Vines Intertwined: A History of Jews and Christians from the Babylonian Exile to the Advent of Islam

Vines Intertwined: A History of Jews and Christians from the Babylonian Exile to the Advent of Islam © 2010 by Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC P. O. Box 3473 Peabody, Massachusetts 01961-3473 ISBN 978-1-59856-083-1 All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in the United States of America First Printing — April 2010 Scripture quotations marked nrsv are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Scripture quotations marked rsv are taken from the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, copyright 1952 (2d ed., 1971) by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Biblical quotations designated njb are from The New Jerusalem Bible, copyright 1985 by Darton, Longman, and Todd, Ltd., and Doubleday, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell Publishing Group, Inc. Used by permission. Hendrickson Publishers is strongly committed to environmentally responsible printing practices. The pages of this book were printed on 30% post consumer waste recycled stock using only soy or vegetable content inks. Cover Art: Millet and Grapevines. Roman mosaic, from the triclinium of the House of Millet at Oudna. 3rd CE. 113'9" x 10' (420 x 306 cm). Location: Musee National du Bardo, Tunis, Tunisia Photo Credit: Gilles Mermet / Art Resource, N.Y.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Sandgren, Leo Duprée.    Vines intertwined : a history of Jews and Christians from the Babylonian exile to the   Advent of Islam  /  by Leo Duprée Sandgren.     p. cm.    Includes bibliographical references and index.    ISBN 978-1-59856-083-1 (alk. paper)    1. Jews—History—586 B.C.–70 A.D.  2. Jews—History—70–638.  3. Palestine—History—   To 70 A.D.  4. Palestine—History—70–638.  5. Judaism—History—Talmudic period,   10–425.  6. Christianity and other religions—Judaism—History.  7. Judaism—Relations—   Christianity—History.  I. Title.    DS121.7.S26 2010    261.2´609015—dc22                    2009044835

Contents List of Maps

xix

Abbreviations

xxi

Introduction

1 Part One (640–201 b.c.e.)

Chapter 1: From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem (640–586 b.c.e.) 1.1 Ancient Near East 1.2 Josiah’s Reform 1.3 Decline of Judah 1.4 Jeremiah 1.5 The Neo-Babylonian Empire 1.6 Fall of Jerusalem Chapter 2: Exile and Return (586–500 b.c.e.) 2.1 Judah during the Exile 2.2 Exile in Babylon 2.3 Cyrus of Persia 2.4 Cambyses 2.5 Return under Zerubbabel Chapter 3: Restoration of Judah (500–400 b.c.e.) 3.1 Ezra the Scribe 3.2 Nehemiah the Governor 3.3 Jews of Babylon 3.4 Elephantiné Conflict Chapter 4: The Hellenistic Age Begins (400–301 b.c.e.) 4.1 Judah of the Silent Generations 4.2 Persia and Macedonia 4.3 Alexander of Macedonia 4.4 Diadochi

11 11 16 18 20 23 26 28 28 30 34 35 38 42 43 45 48 49 54 54 54 57 63

vi   Vines Intertwined

Chapter 5: Ptolemaic Era (301–201 b.c.e.) 5.1 Ptolemy I Soter 5.2 Syrian and Punic Wars 5.3 The Diaspora Jews 5.4 High Priests 5.5 Tale of the Tobiads Synthesis of Part One: Religious Development—Foundations I (640–201 b.c.e.) S1.1 The Axial Age S1.1.1 Greek Transition S1.1.2 Hebrew Transition S1.2 Hebrew Scripture S1.2.1 Torah S1.2.2 Prophets S1.2.2.1 Sacred History S1.2.2.2 Divine Oracles S1.2.2.3 Writings: An Ongoing Process S1.3 Currents of Jewish Thought S1.3.1 Zadokite Priesthood S1.3.2 Apocalyptic (Enochian Tradition) S1.3.3 Jewish Wisdom Tradition S1.4 Diaspora Jews S1.4.1 Synagogue S1.4.2 Septuagint

67 67 68 71 72 73 76 76 76 79 80 81 82 82 83 86 86 87 87 90 93 94 94

Part Two (201 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) Chapter 6: The Maccabean Revolt (201–161 b.c.e.) 6.1 Mediterranean World 6.2 Seleucid Kingdom 6.3 The Polis of Jerusalem 6.4 Maccabean Revolt Chapter 7: Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom (161–67 b.c.e.) 7.1 Mediterranean World 7.2 Jewish Diaspora 7.3 Hasmonean Dynasty 7.3.1 Jonathan the Hasmonean 7.3.2 Simon the Hasmonean 7.3.3 John Hyrcanus 7.3.4 Aristobulus I 7.3.5 Alexander Jannaeus 7.3.6 Salome Alexandra

99 99 99 102 107 112 112 113 114 118 120 122 125 125 127



Contents   vii

Chapter 8: The Coming of Rome (67–27 b.c.e.) 8.1 Mediterranean World 8.2 End of the Hasmoneans 8.3 Rise of Herod Chapter 9: Pax Augusta and Herod the Great (27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) 9.1 Mediterranean World: Pax Augusta 9.2 Herod: Expansion and Grandeur 9.3 Babylonians Zamaris and Hillel 9.4 Herod’s Finale 9.5 Aftermath of Herod 9.6 Roman Rule of Judaea 9.7 End of the Augustan Age Synthesis of Part Two: Religious Development—Foundations II (201 b.c.e.–14 c.e.) S2.1 Currents of Judaism S2.1.1 Wisdom S2.1.1.1 Tobit S2.1.1.2 Ben Sira S2.1.1.3 Letter of Aristeas S2.1.2 Eschatology: Visions for the Future S2.1.2.1 Enoch’s Dream Visions S2.1.2.2 Daniel 7–12 S2.1.2.3 Jubilees S2.1.2.4 Sibylline Oracles S2.1.3 Messiah S2.1.3.1 Psalms of Solomon S2.1.3.2 Dead Sea Scrolls S2.1.3.3 Parables of Enoch S2.1.3.4 Ruling Ideology S2.2 Jews and Jewishness in the Roman Empire S2.2.1 Hellenistic Rome and the Jews S2.2.2 Diaspora Jews and Jewishness S2.2.3 Judaean Associations S2.2.3.1 Sadducees S2.2.3.2 Pharisees S2.2.3.3 Essenes S2.2.3.4 Others S2.2.3.4.1 Fourth Philosophy S2.2.3.4.2 Samaritans S2.3 The People Called Israel S2.3.1 Common Practices S2.3.2 Essential Theology

129 129 129 138 143 143 143 151 152 154 156 157 158 158 158 158 159 160 161 161 162 164 164 166 167 169 170 170 171 171 173 176 176 177 178 180 180 181 181 183 183

viii   Vines Intertwined

Part Three (14–138 c.e.) Chapter 10: Birth of the Nazarenes (14–37 c.e.) 10.1 Rome: Tiberius 10.2 The Jews 10.2.1 Roman Diaspora 10.2.2 Jews of Babylonia and Syria 10.2.3 Palestine 10.3 The Nazarenes 10.3.1 John the Baptist 10.3.2 Jesus of Nazareth 10.3.3 Birth of the Nazarenes 10.3.4 Paul of Tarsus

187 187 188 188 189 190 193 193 194 202 207

Chapter 11: A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers (37–54 c.e.)

210

11.1 Rome 11.1.1 Caligula 11.1.2 Claudius 11.1.3 King Agrippa I 11.2 Jewish Diaspora 11.2.1 Conversion of King of Adiabene 11.2.2 Pharisee Influence in Babylonia? 11.2.3 Alexandria 11.2.3.1 Philo the Jew 11.2.3.2 Apion the Greco-Egyptian 11.2.3.3 Strife in Alexandria 11.2.4 Jews under Claudius 11.3 “Christian” Apostolic Era 11.3.1 Paul of Tarsus: Missionary to the Gentiles 11.3.2 Incident at Antioch

210 210 212 214 216 216 217 217 218 219 220 222 224 225 227

Chapter 12: The Great War (54–70 c.e.) 12.1 Rome 12.1.1 Nero 12.1.2 Judaea before the War 12.1.3 The Great War 12.2 Jews: The Last “Pharisees” 12.3 Christians: End of the Apostolic Era 12.3.1 Paul 12.3.2 Peter 12.3.3 James the Just 12.3.4 Persecution under Nero

231 231 231 233 236 242 244 244 247 248 249



Contents   ix

Chapter 13: Jews and Christians without a Temple (70–117 c.e.) 13.1 Rome 13.1.1 Flavian Dynasty 13.1.2 Trajan and the Diaspora Revolt 13.2 Jews 13.2.1 Judaea and Rabbinic Origins 13.2.2 Johanan ben Zakkai and His Disciples 13.2.3 Gamaliel II and Yavneh 13.2.4 Jews of Babylonia 13.3 Christians 13.3.1 Eastern Congregations 13.3.2 Clement of Rome and the West 13.3.3 Persecution of Christians Chapter 14: Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War (117–138 c.e.) 14.1 Rome 14.1.1 Hadrian 14.1.2 Bar Kokhba Revolt 14.2 Jews 14.2.1 The Sages 14.2.2 Rabbinic Martyrs 14.2.3 The Other One 14.3 Christians 14.4 The Early Syncretistic Milieu Synthesis of Part Three: Jews and Christians I (14–138 c.e.) S3.1 Kingdom of God: Theocracy S3.1.1 Theocracy among Jews S3.1.1.1 God: Theology and Worship S3.1.1.2 Laws S3.1.1.3 Leaders S3.1.1.3.1 Kingship S3.1.1.3.2 Priesthood S3.1.1.3.3 Prophet S3.1.3.3.4 Synagogue Leaders S3.1.1.4 People of God S3.1.1.5 Land of Israel S3.1.2 Theocracy among Christians S3.1.2.1 God: Theology and Worship S3.1.2.2 Laws S3.1.2.3 Leaders S3.1.2.3.1 Jesus and His Followers S3.1.2.3.2 Apostolic-Era Church S3.1.2.3.3 Postapostolic-Era Church

250 250 250 253 256 257 259 261 265 266 266 266 267 271 271 271 273 277 277 281 282 283 285 286 286 287 287 288 291 291 292 293 294 295 298 298 298 300 304 304 305 307

x   Vines Intertwined

S3.1.2.4 People of God S3.1.2.5 Land of Israel S3.2 Jews and Christians, and Jewish Believers S3.2.1 Paul the Jew S3.2.2 Matthew’s Sectarian Jewish Community S3.2.3 Ignatius and the “Judaizers” S3.3 Sabbath and Sunday S3.4 Gamaliel II and Birkat ha-Minim S3.5 Early Rabbinic Encounters with Christians

