shaken over its inhabitants, and the whole household of Jacob was covered with shame.” (line 46.The Apocrypha,378.) The narrator refers to Jewish texts and Jewish historical knowledge, and the sophisticated, persuasive description of the story seems to show the narrator to have held some level of status.
The first Book of Maccabees presents a brief historical description of the events that took place leading up to the destruction of temples, and the Israelite’s heroic fighting. The book also provides a vivid description of what happened through the lens of a person who is Jewish, and seems to want teach others about what happened, the importance of supporting the Jewish people under the Jewish God.
Historically, Antiochus III upheld Seleucid rule over Palestine with a similar governmental and traditional system as those held during the Ptolemaic period. Persian Judea maintained it’s own government and religious system, in fact Antiochus granted Judea certain financial pardons. Great changes in domestic policy however, came after Antiochus III lost in battle against Rome. As a result, the Seleucids faced extremely high debts to the Roman Republic, a financial burden that greatly altered the Seleucid’s relations with the Jewish community. During this period, the Seleucids did not care to destroy the Jewish religion, but had no qualms pillaging wealthy ancient synagogues to make money. The first section, in the First Book of Maccabees depicts the historical turning point after the death of Alexander “ He mustered a very mighty army and ruled over the lands and rulers of the heathen, and they paid him tribute.” (line 5,6. The Apocrypha. 375) The author’s description of Alexander as a mighty ruler makes sense; Under the rule of Alexander, the Judeans practiced their own traditions in a political environment that supported cohesion among different peoples (this however, becomes a problem later on)
The period of warfare and bloodshed documented after Alexander’s death is written here, “ his servants succeeded him…..for many years, and they did much evil on the earth” (line 9, The Acrophobia, 375.) Jewish political activity proceeding the Hasmonean Revolt focused primarily on maintain Jewish autonomy. The story reflects this ethnocentric mentality upheld by many Judeans. The story might even be viewed as a moral lesson, calling for Jews to follow the “Law.” In the second paragraph, the author describes “lawless men” who came out of Israel wanting to assimilate with the “heathen” in pursuit of an easier and safer life. As the story unfolds, those who assimilated became “slaves of wrongdoing” (The Acrophobia, 376) people who took part in desecrating the temple and committing disgusting atrocities against the Judeans. These actions stand in great contrast to characters like Mattathias, and his son Judas, as well as the other Israelites that died for the Jewish cult. Mattathias makes profound statements in the story, where he declares that he would never let the king forsake the religion of his forefathers. The persona given to the both characters, and to the Israelites as a whole not only make for heroes in the story, but also promote strong will. For Jews during the period the story was redacted, faith and personal strength was crucial for Jewish autonomy. Part of why the author might have written this story so vividly, might have served as a piece to inspire Jews to stay on the religion.
It is also extremely interesting how the author does not mention much about the Judean God directly. Instead, the author quotes Mattitius or Judas refusing to abandon the “Law.” The author never goes into detail about what the “Law” stands for exactly, rather it is a vague symbol of the Jewish God. The “Law” is characterized to be supported by God, seen for example, how the few Israelites are able to take on the entire Antiochus’ and the Roman armies. The First Book of Maccabees serves many purposes, and it is hard to tell whether it was written shortly after the events at hand, or if it was much later. At time that religion was often based on citizenship, or kingdom rule, the story functions most profoundly in how it stands as a strong record that aims to prove that the Jewish cult is the true religion under God.

Seleucid Period

The assignment sign up sheet is now available on the blog. Those of you who have not signed up for all three slots should email me and let me know which open slots they can fill.

There was a little bit of confusion last class about the Zenon Archive. Really, all you need to know is certain details from Josephus' Tobaid romance can be verified by archaeological evidence.

It seems as though the Tobaids were in close contact with the Ptolemaic government. We know this because correspondence between a "Toubias" (Greek for Tobiah) and Apollonius (second in command to Ptolemy II) were discovered in Egypt. A fortress discovered in the Trans-Jordan has some features that are similar to Josephus' description of Hyrcanus' (son of Joseph son of Toubias) fortress. An inscription with the name Tobiah was also found on site.

Toubias, Jospeph and Hyrcanus all appear to be descendants of Tobiah the Ammonite from the book of Nehemiah.

As for next class, continue reading Ben Sirach and Koheleth. We will also discuss the excerpt from Josephus' Jewish Antiquities Book 12, a charter granted by the Seleucid king Antiochus III to the Jews.