308 312 312 313 315 320 322 324 325

Part Four (138–312 c.e.) Chapter 15: Antonine Peace and the Struggles of Jews and Christians (138–192 c.e.) 15.1 Roman Empire 15.1.1 Antoninus Pius 15.1.2 Marcus Aurelius 15.1.3 Commodus 15.2 Jews 15.2.1 Palestine 15.2.2 Rabbinic Tradition History 15.2.2.1 Principal Rabbis 15.2.2.2 Rabbinic Power Struggles 15.3 Christians 15.3.1 Critics of Christians (and Jews) 15.3.2 The Christian Defense 15.3.3 The Internal Challenge Chapter 16: Severan Decay, Christian Growth, and the Glory of Judah the Prince (192–235 c.e.) 16.1 Roman Empire 16.1.1 Severus 16.1.2 Caracalla 16.1.3 Elagabalus 16.1.4 Severus Alexander 16.2 Jews 16.2.1 Jews of Palestine 16.2.2 Jews of Babylonia 16.3 Christians 16.3.1 Roman West 16.3.1.1 Clement of Alexandria 16.3.1.2 Tertullian 16.3.1.3 Hippolytus 16.3.2 Syrian East

331 331 331 332 333 334 334 335 336 338 340 342 344 346 351 351 351 353 354 354 355 355 360 362 362 363 364 366 366



Contents   xi

Chapter 17: Roman Empire in Crisis and the Rise of Sasanian Persia (235–284 c.e.)

370

17.1 Rome and Persia 17.1.1 Rome 17.1.2 Sasanian Persia 17.1.3 Persian Religious Ideology 17.2 Jews 17.2.1 Babylonia 17.2.1.1 Exilarch and Rabbis 17.2.1.2 Rabbinic Foundations in Babylonia 17.2.2 Palestine 17.2.2.1 Patriarch and Rabbis 17.2.2.2 Poverty of Palestine 17.3 Christians 17.3.1 Roman Persecutions 17.3.2 Christian Intellectuals

370 370 373 374 377 377 377 379 382 382 385 387 387 389

Chapter 18: Diocletian and the Great Persecution of the Church (284–312 c.e.)

392

18.1 Rome and Persia 18.1.1 Rome: Diocletian and Maximian 18.1.2 Rise of Constantine 18.1.3 Sasanian Persia 18.2 Jews 18.2.1 Palestinian Jews 18.2.2 Babylonian Jews 18.2.2.1 School in Sura 18.2.2.2 School in Pumbedita 18.3 Christians 18.3.1 Monasticism 18.3.2 Hellenes versus Christians 18.3.2.1 Porphyry 18.3.2.2 Arnobius 18.3.3 The Great Persecution Synthesis of Part Four: Jews and Christians II (138–312 c.e.) S4.1 Material Culture S4.1.1 Christian and Jewish Symbols S4.1.2 Dura-Europos: Jews and Christians S4.2 Jewish-Christian Relations S4.2.1 Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho S4.2.2 Celsus and His Literary Jew S4.2.3 Origen and the Rabbis at Caesarea S4.2.4 Abbahu of Caesarea S4.2.5 “Two Nations in Your Womb”

392 392 397 399 399 399 401 402 403 404 404 405 405 407 408 412 412 412 414 416 417 421 423 427 429

xii   Vines Intertwined

S4.3 Jewish Believers S4.3.1 Nazarenes S4.3.2 Ebionites S4.3.3 Jewish Believer (Ebionite?) Traditions S4.4 Passover for Jews, Jewish Believers, and Christians S4.4.1 Paschal Controversy S4.4.2 Melito of Sardis: On the Passover S4.4.3 Passover Haggadah

432 433 434 436 439 442 443 445

Part Five (312–455 c.e.) Chapter 19: Constantine and the Christian Empire (312–337 c.e.)

453

19.1 Rome and Persia 19.1.1 Roman Empire 19.1.1.1 Constantine’s Council at Nicaea 19.1.1.2 Final Years of Constantine and Helena’s True Cross 19.1.2 Persian Empire 19.2 Christians 19.2.1 Tolerance under Constantine 19.2.2 Eusebius and the Library of Caesarea 19.2.3 Christians in the East 19.3 Jews 19.3.1 Jews of Palestine 19.3.2 Jews of Persia

460 463 464 465 466 467 468 468 471

Chapter 20: Julian the Apostate: A Dilemma for Christians and Jews (337–364 c.e.)

473

20.1 Rome and Persia 20.1.1 Roman Empire 20.1.1.1 Heirs of Constantine 20.1.1.2 Julian the Apostate 20.1.2 Persian Empire 20.2 Christians 20.2.1 Constantius and the Arian Conflict 20.2.2 Christian Response to Julian 20.2.3 Gothic Christians 20.2.4 Christians in Persia and the East 20.3 Jews 20.3.1 Jews of Palestine and the West 20.3.1.1 Count Joseph of Tiberias 20.3.1.2 Julian and the Jews 20.3.2 Jews in Persia

453 453 455

473 473 473 475 477 478 478 480 481 482 483 483 485 486 489



Contents   xiii

Chapter 21: Theodosius I: The Christianization of Hellenes and Jews (364–395 c.e.) 21.1 Rome and Persia 21.1.1 Roman Empire 21.1.1.1 West and East: Valentinian I and Valens 21.1.1.2 Theodosius I (“the Great”) 21.1.2 Persian Empire 21.2 Christians 21.2.1 Christians in the Roman West 21.2.2 Antioch and the Eastern Conflict 21.2.3 Council of Constantinople 21.2.4 Antioch: Hellenes, Christians, and Jews 21.2.5 Christians in the East 21.3 Jews 21.3.1 Jews of Palestine and the West 21.3.2 Jews in Persia Chapter 22: Fall of Rome, Doctors of the Church, and New Heights for the Patriarch and Exilarch (395–420 c.e.) 22.1 Rome and Persia 22.1.1 Roman Empire 22.1.2 Persian Empire 22.2 Christians 22.2.1 Christians in the West 22.2.1.1 Doctors of the Church 22.2.1.2 Ecclesiastical Controversies in the Roman Empire 22.2.1.2.1 Origenist Controversy 22.2.1.2.2 Augustine and His Opponents 22.2.2 Christians in the East 22.2.2.1 Church of Armenia 22.2.2.2 Church of the East (Persia) 22.3 Jews 22.3.1 Jews in the Roman Empire 22.3.1.1 Jews under Roman Imperial Legislation 22.3.1.2 Jews and Cyril of Alexandria 22.3.2 Jews of Persia Chapter 23: The Sun Sets in the West and the Demise of the Jewish Patriarchate (420–455 c.e.) 23.1 Rome and Persia 23.1.1 Roman Empire 23.1.1.1 Theodosius II 23.1.1.2 Valentinian III 23.1.2 Persian Empire

492 492 492 492 494 495 496 496 498 500 502 505 506 506 508 510 510 510 513 513 513 514 517 517 519 520 520 521 522 522 522 525 527 529 529 529 529 531 532

xiv   Vines Intertwined

23.2 Christians 23.2.1 The Sun Sets in the West 23.2.2 Christological Storm 23.2.3 Edessa and the Nestorian Controversy 23.2.4 Christians of Persia: Independence and Persecution 23.3 Jews 23.3.1 Demise of the Patriarchate 23.3.2 Laws against the Jews 23.3.3 Jews of Persia Synthesis of Part Five: Jews and Christians III (312–455 c.e.) S5.1 Jews and Christians in the Christian Empire S5.1.1 Christian Triumph S5.1.2 Jewish Response S5.2 Christian Views of Jews S5.2.1 Syriac Christianity: Aphrahat and Ephrem Syrus S5.2.2 John Chrysostom S5.2.3 Jerome S5.2.4 Augustine S5.2.5 Philo Christianus S5.3 Jewish and Christian “Dialogue” S5.3.1 Christian “Dialogue” with Jews S5.3.1.1 Athanasius and Zacchaeus S5.3.1.2 Simon the Jew and Theophilus the Christian S5.3.1.3 Timothy the Christian and Aquila the Jew S5.3.1.4 Severus of Minorca S5.3.2 Rabbinic “Dialogue” with Christians S5.3.2.1 Heresy Debates S5.3.2.2 Oral Torah S5.3.2.3 Jesus S5.4 Jewish and Christian Magic

533 533 534 539 540 542 542 544 545 546 546 546 550 555 555 559 562 563 565 568 569 569 571 571 572 573 573 574 576 581

Part Six (455–640 c.e.) Chapter 24: End of the Old Roman Empire and the Persecution of Persian Jews (455–491 c.e.) 24.1 Rome and Persia 24.1.1 Old Roman Empire 24.1.2 Persian Empire 24.2 Christians 24.2.1 Christians in the Roman East 24.2.2 Barbarian Kingdoms 24.2.3 Christians in Persia

587 587 587 589 590 591 592 593



Contents   xv

24.3 Jews 24.3.1 Jews in the West 24.3.2 Jews in Persia

595 595 597

Chapter 25: Religious Tolerance in the West and the Expansion of Christians and Jews in the East (491–526 c.e.)

599

25.1 Rome and Persia 25.1.1 Old Roman Empire 25.1.1.1 Byzantine Rule 25.1.1.2 Barbarian Kingdoms 25.1.2 Persian Empire 25.2 Christians 25.2.1 Roman “Papacy” 25.2.2 Roman Gaul 25.2.3 Christians of the East 25.2.3.1 Christians of Persia 25.2.3.2 Emerging Syrian Orthodox Church 25.3 Jews 25.3.1 Jews in Palestine and the West 25.3.2 Jews of Persia 25.3.3 Jews of Arabia

599 599 599 601 602 604 604 605 606 607 607 608 608 609 610

Chapter 26: Justinian’s Byzantine Rome and the Impact of Caesaropapism on Christians, Pagans, Samaritans, and Jews (526–565 c.e.) 613 26.1 Rome and Persia 26.1.1 Byzantine Rome 26.1.1.1 Early Years 26.1.1.2 Reconquest of the West 26.1.1.3 Plague, Pestilence, and War 26.1.2 Persian Empire 26.2 Christians 26.2.1 Caesaropapism 26.2.2 Syrian Orthodox Church 26.2.3 Christians of Persia 26.3 Jews 26.3.1 Legislation Concerning Jews 26.3.2 Justinian’s Novel 146 26.3.3 Samaritan Revolt 26.3.4 Jews in Persia Chapter 27: A Papal Throne for Christians and Jews (565–602 c.e.) 27.1 Rome and Persia 27.1.1 Byzantine Empire and the West 27.1.2 Persian Empire

613 613 614 615 618 619 622 623 624 626 628 628 630 631 632 633 633 633 636

xvi   Vines Intertwined

27.2 Christians 27.2.1 The Papal Throne of Gregory I 27.2.2 Syrian Orthodox Church 27.2.3 Persian Church of the East 27.3 Jews 27.3.1 Jews of Byzantine Rome and the West 27.3.2 Jews of Persia Chapter 28: The Last Great War in Antiquity and the Advent of Islam (602–640 c.e.)

638 638 640 641 642 642 645 647

28.1 Rome and Persia 28.1.1 Byzantine Empire 28.1.2 Persian Invasion 28.1.3 Fall of Jerusalem in 614 28.1.4 Last Great War of Antiquity 28.1.5 Aftermath of the Great War 28.2 Muhammad and the Rise of Muslims 28.2.1 Jews of Medina and Muhammad 28.2.2 Christians of Najran and Muhammad 28.2.3 Muslim Conquest

647 647 648 649 651 655 657 658 660 660

Synthesis of Part Six: Jews and Christians IV (455–640 c.e.)

663

S6.1 Dispersion of Jews and Christians S6.2 Material Culture of Jews and Christians S6.3 Judaism and Christianity as Religions S6.3.1 Initiation and Worship S6.3.2 Liturgy and Holy Days S6.3.3 Exhortation S6.4 Jews and Christians from the Church Canons S6.5 Christian “Dialogues” with Jews S6.5.1 The Dialogue of Gregentius Archbishop of Taphar with Herban the Jew S6.5.2 Disputation of the Church and the Synagogue S6.5.3 The Teaching of Jacob Newly Baptized S6.6 Messianic Hope of Jews and Christians S6.7 Jewish and Christian Response to the Muslim Conquest

664 666 669 670 671 675 677 680 681 682 683 685 689

Epilogue

695

Appendix A: Jewish High Priests

703

Appendix B: Ptolemies

705

Appendix C: Seleucids

706

Appendix D: Roman Emperors

707



Contents   xvii

Appendix E: Parthian Kings

710

Appendix F: Sasanian Kings

712

Appendix G: Principal Rabbinic Sages

714

Appendix H: Jewish Patriarchs and Exilarchs

718

Appendix I: Bishops and Patriarchs of Major Roman Cities

720

Appendix J: Ancient Historians

724

Endnotes

727

Notes to Part 1 Notes to Part 2 Notes to Part 3 Notes to Part 4 Notes to Part 5 Notes to Part 6 Notes to Epilogue Works Cited A. Selected Primary Literature B. Selected Secondary Literature Index

727 734 741 759 771 783 793 795 795 799 813

List of Maps

Assyrian and Babylonian Empires

12–13

The Empire of Persia

36–37

The Land of Israel/Palestine under the Hasmoneans The Roman Empire

115 132–33

Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period

145

The Land of Israel/Palestine in the First Century of the Common Era

213

The Eastern Mediterranean in the Period of Mishnah and Talmud

394–95

Jewish and Christian Communities in Late Antiquity

456–57

Abbreviations General a.m. b. b.c.e. BT c.e. ca. cf. DSS e.g. fl. i.e. lxx M mt n(n). no(s). nt ot PT Q R. T

anno mundi (precedes the date) ben (Hebrew for “son of ”), bar (Aramaic for “son of ”) before the Common Era Babylonian Talmud Common Era circa, about confer, compare Dead Sea Scrolls exempli gratia, for example floruit, active, flourished id est, that is Septuagint Mishnah Masoretic Text note(s) number(s) New Testament Old Testament Palestinian (Jerusalem) Talmud Qumran (when part of the DSS cataloging; see Dead Sea Scrolls below) Rabbi Tosefta

Ancient Texts Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) Gen Exod Lev

Genesis Exodus Leviticus

xxii   Vines Intertwined

Num Deut Josh Judg Ruth 1–2 Sam 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Chr Ezra Neh Esth Job Ps(s) Prov Isa Jer Lam Ezek Dan Hos Joel Amos Obad Mic Zeph Hag Zech Mal

Numbers Deuteronomy Joshua Judges Ruth 1–2 Samuel 1–2 Kings 1–2 Chronicles Ezra Nehemiah Esther Job Psalm(s) Proverbs Isaiah Jeremiah Lamentations Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos Obadiah Micah Zephaniah Haggai Zechariah Malachi

New Testament Matt Mark Luke John Acts Rom 1–2 Cor Gal Eph Phil Col 1–2 Thess 1–2 Tim Titus

Matthew Mark Luke John Acts Romans 1–2 Corinthians Galatians Ephesians Philippians Colossians 1–2 Thessalonians 1–2 Timothy Titus



Phlm Heb Jas 1–2 Pet 1–3 John Jude Rev

Abbreviations   xxiii

Philemon Hebrews James 1–2 Peter 1–3 John Jude Revelation

Apocrypha and Septuagint 1–4 Macc Sir Wis

1–4 Maccabees Sirach/Ecclesiasticus/Ben Sira Wisdom of Solomon

Pseudepigrapha 1–3 En Jub. Pss. Sol. Sib. Or.

1–3 Enoch Jubilees Psalms of Solomon Sibyllene Oracles

Dead Sea Scrolls These works are referred to by the cave number in which they were found, followed by “Q”, followed by a number assigned to them, e.g., 4Q253 is fragment #253 found at Qumran in cave 4. Some of these fragments are of sufficient importance that they are provided a special name, e.g., 1QIsaa is the book of Isaiah, the first (hence marked with superscripted “a”) scroll of the book of Isaiah of several found at Qumran in cave 1. Reference to where one can find the original publication of a fragment can be found in Appendix F or the SBL Handbook of Style (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1999) and short descriptions of each can be found in chapter 3 of Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 2005). CD

Damascus Document [Damascus Covenant] (medieval copies of earlier works found in the Cairo Genizah, earlier fragments of which were also found at Qumran, 4Q266–273, 5Q12, 6Q15)

Early Christian Writings Barn. 1 Clem. Did.

Epistle of Barnabas 1 Clement Didache

xxiv   Vines Intertwined

Greek and Latin Works Ammianus Marcellinus Hist. Roman History Appian Hist. rom. Roman History Arrian Anab. Anabasis of Alexander (History of Alexander) Athenaeus of Naucratis The Deipnosophists (Learned Banqueters) Cicero Sest. Pro Sestio Nat. d. De natura deorum Flac. Pro Flacco Prov. cons. De provinciis consularibus Dio Cassius (also Cassius Dio, Dio) Hist. Roman History Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum (Lives of Eminent Philosophers) Eusebius Hist. eccl. Ecclesiastical History Chron. Chronicon (Chronicle) Vit. Const. Vita Constantini (Life of Constantine) Praep. ev. Praeparatio evangelica (Preparation for the Gospel) Onom. Onomasticon Proof of the Gospel Teaching Herodotus Hist. Histories Josephus Ant. Antiquities Ag. Ap. Against Apion Life The Life J.W. Jewish War Julian Ep. Orations, Letters, Epigrams, Against the Galileans Laertius Lives Lives of Eminent Philosophers Libanius Ep. Epistles (from Autobiography and Selected Letters) Marcus Aurelius Med. Meditations



Abbreviations   xxv

Pausanias Descr. Descriptions of Greece Philo of Alexandria Alleg. Interp. 1, 2, 3 Allegorical Interpretation 1, 2, 3 Confusion On the Confusion of Tongues Contempl. Life On the Contemplative Life Creation On the Creation of the World Dreams 1, 2 On Dreams 1, 2 Embassy On the Embassy to Gaius Flaccus Against Flaccus Good Person That Every Good Person Is Free Heir Who Is the Heir? Moses 1, 2 On the Life of Moses 1, 2 Names On the Change of Names Prelim. Studies On the Preliminary Studies QE 1, 2 Questions and Answers on Exodus 1, 2 QG 1, 2, 3, 4 Questions and Answers on Genesis 1, 2, 3, 4 Spec. Laws 1, 2, 3, 4 On the Special Laws 1, 2, 3, 4 Virtues On the Virtues

Journals and Organizations AB CIJ CPJ CRINT HTR HUCA JECS JJS JQR JSJ PG PO SBL WBC

Anchor Bible Corpus inscriptionum judaicarum. Edited by J. B. Frey. 2 vols. Rome, 1936–1952 Corpus papyrorum judaicarum. Edited by V. Tcherikover. 3 vols. Cambridge, 1957–1964 Compendia Rerum Iudaicarum ad Novum Testimentum Harvard Theolgical Review Hebrew Union College Annual Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Jewish Studies The Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of Judaism Patrilogia graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. 162 vols. Paris, 1844–1864 Patrilogia orientalis. Edited by R. Graffin; F. Nau, et al. 49 vols. Paris, 1904– Society of Biblical Literature Word Biblical Commentary

Introduction We live in the midst of a renaissance in Jewish and Christian studies. Scholars across the world are reevaluating the surviving textual witnesses while archaeologists explore and reconsider the sites of ancient synagogues, churches, cemeteries, and inscriptions. In the last half century, we have seen an upheaval in our understanding of Jewish history, from the biblical era to the advent of the medieval age. Our understanding of Jewish life in antiquity has undergone significant revision, and the relationship between Jews and Christians has shifted from a mother-daughter paradigm to one better described as siblings. The vast amount of information generated in books and articles for specialists and the general public often requires a broad grasp of the historical context of Jewish and Christian relations. The need for a coherent historical background to our interest was the catalyst for this book. It is a chronological walk through the history of Jews and Christians, generation by generation, concisely, but with sufficient examples from the ancients to provide a voice for each generation. A history of Jews and Christians in antiquity must begin somewhere. We begin in 640 b.c.e. It is true there were no Christians then, but neither were there Jews as we understand the term “Jew” today. Both Jew and Christian are primarily religious identities, with due deference to secular humanism as an option within a Jewish or Christian cultural context. In fact, we find the beginnings of Jewishness at the turn of the first century, just when Jewish believers in Jesus and the Gentile converts were making their own beginning. But the religions of Judaism and Christianity come later still, and it may be argued (as it is) that Judaism as a religion came into existence only in response to Christianity as a religion. Both had the same roots, however, so the most suitable starting point, it seemed to me, is the destruction of Jerusalem and the exile in Babylon, in the sixth century b.c.e., a milieu in which so much that constitutes Judaism and Christianity was spawned. The covenant renewal under King Josiah prior to the fall of Jerusalem was foundational for the future of biblical monotheism. The towering figure of the prophet Jeremiah in this generation is essential to each faith, and he is best seen in the context of his own times, not in a distant flashback. Ezra, Nehemiah, and the Maccabees are all important to Christians as well as Jews. If “siblings” is the correct relational term for Jews and Christians, then parentage applies to both and we should not skip lightly over the common ancestry.