I suggest that you get started reading I and II Maccabees if you can. At the very least you can use the excerpts from the course packet. For those of you who are more ambitious, try reading all of I and II Macc. There are several good versions of the text as these books are part of the Apocrypha and are preserved in most Christian Old Testaments:

1) The Anchor Bible series volumes 41 and 41a (ed. Jonathan Goldstein) has a good translation but his notes can be a little outlandish at times.
2) The Apochrypha ed. by Goodspeed
3) The NRSV (New Revised Standard Version) Bible
4) The RSV (revised standard version) which can be found online here.
5) For the ambitious, the Hebrew text of I Macc reconstructed by Uriel Rappaport can be useful to look at- ספר מקבים BS1825.53 .R36 2004

Jews under Ptolemaic Rule

Tomorrow's class will be devoted to the Ptolemaic period of Jewish history, roughly the third century BCE in Palestine.

Unfortunately, we have very little primary evidence for this period. Your reading assignments for tomorrow's class include the Tobiad legend from Josephus' Jewish Antiquaties, the Biblical book Koheleth, and excerpts from the apocryphal book Ben Sirach. Josephus Ant. 12: 160-236, the Tobiad legend, can be found here and is listed in the class readings links on the right side of this web page.

Koheleth (or Ecclesiastes) can be found in any Bible translation, preferably JPS. The Art Scroll translation of this book is based on the alegorical midrashic reading found in Rabbinic literature and thus is totally without use. The Ben Sira excerpts can be found in the course packet. You may also use any of the translations found in:
1) Apocrypha, ed. Edgar J. Goodspeed
2) Oxford English Apocrypha
3) Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, ed. R.H. Charles
4) Anchor Bible v. 39, ed. A. di Lella
5) online at http://etext.virginia.edu/rsv.browse.html (NSRV translation of the Old and New Testament hosted by the University of Virginia)

or you may consult the Hebrew reconstruction prepared by M.H. Segal (Ben Sira HaShalem).

Can you see signs of Greek influence in Kohelth or Ben Sira? If so, what are they? Try to come to class prepared to discuss this question.

If you have not been keeping up with the readings, focus on the Josephus reading, as well as the Tcherikover that you were supposed to have begun reading last week.

Thanks. See you tomorrow.
-LRS

Assignments Due Today

Jonathan Henkin, Emily Watkins, Simone Gore and Jonah Rank are signed up to complete their first assignment for today.

You can post your assignments as responses to this blog entry. Make sure you let everyone know what you are writing about. Remember to include your name somewhere in your post. I will try to archive all of your work so that it will be easy for students to find later on in the semester.

If you can't post and would like to, send me your assignment as an email attachment and I will post it for you.

See you all tomorrow,
LRS

Readings for Thursday and next Tuesday

The text of Hecataeus of Abdera is now available. I don't assume that we will get to talking about it on Thursday. If you have not already finished reading Ezra and Nehemiah, or the Ben-Sasson chapter, etc... make sure that you do so by thursday.

If you want to get started on next weeks readings, I suggest beginning with Victor Tcherikover's Introduction to Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. It can be found in the course packet and there are numerous copies available in both the columbia and jts libraries.

The Province of Yehud

Over the past few classes I have been talking about the small province of Yehud. Since my crude blackboard maps are less than exact, I though I would give you a few maps to look at. The actual borders of Yehud are a matter of debate.

Map #1 shows a reconstruction of the province that is a little smaller. Map #2 extends the area of the province into the North-West somewhat. The smaller map takes into account some of the natural boundaries of the region in its reconstruction, and thus I generally feel that it is more reliable. In any event, the region is quite small.

Ezra and Nehemiah Cont.

During the fourth and fifth century BCE a small garrison of Jewish soldiers served on the Island of Elephantine (Yeb in Aramaic) near modern Aswan in Egypt. Several archives of papyri from this small community survive.

The first document is often called the "Passover Papyrus". A picture of this papyrus is on both the syllabus and the website. The fragmented state of the document make it quite difficult to read. All of the text in brackets is reconstructed. The original aramaic text is on the top of the page. It is followed by an English and Hebrew translation.


Does this document really mention "passover"? What seems to be the context behind its composition?

The second document (as it is quite long I spared you the Hebrew and Aramaic) is a letter from the Jewish garrison at Elephantine requestion permission (and/or funds?) to rebuild their temple. The last line (cut off on our copy) mentions that these Jews not only sent a letter to the high priest in Jerusalem, but also to the Samaritan leadership. The Judeans sent no reply.

Document three is an answer to the letter sent re: rebuilding the temple at Elephantine. It seems to be a memorandum of a conversation which took place between Bagoes, a representative of the Persian king, and Delaiah, son of the governor of Samaria.

Their reply granting permission conspicuously fails to address one of the major concerns spelled out by Elephantine Jews in their letter. Why might Bagoes and Delaiah been reticent to address this issue?

This coin dates from Persian Period Yehud. When it was first discovered, some scholars read the inscription as reading "Yaho," a shortened version of the divine epithet of the Israelite God. It is more likely that the coin simply reads "Yehud"-- the name of the Persian province. But the image on the coin appears to be a figure seated in a fashion generally reserved for deities in Persian iconography. Is this a picture of the Jewish God on a Persian era Jewish coin?