2   Vines Intertwined

The second destruction of Jerusalem in 70 c.e., along with the loss of the second temple, marks a watershed in Jewish history, even if not everyone saw it that way at the time. After all, cities and temples were destroyed by earthquakes, and rebuilt, often more grand than before. The second temple had proved that even after war and exile, Jewish life could be restored. But the third temple (not counting Herod’s renovation) was never rebuilt, and at this point Jews and the nascent Christians each begin to develop a religion without the central focus of a temple and the rituals of worship that surround it. As a religion without a temple, Judaism begins simultaneously with Christianity. The two communities forged their templeless identities in plain sight of each other, and in continual dialogue, and as constant rivals for the title “people of God” or “true Israel.” We now recognize that Judaism and Christianity are what they are because of the other. Neither formed itself in isolation. Our history ends with the loss of Jerusalem to Muslim overlords. Although life in Palestine did not change drastically for the Jews who dwelt there, more than half the world’s Jews were soon under the hegemony of a different monotheistic empire, and nearly all the world’s Christians had to reckon with defeat at the hands of a rival monotheism; one that claimed, audaciously, to be a third and superior sibling, descended from Abraham through Ishmael. Over so long a history, 1280 years, there are changes in group identity among Jews and Christians, even though both see themselves in continuity with their ancestors, as do Jews and Christians today. “Continuity and change” is a theme basic to understanding history. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose. Worldviews change, but being human is remarkably consistent. Sabbath observance is ubiquitous and enduring among Jews, a rule proven by the minor disagreements on how it ought to be observed and the occasional example of non-observance. Sabbath and Jewishness go hand in hand, and this demonstrates at the least a desire of Jews to retain their ties to a remote past embodied in figures like Abraham and Moses and the covenants God made with them. For that reason, most Christians chose the Sun’s day as the Christian sabbath in order to express the continuity and change of their own identity. Views about God, and the nature of the relationship between God and his people Israel, are subject to vast currents of thought, conceived in many fertile minds. That, too, is human nature. Theology is a mental exercise on the concept of God. And being human, we should expect a wide range of views. One mark of the contemporary study of Jews and Christians in antiquity is the recognition of the varieties of Jewish and Christian expression. In speaking of the varieties within Judaism and Christianity, we recognize from the outset that categorization of thought and interpretation, of ritual or symbol, is always a precarious affair; the more so when we are separated by centuries from subjects of our interest. The Greek “ism” applied to Jewish practice and belief, or the Latin “ity” of Christian practice and belief, is an attempt to organize and understand what we suppose to be coherent systems of religious and cultural life. Here is where an academic dispute over analysis begins. Some scholars prefer to isolate subsystems of Judaism and Christianity as Judaisms and Christianities. In so doing, they stress the differences of each system as an enclosed worldview. Essene



Introduction   3

Judaism is sufficiently different from Pharisaic Judaism, or Enochian from Rabbinic, or Hellenistic from Palestinian from Babylonian, to study each as a Judaism in its own right among a number of Judaisms. So also, Pauline, Petrine, Gnostic, Latin or Syrian Christianities. Others prefer to accent the common nature of Judaism or Christianity, pointing out that something essential and significant binds the “isms” and “ities” together which qualifies as a “Judaism” or a “Christianity” distinct from a Platonism or a Mazdeanism or a variety of polytheism. This approach favors the easily recognized pillars of belief and practice in Judaism or Christianity, the essence that inspires the differences, and it describes the differences as accidentals, or currents of Judaism and Christianity. There are difficulties and deficiencies to either approach, but that is the hazardous path of finite human thought, one that acknowledges the ancient lament, “Of making many books there is no end, and much study is a weariness of the flesh.” It is easier to describe being a Jew, or being a Christian, than the isms to which they belonged. If a person is asked, “Are you a Jew?” we expect, under neutral circumstances, an answer without excessive deliberation. Over the centuries, while Jews spread out across the inhabitable world as merchants or mercenaries, slaves or immigrants, they sought out their kin and found refuge there. The label “Jew” was an oasis in the desert. Even though the meaning of the name Jew changes over the centuries, from an ethnic-geographic identity, to a religious identity, people knew they were Jews, and why. The same may be said for Christians. Non-Christians coined the name Christian in the first century c.e. to identify followers of Jesus who was called the Christ. It was initially a term of derision but later became a badge of honor, and by the second century the statement “I am a Christian” was the formal admission of a capital crime, for which execution often followed. Either way, people knew what, or who, they were. Asked to describe their Jewish or Christian practices, we would find all manner of variety. Asked to describe their beliefs, we would be overwhelmed. People tend to muddle along inarticulately with questions and answers about God, the universe, and the human predicament. That is perhaps the wisest course, but it frustrates the neat categories and labels of historians. A history is fashioned by the sources available. There are considerable lacunae in ancient Jewish historical sources and we must pass over decades of Jewish life in wistful silence. The three centuries between 200 b.c.e and 100 c.e. offer an abundance of literary and archaeological remains. After the first century c.e., when our most important historian, Josephus, ends his work, we are forced to glean from the corners of the field a potpourri of rabbinic anecdotes, rulings, and legends, and what church fathers, Christian historians, and the legal codes say about the “stiffnecked” Jews. Hellenistic and later secular historians contribute here and there, but they have little to offer on the Jews. A history of the Jews prior to Alexander the Great, and from the second century c.e. onward, when the stringent rules of critical historians are applied, is also sparse and tentative. It is a skeleton in need of sinews and flesh. The task of the historian is often a precarious one. There are two contemporary and competing approaches to historical investigation that require an introduction. One is called minimalism, the other maximalism.

4   Vines Intertwined

The approaches involve the question of what constitutes evidence, and the quest for certainty of knowledge. The minimalist applies the so-called hermeneutic of suspicion to our sources. Every witness has an ulterior motive, or may be outright lying, unless it can be proven otherwise. As in Jewish law, two witnesses are required; a single source is not a source. The minimalist has a high standard of proof and is reticent to affirm a statement about history unless it is certifiably factual. Minimalists tend to be bold revisionists of what we thought we knew by undermining previous assumptions and the gullible acceptance of testimonies. The maximalist leans in the other direction, though hopefully well shy of gullibility. Some call this approach a hermeneutic of trust. People (especially religious people?) are prone to tell the truth and not perpetrate falsehood that in their own times can be exposed. Memory may fail our witnesses, but it is an honest failure. After we have stripped away the miraculous, the accouterments of legend and hyperbole, our witnesses, even one, should be accepted, unless they can be proven in error. Burden of proof lies with the historian, not the hapless source. Acceptance of witnesses does not ensure we have understood them, but it qualifies their statements as evidence. Maximalists are keenly aware that life is always full, even if the evidence is thin, and a regulated historical imagination may add sinews and flesh to the skeleton, based on what we know of antiquity and humanity. Both types of historian otherwise use the tools of the discipline evenhandedly (in theory), to seek out what can be known, and that means what can be proved to our satisfaction. Satisfaction and knowledge, however, are precisely the dispute: to use the adage (and book subtitle) of Jacob Neusner, “What We Cannot Show, We Do Not Know.” It is a fact, however, that some people see things that others do not. Intuition and reading between the lines is a common practice in all forms of knowledge. The truth cannot be known from pottery shards and provable declarative statements only. Maximalists err on the side of credulity; minimalists err on the side of caricature. In the college of arts and sciences, some historians claim history is an art, not a science. Others say history is a science, but a soft science or a social science. There are few hard facts to history. Our knowledge is almost always approximate. Degrees of certainty or uncertainty are conventionally expressed by the words “probable,” “possible,” “unlikely,” “likely,” “almost certainly,” and so forth. But constantly admitting our uncertainty about something is unsatisfying to the reader when we know full well there is a real history to be had because life and “stuff ” really happened. Historical imagination is more satisfying than repetitive agnosticism. Even under ideal circumstances, however, the best we can achieve in historical description is verisimilitude, a verbal picture that is similar enough to the reality behind the elusive facts of history that it is accurate in impressionistic terms. The description of a person may be more or less accurate, hence verisimilar. This is true, incidentally, of all human descriptions of anything or anyone, but in contemporary life, we are able to verify a verdict or testimony or impression, whereas for the past, that is much more difficult. Do our ancient sources provide us with verisimilar accounts of people or events? Does a speech that Josephus places in the mouth of Agrippa II, whom he knew, approximate what Agrippa said or might have said? Do the traditions (excluding hyperbolic legends) about Rabbi Akiba approximate



Introduction   5

the man? Do the Gospels give us a portrait of Jesus that is verisimilar to what he said and did? We know they do not give precise accounts of what Jesus said and did because the authors portray the same incident differently. Memory and literary license are at work, in which each author differs. But when we have compared all the information about Akiba or Jesus, or any historical figure, it is often possible to arrive at a satisfying verisimilitude. A century ago, and earlier, the historians of Jewish antiquity were far too trustful of the ancient sources. Saul Lieberman, one of the founding fathers of modern historical research on Judaism in Roman antiquity, wrote in 1939, “The vast field of Talmudic literature fared ill at the hands of the historians. The historians were no Talmudists; the Talmudists were no historians.” Their works are still useful tomes of information, but few of their conclusions have withstood the withering gaze of modern criticism. One of the major upheavals in Jewish history over the past 50 years has been the demotion of the early rabbis from the ubiquitous leaders of the Jewish commonwealth to small groups of teachers and students cloistered in a few homes, mostly unknown to the vast majority of Jews and largely irrelevant to Jewish society during the first two centuries after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e. The reason for this conclusion is that our non-rabbinic sources, including archaeology, do not seem to know the rabbis existed. They did exist, of course, but the former picture of the rabbis as the widely recognized leaders of the Jews, we now think, does not become an accurate picture until the Islamic age. Rabbinic traditions, however, are often the only source of information we have, and as an alternative to saying nothing, or very little, about the Jews, the rabbis have a place in history that is out of proportion to the reality of Jewish life. Rabbinic traditions preserve useful data about Jewish life, about what people believed, as well as facts and legends about the rabbis themselves. Even if the rabbis loom larger in history than warranted, the rabbinic portraits are central to Judaism through the medieval age and into the present because rabbis did become the Jewish leaders. What rabbinic tradition preserved as important became important over time to the wider community. A similar case may be made for the apostle Paul in Christianity. It is, of course, a fact of nearly all history that our literary sources are from the hands of the elite class, whether scholar or ruler. We must resurrect the hoi polloi from archaeological remains, condemnations of the elite, and the principle of plus ça change. Archaeology has come to the rescue in our efforts to balance the main historical narrative. The methodical survey of mounds in Israel over the past 40 years, the digs in a number of previously known sites, and the reevaluation of reports made in less critical times have helped a critical reading of the standard sources and the history we thought we knew. The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls about 60 years ago opened the window to a group of Jews we hardly knew existed, and we still don’t know quite what to make of them. But that cache of documents warns us that some new discovery may pull the rug out from what we think we now know, and our most cautious and critical assessment of antiquity will become as naive and amusing as the histories written a century ago have become to us. Every history is but a partial and provisional history.

6   Vines Intertwined

In this history we lean toward a critical maximalism, with its judicious acceptance of testimony. We prefer to say something, admitting uncertainty, rather than say nothing. Errors will stem from credulity. The hermeneutic of trust lends a sympathetic ear to whoever is under scrutiny; that is, they are given the benefit of the doubt. That said, many a reader will be struck, and perhaps offended, by the critical analysis that is applied to a history so dear to one’s heart. That is natural, understandable, and alas, c’est la vie. History is history: the goal of knowing as best we can what happened in the past and extrapolating why it happened as it did. All histories are judged by a canon of scientific method. Honest history is the pursuit of truth, and we must let the chips fall where they may and bring to mind the words of an ancient and respected Jew, “The truth will set you free.” There are, to be sure, significant, and at times insurmountable, disagreements among specialists on various interpretations of the historical data. In general, I give a consensus view without explaining opposing views or why the consensus among scholars is what it is. Occasionally I do mention problems lying behind a view and give alternate views which may help put the history in a clearer light. At other times, though rarely, I take a minority position when I judge it closer to the reality we seek. In the endnotes I offer substantial support from primary sources for the evidence behind our history. On the other hand, a history of this scope simply cannot reference the vast secondary literature, much of it inaccessible to most readers, and what is offered is only a selection of important and recent contributions relevant to the topic at hand, or where I specifically make use of a rather specialized text. The inclusion of recent studies, without significant comment on my part, will allow the interested reader to pursue a topic and explore the bibliographic trails. This history is mostly descriptive of what happened; and it’s more a view of the forest than of the trees. The 28 chapters are divided into six parts, at the end of which we pause to review a synthesis of the religious development during the previous years, and offer analysis of the developments. The six centuries of the ancestry period of Jews and Christians are covered in the first two parts; then we begin the narrative of Jews and Christians over the next six centuries. The synthesis of the first six centuries describes the foundation context for the next six centuries in which Judaism and Christianity emerge. The synthesis of later centuries deals with the parallel growth and relationship of Jews and Christians and the difficult to define “Jewish-Christians.” For this outsider group, we follow the lead of a recent collection of studies under the supervision of Oskar Skarsaune, Jewish Believers in Jesus (Hendrickson, 2007), and call them Jewish believers for reasons that will become evident, and I think are justified. As we shall see, the modern appropriation of the “siblings” paradigm merely reclaims the earliest paradigm when both the rabbis and the church fathers seized upon the biblical prophecy of two nations within Rebekah’s womb to describe their rivalry. In so doing, they admitted that not only were Jews and Christians siblings, they were twins. It will be a matter of sibling dispute who is Esau and who is Jacob. Like the familial struggle of Esau and Jacob, the story of Jews and Christians often appears to be a bitter rivalry. That is undoubtedly true, but not the whole truth. Some Jews and some Christians, on occasion, tweaked their rivals, or even rioted



Introduction   7

and burned down synagogues or churches and slew each other. While it is difficult to gauge a latent animosity lying beneath the thin veneer of civilization in a given generation, there are sufficient signs to suggest that the vast majority of Jews and Christians passed easily between the two communities, shared common interests and the mutual needs for survival; in other words, daily business among the silent majority. They intermarried, visited the other’s place of worship, and converted to each other’s faith. When confronted by a common enemy, they fought side by side. Jews and Christians shared a passion for God and the passions of life, so that what unites them divides. The vine and vineyard is a most ancient biblical metaphor for Israel. Sang the psalmist: Thou didst bring a vine out of Egypt; thou didst drive out the nations and plant it. Thou didst clear the ground for it; it took deep root and filled the land. (Ps 80:8–9)

To sit under the vine and fig tree became a symbol of peace and prosperity. From the time of the Maccabean revolt onward, the vine became a favorite symbol on coins and pottery. The vine and vineyard remained a common theme in rabbinic and Christian sermons. If the metaphor of the vine be applied to the history of Jews and Christians, we may speak of “vines intertwined.” It is, perhaps, providential. This history is offered as a background to our own day. Parallels abound.

Part One

(640–201 b.c.e.)

Chapter 1

From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem (640–586 b.c.e.)

1.1 Ancient Near East The earth was already white with age when Josiah came to the throne of Judah at the tender age of eight. In distant Boeothia, Hesiod the shepherd had written his poem Theogony, on the origin and genealogy of the gods. Before the Greeks could read or write, the ancestral epic verse Enuma Elish, “When on high,” recalled the creation of the cosmos out of strife among the gods. Two millennia earlier in ancient Sumer, scribes had compiled the reigns of Sumerian kings since kingship descended from the heavens. The shortest reign of these demigods numbered 18,600 years, the longest 43,200, and together they accounted for 241,000 years. In Egypt, priests kept records and counted more than 330 human generations since the first king of Egypt, which, by the standard reckoning of three generations for every hundred years, made the kingship of Egypt more than 11,000 years old. Before that, gods ruled Egypt, each in their own generation, the last of whom was Horus.1 Peoples in the Indus river valley and across the steppes of China had endured for millennia. The Judaeans, like their new king Josiah, were young by comparison and counted back a mere 30 generations to their founder Abraham. Beyond him, they reckoned ten generations to Noah and the flood, and from Noah, ten generations further back to the first man, Adam, the son of God. Archaeology knows only of a long Stone Age, culminating in the Neolithic era around 8000 b.c.e. and followed by the Chalcolithic (4000), the Early Bronze (3500), Middle Bronze (2000), Late Bronze (1500), and Iron Age (1000). As the residue of the Ice Age (10,000) retreated and left fertile lands to human habitation, the Neolithic peoples flourished in Europe, Asia, Africa, and the Americas; that is, across the inhabitable earth. Animals were domesticated, crops were sown, and pottery was invented (ca. 6000) to store and transport grain. Tribes and clans banded together for trade and protection, and social hierarchies emerged. From apparent origins in the Tigris-Euphrates basin, writing was invented to keep records of trade (ca. 3300), and the wheel facilitated transportation of goods. Civilization, as we define it, was born. Territorial states, early empires, arose in the late Middle Bronze Age. The first king of kings in recorded memory was Sargon of Akkad (near or beneath Baghdad) around the year 2300 b.c.e. Sargon’s brief dynasty was eventually followed

12   Vines Intertwined A

B

C

D

E

T HE B LACK S EA

1 Lemnos

THE

and e r R

Ha

a

T

.

T

Java n

Arvad

Larnaca

Gebal

EAN

L i b ya

S EA Sais

Philistia Jerusalem Migdol Ammon Pelusium Gaza Judah Moab Raphia Sela Tahpanhes/Daphne

Edom

Memphis/Noph

Sinai

Ezion-geber/ Elath

P

Egypt

a

T H E A S SYR I A N AN D B A BYLO N I A N E M PI R ES

D A

200 Kilometers

B

SE

Elephantine

100 Miles

©2004 CHK America www.mapsusa.com

A

s

100

RE

o

0

50

E

r

Extent of Babylonian Empire in the 6th century B.C.E. 0

er Thebes

Extent of Assyrian Empire in the 7th century B.C.E.

6

TH

Region

ELBURZ MTS. Geographic feature

v

h

Ri

City

le

t

PERSIA

i

N

5

Ethiopia/Kush C

D

Hama Qarqar Kades

Riblah L eban Berytus o n Helbon Sidon Damascus Tyre Acco Hauran Megiddo Salecah Samaria Israel

y

RAN

Tiphsa

a

Iadanna (Cyprus)

Zoan/ Tanis

4

e sR

i

Caphtor (Crete)

ITER

rgum Sam’al Gu Carchemis Calno/Khazazu Arpa Alepp

S

M ED

e

um a uk h

S

.

THE

3

C i l i c i a / Ku

Ly c i a

U

R

Oron t

Rhodos (Rhodes)

Tarsus

A

U

a

M ae

/ al Tog ub balCo a K mm

Usiana

r

Miletus

ydi

T

Samos

Lud/L

Gomer/ Gimarrai Lake Tuz

in

Sardis/ Sepharad

Gordion

ia

tt

S EA

Athens

Her m u s R.

ryg

Ha

2

Corinth

Lesbos

R.

R.

Ph

A EGEAN Greece

l ys

S

a ngariu s

E



From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem   13

F

G

H

I

J

1

A r a r at/ U r a rtu

A s s y r

i Arbela

er Z a b ow

g

Ti

Hindanu

.

Anat

r

a t e s R.

Arrapkha

ris R

E

Tadmor

Dur-Kurigalzu

e

Cuthah

Babylon Borsippa

Kish

d

Ecbatana

ZA

GR

O

Pekod/ Puqu du

S

M

TS

M TS

i

.

a

3

.

Susa/Shushan

Nippur

m

Babylonia Uruk/Erech

RZ

a

Sippar

A

BU

l

Kedar/ Qidri

EL

4

Anshan (Tall-i-Malyan)

Ur

P e r s i a

r

Dumah

2

S EA

E

s

M

M a n n ea

aim R. A dh

Terqa

h up

ath r esh

Up

Diyala

sah

Lake Urmia

a

ad ppo

Izalla Nisibis Samsat Gozan Haran Balikhu Dur-Sharrukin Beth-eden/ Nineveh Bit-adini Calah Quramati Rusapu Rezeph Asshur o r R.

sh

Turushpa

Ha b

m

Nairi

R.

Melitene

ma (Malatya) g kh ene/ u

C ASPIAN

R.

Lake Van

R.

gormah

Za b

R. M ura t

p er

.

L

M

TS

THE

Lake Seyan

s R.

A

e ra x

TH

a

E

PE

b

i

Tema

IA

a

Dedan

RS

N

5

S EA

6

Sheba (Saba) O p h ir

F

G

H

I

J

14   Vines Intertwined

by Babylon, whose great king, Hammurabi (ca. 1781–1712), established his imperial law code. In this age, the Hyksos invaded Egypt (ca. 1782–1630) and set up their own dynasty. The Hittites founded their kingdom across eastern Asia Minor, while the Minoans of Crete emerged with their own distinct civilization that would spread north to the early Greeks dwelling in the Peloponnese. The Hittites conquered Babylon (ca. 1595), and after they retreated with their loot, one of the obscure nomadic peoples who lived in the valley, the Kassites, assumed power and would rule for the next 450 years. There follows a dearth in the annals of the ancient Near East, often called a dark age. For three centuries, independent city-states dwelt in the relative obscurity of regional competition and increased awareness of economic interdependence: Mittani, Babylonia, Assyria, Hatti, and Egypt. During this time, the Hurrians of north Mesopotamia may have been the first warriors to harness the horse to a chariot and introduce infantry warfare.2 The thirteenth century was a time of upheaval and change. Some catastrophe in the Aegean islands caused many early Greeks to spread out along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean. It is at this time, in the Late Bronze Age, that the legendary siege of Troy by Agamemnon is set, though archaeology, despite early claims, has been unable to confirm any such battle. The coastal lands from the Nile delta north to the Orontes River in Syria were under the hegemony of Egypt, although the new Hittite kingdom of eastern Anatolia pressed its frontier south and had taken the city of Kadesh in 1340. Rameses II (1279–1213) of Egypt and Hattusili III, king of the Hittites, fought a famous but inconclusive battle for Kadesh in 1259. The weakened powers agreed to a peace treaty. Rameses II used the Sea Peoples in his battle against Hattusili III but soon found himself fighting against the Sea Peoples, who took advantage of the stalemate between the great kingdoms. The son of Rameses II, Merneptah (1213–1204), defended his lands against an invasion of the Sea Peoples, and although he retained the land of the Canaanites as a tributary, he could not prevent the Sea Peoples from settling. He erected a stele to commemorate his victories in which the “people of Israel” first appears in stone.3 Rameses III (1187–1156) granted the Sea Peoples rights to settle on the coast—his inscription is the first to call them Philistines—and the land they settled became known to the Greeks as Palestine. Over the next three centuries, the old kingdoms vied for scraps of territory until Assyria rose into a new empire. Meanwhile, in the hinterlands of Palestine, the diverse peoples forged their own small vassal fiefdoms. The people of Israel coalesced briefly under leaders known only from the narrative of the Hebrew Scriptures in the glorified figures of King David (ca. 1000–961) and his son Solomon (ca. 961–922). This unified coalition of tribes soon split into the kingdom of Israel in the north and the kingdom of Judah in the south, centered around the ancient Canaanite city of Jerusalem. In the north, King Omri (ca. 869–850) built his city of Samaria and was numbered among the greater kings of the region. By 853, King Shalmaneser III of Assyria defeated a western coalition of kingdoms and emerged as the new great power. His descendants ruled Mesopotamia, including Babylon, and by 722 Shalmaneser V and his son Sargon II reached as far as the kingdom of Israel. They destroyed Samaria and removed its elite to the nether regions of



From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem   15

northeastern Mesopotamia.4 Sargon’s son, Sennacherib, threatened the kingdom of Judah in 701, but a plague prevented him from taking the land, and he departed, leaving King Hezekiah of Judah “shut up like a bird in a cage.” In 640, Amon, king of Judah, after ruling but 2 years, was assassinated by his courtiers, perhaps an anti-Assyrian faction or a party favoring the religious reforms of Hezekiah. The people of the land, however, rose up against the coup d’état, executed the assassins, and made his young son Josiah king. Until the age of majority at twenty years, Josiah reigned as a figurehead king under a regency of councilors and the queen mother, who bore responsibility to protect the small highland kingdom within the vast Assyrian Empire and negotiate the uncertain steps as the empire of Ashurbanipal, Lord of Kings, crumbled around them.5 The kingdom Josiah inherited had been a vassal kingdom to Assyria since the days of his great-grandfather Hezekiah. With the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel, Jerusalem became the central place of worship not only of Yahweh but also for all the many cults that flourished in Judah. The population of Judah swelled with refugees from the north and reached perhaps 100,000. Hezekiah had fortified Jerusalem with towers and a new wall, and, in preparation for the siege of Sennacherib (701), dug a tunnel connecting the spring of Gihon to the pool of Siloam inside the city. Manasseh also fortified Jerusalem and expanded its size with a new outer wall, and the long and peaceful reign of Manasseh allowed for economic growth. The city expanded to population of some 25,000. During the reign of Manasseh (687–642), Ashurbanipal (668–627) defeated his foes at all corners of his empire and brought Assyria to its territorial zenith. After a century of wars between Assyria and Egypt, Ashurbanipal had defeated the Kushite pharaoh Tenuatamun and placed Psamtik (Psammetichus I, 664–610) on the throne of Egypt, inaugurating the twenty-sixth (Saite) dynasty. But by 655, Psamtik consolidated his power by uniting the princes of Egypt and became more of an independent ally of Assyria than a vassal kingdom. At the other end of the Fertile Crescent, Shamashshumaukin, king of Babylon and brother of Ashurbanipal, rebelled with the help of neighboring Elam in 652, but within 4 years he surrendered and perished in his burning palace. Ashurbanipal set the more loyal Kandalanu (647–627) on the throne of Babylonia and hunted down the Elamites, feeding their corpses “to the dogs, the swine, the wolves, the vultures, the birds of heaven and the fish of the deep.”6 After a few years of uneasy peace, Elamites again supported anti-Assyrian movement by the Chaldeans. Ashurbanipal responded with devastation. He systematically destroyed Elam’s cities, and upon capturing the capital of Susa, he looted it, desecrated the temples and tombs, and carried off the deities to Assyria. This occurred during the first year of Josiah’s reign and served as a reminder of the wrath of Assyria. Sin-shar-iskun succeeded Ashurbanipal in 627 as the undisputed king of Assyria. In the same year, the king of Babylon, Kandalanu, disappears from the records. The following year, Nabopolassar, whom the Greek historians called a Chaldean, declared himself king of Babylon. For the next decade, Nabopolassar strengthened his position while Assyrian power waned. Sin-shar-iskun launched a campaign against Babylonia in 623, but one of his own generals rebelled, attacked

16   Vines Intertwined

the capital, and temporarily held control. This obscure event forced Sin-shar-iskun to break off his attack on Babylonia and begin withdrawing forces from the western empire. The retreat marks the beginning of the end of Assyria, as subject kingdoms across the empire mobilized to regain what territory they could. Among these kingdoms was Judah.

1.2 Josiah’s Reform The following year, 622, Josiah began his religious reform in Jerusalem. While Babylonia, soon allied with the Medes of northern Iran, pressured Assyria in the east, and Psamtik, as an independent ally, advanced along the Syria-Palestine coast in order to prevent further rebellions against Assyria, Josiah exerted his own control over the highlands of Palestine. A strong national unity required a strong central temple cult. As Assyria collapsed, the surrounding kingdoms, led by Psamtik of Egypt and Nabopolassar of Babylonia, fostered a renaissance of antiquity. Egypt returned to the glory days of its Old Kingdom in art and religion. Sculptures and reliefs imitated those of two millennia past, and excerpts from the Pyramid Texts were inscribed on tombs. Temples were renewed through gifts of land, and everywhere people revived animal worship. Nabopolassar and his successors also lifted up Marduk, the patron deity of Babylon, and revived his cult through magnificent shrines. The widespread revival of national gods facilitated, in the spirit of the times, the push to restore the temple of Yahweh as the patron god of Judah, but we cannot discount the voice of the people and the prophets that had been calling for a return to the covenant with Yahweh for two centuries. The desire of Josiah to expand his territory into Samaria and the former kingdom of Israel was a pragmatic move that any sovereign would take, but kings conquered all territory with the support of the gods. Ashurbanipal, which means “Ashur is the creator of an heir,” attributed his victory over Egypt to the patronage of Ashur and his consort Ishtar. Josiah would do no less. Josiah had likely been reared to respect a variety of gods, including the old Canaanite gods, as his father and grandfather, Manasseh, had done, in keeping with the diverse religious sentiments in the land of Judah and the requirements of vassalage to Ashurbanipal. But Samaria was by now a polyglot region. Sargon, after removing the elites from Israel, colonized the land with immigrants from Media; his successor, Esarhaddon, did as well. Ashurbanipal added to the mélange by transplanting conquered peoples from Elam and Babylonia to Samaria.7 Over the next century, each people worshiped its god throughout Palestine, including Judah and Jerusalem. Indeed, if we may believe the description of Josiah’s reform, a great many cultic rituals went on in the house of Yahweh. Nevertheless, Josiah did make the cult of Yahweh his state religion, and those who eventually wrote the history of Israel, known to modern scholars as the Deuteronomistic Historian, laud Josiah as the greatest king of Israel, the embodiment of the true covenant people to Yahweh, and the righteous king ruling on Yahweh’s behalf. Our biblical sources, 2 Kgs 22–23 and 2 Chr 34–35, written one or two centuries apart, disagree on the sequence of events in Josiah’s reform but agree on the



From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem   17

substance. Neither is concerned with history as it happened but only as it ought to be remembered; that is, as sacred story. The older account in 2 Kings begins with Josiah’s involvement in the repairs on the house of Yahweh. During the course of the repair, a scroll, identified as the Book of the Law, was discovered by the high priest Hilkiah. The chief secretary read the book to the king. “And when the king heard the words of the book of the law, he rent his clothes.” What was the Book of the Law, and what did it contain? If the incident is not mere fiction, a discovery legend (Auffindungslegende) designed to legitimate a later literary creation, the scroll was probably an original version of the present biblical book of Deuteronomy. Even the amplified version that has come down to us fits in well with the literary works of the seventh century, showing certain affinities to early Greek literature with its hortatory speeches, and the entire covenant bears remarkable resemblance to the Assyrian vassal treaties, with the prescribed blessings and curses. Modern archaeology has discovered that it is just now, in the late kingdom of Judah, literacy rises to a national level capable of producing and appreciating a foundational document of this caliber.8 Even if this Book of the Law was genuinely discovered by temple workers, unbeknown to the high priest or the king, its author or authors most likely lived and wrote during the reigns of Manasseh, Amon, or Josiah. And its discovery may well have been carefully timed. The origin of the Book of the Law will likely retain its enigmatic shroud, but Josiah’s performance of the ancient grief ritual, the rending of one’s garment, was an appropriate response to the covenant requirements of Deuteronomy, as well as the curses pronounced on the people that break the covenant. Josiah immediately consulted a court prophetess of Yahweh, Huldah, whose responsibility was to deliver oracles to the king. This she did. On the one hand, she declared, all the curses in the book would indeed come upon Judah because they had abandoned the worship of Yahweh. On the other hand, because Josiah had demonstrated his remorse, Yahweh would permit him to go to his grave in peace.9 Josiah wasted no time in implementing his sweeping reform. He presided over a covenant renewal ceremony in the presence of the people of Jerusalem, the priests of Yahweh, and the prophets, perhaps to include Nahum, Zephaniah, and Jeremiah, though none of the scowling prophets mentions the king’s reform. Josiah had the book read so that everyone understood the basis for the actions that were to follow. The king then, standing on the dais, bound himself by the covenant before Yahweh, to follow Yahweh, to keep his commandments, decrees and laws with all his heart and soul, and to carry out the terms of the covenant as written in this book. All the people pledged their allegiance to the covenant.10

He then ordered the temple and its precincts purged of all idolatrous worship. They removed the vessels made for Baal, for Asherah, and for all the host of heaven; the wooden cult symbol of Asherah, who was the ancient Canaanite consort of the chief god El and became the consort of Yahweh when the god El merged with the god Yahweh in Israelite religion. The king shut down the chambers of cult prostitutes, male and perhaps female, who performed fertility rites. He ordered that the high

18   Vines Intertwined

places around Jerusalem, ancient sites dedicated by King Solomon and devoted to Ashtoreth of the Sidonians, Chemosh of Moab, and Milcom of the Ammonites, should be destroyed and the places defiled with human bones, so the sacred space became useless. Josiah extended his reform north. He took control of Bethel in Samaria and destroyed the ancient rival shrine that had been reestablished under Assyrian auspices after the fall of the northern kingdom of Israel. The account says Josiah desecrated the sanctuaries throughout Samaria, but archaeology does not support the claim, and it would have been difficult to do within a province of Assyria mostly populated by Gentiles. The final act of the reform was the first centralized celebration of Passover in Jerusalem. The Passover had been celebrated in the past as a domestic festival, according to the prescription of Exod 12:1–13:16. But in the Book of the Law, if indeed it is the core of Deuteronomy, it is a pilgrimage feast (16:1–8, 16), which must be celebrated at the place that Yahweh would choose, that is, in Jerusalem. This innovation implemented by Josiah brought the state religion of Judah under the king’s watchful eye.

1.3 Decline of Judah Of the rest of Josiah’s 31-year reign we know nothing. Not even the later anonymous historian known to modern readers as the Chronicler fills in the reign of the righteous king. We know that Assyria continued its rapid decline, and Egypt moved into Syria-Palestine to reclaim its rightful dominion and to keep watch on the growing threat of the east. Psamtik was primarily interested in controlling the coastal trade route and the fertile plains of Palestine alongside the highlands of Judah and into the Jezreel valley of Samaria. The king of Egypt declared on an inscription that he controlled the land of Syria as far as Phoenicia.11 Egypt was not concerned with the highlands of Judah, and we may infer that Josiah extended his control over the territory surrounding Judah as much as he could, which would have been very little, and restricted to the northern highlands of Samaria. But what Josiah could do without constraint was to commission a national history, and it is probable that scribes compiled the initial history known as the former prophets, the books of Joshua through 2 Kings, during his reign, to be revised and finished in the Babylonian exile. Within 2 years of Josiah’s reform, Assyria lost all control of Babylonia. Three years later, Nabopolassar invaded Assyria, and the following year, the Medes made an alliance with Babylonia against Assyria, so that by 615 the ancient city of Asshur fell to the Medes, and by 612 the mighty city of Nineveh (modern Mosul, Iraq) fell to a coalition of the Medes, the Babylonians, and the Scythians. The Babylonian Chronicle recalls the victory: “On that same day Sin-Shar-ishkun, the Assyrian king, perished in the flames. They carried off much spoil from the city and temple-area and turned the city into a ruin-mound and heap of debris.”12 Nahum, the prophet from Judah, declared (3:1–7):



From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem   19 Woe to the bloody city, all full of lies and booty—no end to the plunder! The crack of whip, and rumble of wheel, galloping horse and bounding chariot! Horsemen charging, flashing sword and glittering spear, hosts of slain, heaps of corpses, dead bodies without end—they stumble over the bodies! . . . And all who look on you will shrink from you and say, Wasted is Nineveh; who will bemoan her? whence shall I seek comforters for her?

And Zephaniah mocked her (2:15): This is the exultant city that dwelt secure, that said to herself, “I am and there is none else.” What a desolation she has become, a lair for wild beasts! Every one who passes by her hisses and shakes his fist.

In 610, Harran, the reserve fortress of Assyria, fell to the Babylonians. In that year, the aged king of Egypt, Psamtik, also died, and his son Necho II ascended the seat of Pharaoh. By now, Egypt was more concerned to prop up its ancient foe Assyria against the looming might of Babylon, and in 609 Necho II marched north to lend support to Assur-uballit II at his last retreat in northern Syria. On the way, Necho demanded oaths of loyalty from Egypt’s vassal kings, that is, the former vassals of Ashurbanipal who became the vassals of Psamtik. Oaths of loyalty were dissolved upon the death of a monarch and had to be renewed. It is in this context that we should read the stark and enigmatic verdict of the Deuteronomistic Historian: “In his days Pharaoh Necho king of Egypt went up to the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates. King Josiah went to meet him; and Pharaoh Necho slew him at Megiddo, when he saw him” (2 Kgs 23:29). We can only surmise the reason why Necho executed Josiah, king of Judah. The Chronicler smoothed over the dilemma, explaining that Josiah went out to battle Necho near Megiddo in the Jezreel Valley. Necho informed Josiah that he was on a mission from Yahweh, and not against Josiah, but Josiah would not listen, and in the battle that ensued, Josiah was shot by an archer and taken back to Jerusalem, where he died. The Chronicler’s good intentions notwithstanding, to confront Necho in an open field battle would have been insanity; nor does the Chronicles account explain why the Pharaoh of Egypt had prophetic powers to know the will of Yahweh, but Yahweh’s anointed had none. If there was a method to Josiah’s madness, he may have attempted to delay the advance of Egypt in support of Assyria against the rise of Babylon. Perhaps Josiah had already begun to favor the Babylonians against Assyria and dared to refuse the oath of loyalty, or he had encroached too far into Samaria, which Necho felt belonged to him. For whatever reason, Necho distrusted Josiah, and in order to demonstrate his sovereignty over the land of Judah, he executed Josiah without further ado and marched on to Syria. The “people of the land,” influential elders or perhaps military leaders, anointed Josiah’s son, Shallum, as king of Judah. Shallum was not the eldest son of Josiah but apparently the most popular among the people of the land, those who were loyal to Yahweh. He took as his throne name Jehoahaz, “Yahweh has seized,” and reigned 3 months. Pharaoh Necho had set up his court in the city of Riblah, along the Orontes River in Syria. He summoned the 23-year-old Jehoahaz and deposed him. The cause of this dethronement will be found in the politics of empire, a

20   Vines Intertwined

struggle between the elite of Judah who favored the Egyptians and those more nationalistic who favored the distant Babylonians. Not everyone in Jerusalem had wanted Jehoahaz to succeed Josiah, and it appears that Jehoahaz was too much like his father, too anti-Egypt. In his place Necho installed his older brother Eliakim, who was likely more favorable to Egyptian hegemony, and to assuage the nationalists, Necho changed his name Eliakim, “El establishes” to Jehoiakim, “Yahweh establishes.” Necho exiled Jehoahaz to Egypt, where he died. Jehoiakim paid a heavy tribute to Necho and found it necessary to exact the wealth from the people by force. Our historian adds that he “did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to all that his fathers had done”; that is, he reversed the religious reforms of his father, Josiah. The reversal may have been at the direction of Necho, who would follow the divide-and-conquer philosophy of any successful monarch to remove the dominance of a national God but also to appease the many people who worshiped Baal, Asherah, and other gods. Jerusalem still kept an elite class descended from the original Jebusites, and many others drawn to the city from a diverse background. A strong king might impose the cult of Yahweh on a significant portion of an unwilling populace, but a weak king cannot. Jehoiakim ruled 9 years.

1.4 Jeremiah Here we leave behind the kings of Judah and turn to its prophets. If the birth of the Jewish covenant people may be laid in the lap of a single person, this must be Jeremiah (ca. 640–560). Around the year that Josiah came to the throne of Judah, Jeremiah, son of Hilkiah, a priest of the lineage of Abiathar, was born in Anathoth, a village surrounded by almond groves set on a hill a half hour’s walk northeast of Jerusalem. By his own testimony, he believed Yahweh called him from the womb to be a prophet. The call came to Jeremiah in the thirteenth year of Josiah (627): The word of Yahweh came to me, saying: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you came to birth I consecrated you; I appointed you as prophet to the nations.” I then said, “Ah, ah, ah, Lord Yahweh; you see, I do not know how to speak: I am only a child!” But Yahweh replied, “Do not say, ‘I am only a child,’ for you must go to all to whom I send you and say whatever I command you. Do not be afraid of confronting them, for I am with you to rescue you, Yahweh declares.” Then Yahweh stretched out his hand and touched my mouth, and Yahweh said to me: “There! I have put my words into your mouth. Look, today I have set you over the nations and kingdoms, to uproot and to knock down, to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant.”13

Jeremiah was perhaps struck at an early age by the tradition of the legendary prophet Samuel, who was also called as a boy to prophesy and who served in his early years at the sanctuary of Shiloh. Jeremiah traced his priestly lineage back to Abiathar, the priest to King David, who later supported Adonijah against Solomon for the throne and was therefore exiled by Solomon to Anathoth.14 Abiathar was a descendant of the priest Eli, and Jeremiah may have known a lineage that extended back to “Aaron and Moses.” The deep roots of such distinguished heritage may have permeated his childhood and fed his sense of moment, heir to Moses and Samuel.



From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem   21

As a priest, he had access to scribal schools that were flourishing during the pax Assyriaca of the seventh century, and he had close relations with Shaphan, the scribe who read the Book of the Law to Josiah, so Jeremiah likely studied under him, for when he began his prophetic career, his poetic oracles show a fairly high degree of rhetorical skill.15 Although prophets by their nature do not easily fit into the common nature of humanity, they do provide us with the ardent devotion to Yahweh that will have filled the hearts of those, throughout the history of Israel, who were dedicated to Yahweh above all other gods. Jeremiah does not say he embraced the call immediately, but when the Book of the Law was found in the temple, Jeremiah saw this as the fulfillment of Yahweh’s promise to “put my words in your mouth” (1:9); Jeremiah responded, “When your words came, I devoured them: your word was my delight and the joy of my heart; for I was called by your Name, Yahweh, God Sabaoth” (15:16 njb). Indeed, the promise at his calling, to put words in his mouth, echoes the promise made by Yahweh to Moses, “I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brethren; and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him” (Deut 18:18). At about age eighteen Jeremiah believed he was the prophet like Moses, summoned forth from the womb by Yahweh. This call defined his life, and though he often complained, he never wavered. He was forbidden to take a wife or have children as a symbol of the woe to come.16 When Jeremiah stepped onto the stage of history, he joined a reform movement comprised of the king, the elders, priests, scribes, other prophets, and all those who would worship only Yahweh. Yet he remained aloof, perhaps skeptical of the depth of the reform among the leaders or that the cultic reform was not followed by sufficient moral and social reform to satisfy Yahweh. He supported the centralization of the worship of Yahweh and even summoned the Israelites of the northern kingdom exiled by Assyria to return.17 But the oracle of Huldah set a somber tone, that judgment was coming, and the reform of Josiah would only buy a little time. He may have been skeptical of the entire temple service, because Josiah did not go to his grave in peace as Huldah had prophesied. His early preaching followed in the footsteps of Israel’s prophets of moral reform. Like Hosea, he compared the covenant with the love of marriage between Yahweh and his people and the harlotry they played.18 He called for social justice and “circumcision of the heart” (4:4). In a clear reference to the Book of the Law, he speaks for Yahweh: “Cursed be the man who does not heed the words of this covenant which I commanded your fathers when I brought them out of the land of Egypt” (11:3–4). For some years he preached in the towns and cities of Judah, calling on all to return to the ancient covenant of Moses, but he found his voice falling on deaf ears. Jeremiah’s prophetic activity during the reign of Josiah is summed up in a command from Yahweh: Stand by the roads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls. But they said, ‘We will not walk in it.’ I set watchmen over you, saying, ‘Give heed to the sound of the trumpet!’ But they said, ‘We will not give heed’.19

22   Vines Intertwined

Prophets of Yahweh had never been a popular lot, and Jeremiah did nothing to tarnish the reputation. He cast his barbs at all classes of society, wherever the word of Yahweh pointed, and made enemies at every turn. By supporting the movement to a central shrine, the call for all to come up to Zion (an ancient name for Jerusalem and its faithful people), local shrines such as were at Anathoth would have suffered a loss of pilgrims, and this may account for the anger of his village and their desire to kill him.20 He opposed certain scribes and sages, perhaps those of the central sanctuary, who were now compiling the “Torah of Yahweh,” and charged “the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie” (8:8–9). It is one of the curiosities of the Deuteronomistic History that Jeremiah is nowhere mentioned, and this fact may point to deep divisions between the prophet and the reform movement. Whatever Jeremiah had thought about the reform movement during the reign of Josiah, the events that transpired upon the king’s death, the imprisonment of people’s favorite, Jehoahaz, and the installation of Jehoakim by Pharaoh Necho, rendered the brief attempt at covenant renewal irrelevant. At the start of Jehoiakim’s reign, Jeremiah stood in the court of the temple of Yahweh and delivered an oracle of national catastrophe to all the cities of Judah: Say to them, “Yahweh says this: If you will not listen to me and follow my Law which I have given you, and pay attention to the words of my servants the prophets whom I have never tired of sending to you, although you never have paid attention, I shall treat this Temple as I treated Shiloh, and make this city a curse for all the nations of the world.”21

After more than a decade of Josiah’s reform effort, as dismal as it may have been to the eyes of Jeremiah, the prophecy of the destruction of the temple—equating it to the destruction of the sanctuary of Shiloh in the north by the Assyrians—must have disheartened many in Judah, but it inflamed the priests and prophets of the temple. They seized him, crying, “You must die.” Word spread quickly throughout Jerusalem, and the court was summoned. The officials who sat in judgment gathered in the temple courtyard at the New Gate. The temple priests and prophets brought a charge of treason against Jeremiah because he foretold the destruction of the city and perhaps included the charge of speaking “presumptuously,” that is, pretending to speak on behalf of Yahweh, also a capital offense.22 Jeremiah repeated his warning that unless the people brought forth genuine moral reform, the temple and city would be destroyed. This word came from Yahweh, and while he acknowledged the right of the judges to find him guilty, if they killed him they would add the charge of innocent blood upon them. Perhaps the warning about innocent blood, which would bring the vengeance of Yahweh, swayed the court. The judges, with the support of the people of the land who had gathered, told the temple officials that Jeremiah did not deserve death for speaking on behalf of Yahweh. Some of the elders reminded the court that the prophet Micah had also pronounced doom against the temple of Yahweh and the city of Jerusalem in the days of Hezekiah, and Micah had not been put to death for it. In the end, certain prominent men protected Jeremiah, and he was acquitted. A fellow prophet, Uriah from Kiriat Jearim, however, also prophesied against Jerusalem and was forced to flee for his life to Egypt. Uriah was captured and returned to Judah, where the king



From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem   23

executed him by the sword and cast his body into a grave of the commoners. From that time on, Jeremiah’s life was in danger.

1.5 The Neo-Babylonian Empire During the reign of Jehoiakim, in 605, Necho took his army to support Assyria in a last-ditch battle against the Babylonians at Carchemish, an ancient city on the west bank of the Euphrates River that commanded a strategic crossing for caravans. Both armies suffered great losses, but Nebuchadrezzar, son of Nabopolassar and crown prince, won the battle. Necho fled back to the Nile Delta, and Egyptian control of Syria-Palestine came to an end. Jeremiah interpreted the defeat and rout of the Egyptian army as the sign that Yahweh, Lord of Hosts, had made Egypt his enemy, and all who sided with Egypt were therefore against God.23 Soon after the battle, Nebuchadrezzar returned to Babylon at the death of his father and assumed the crown. From this point on, king Nebuchadrezzar set his gaze westward, and for 3 years he engaged in a series of campaigns along the Mediterranean coast from Tyre to Egypt. Jehoiakim soon submitted to the new empire, and the king of Babylon could not have had a greater ally in Jerusalem than the prophet Jeremiah. In 601 Nebuchadrezzar attacked Egypt but met with a serious defeat, so he returned to Babylon to regroup. At this time, bands of Syrians, Moabites, and Ammonites harassed Judah. These raids may have been due to uncertain power structure between Babylon and Egypt or may have been sponsored by Nebuchadrezzar as a means of weakening Judah and gaining prisoners. Jehoiakim, at any rate, allied Judah with Egypt and Tyre against Babylon. This alliance went against the advice of Jeremiah, who prophesied the defeat of Egypt, taunting Necho as the “Noisy One” who missed his chance, or All Talk and No Action.24 Jeremiah by now had shown his hand, or the side on which Yahweh stood: In the clash of two great empires, Jeremiah continued to favor Babylon over Egypt, and this set him against a powerful faction of Judah with whom he would battle to the end of his life. In 599, Nebuchadrezzar resumed his advance west. He plundered Arab towns to the east of Palestine, and the following year (598/597) he attacked Palestine. In the ninth month (Kislev) he laid siege to Jerusalem. On the second day of the twelfth month (Adar = February 15/16 or March 15/16, 597) he captured Jerusalem. Although we have conflicting traditions on the death of Jehoiakim, the king appears to have died before the fall of Jerusalem and was succeeded by his son, Jehoiachin. When Nebuchadrezzar approached the city, Jehoiachin “gave himself up to the king of Babylon.”25 The king, along with a number of the upper class, soldiers, and artisans, was exiled to Babylon. One source gives the number of exiles at 10,000, another at 8,000, and a third gives 3,023.26 But the small number of exiles included most of the ruling class. Among the deportation, the priest Ezekiel son of Buzi would soon become Yahweh’s voice in exile. Nebuchadrezzar stripped Jerusalem and its temple of its removable wealth. He set the third son of Josiah, Mattaniah, the uncle of Jehoiachin, on the throne of a gutted Judah and gave him the throne name of Zedekiah as a token of his vassalage to Babylon.

24   Vines Intertwined

Zedekiah became king of Judah at a difficult time. With the cream of the population in exile, the king found himself bereft of aristocratic support and council. But he had the erstwhile Jeremiah, who compared those who remained in Judah to rotten figs and saw the future of Judah in the good figs in exile.27 Zedekiah, however, was not a visionary, and his prophets gave him conflicting advice. From the position of Judah, Babylon was far away, and while it was clearly the dominant empire, Egypt was at hand and no mean power itself, with an illustrious heritage and long time relations with Judah. Out of this reality, Zedekiah had to make the decisions of alliance or submission. In 596/595, Nebuchadrezzar repulsed an attack by the kingdom of Elam, and the following year he put down a rebellion within Babylon itself.28 These events unsettled the Babylonian Empire, and the accession of Psamtik II to the throne of Egypt in 595 added to the uncertainty felt in Judah, and together stimulated aspirations of independence from Babylon among the smaller vassal kingdoms in the region. It is against this political turmoil that the great clash of the prophets must be understood.29 Early in the reign of Zedekiah, there seems to have been some negotiations between Zedekiah and the vassal kings of Edom, Moab, the Ammonites, Tyre, and Sidon that smacked of resistance to Babylon. Yahweh commanded Jeremiah, “Make yourself thongs and yoke-bars, and put them on your neck.” Jeremiah, wearing his symbolic yoke, then prophesied to all the vassal kings that the entire region would be put under the yoke of Babylon because Yahweh had given all the lands to Nebuchadrezzar. To Zedekiah he said, “Bend your necks,” I told him, “to the yoke of the king of Babylon; serve him and his people and you will survive. . . . Do not listen to the words the prophets say to you, ‘You will not be enslaved by the king of Babylon.’ They prophesy lies to you. Since I have not sent them, Yahweh declares, they prophesy untruths to you in my name. The result will be that I shall drive you out, you will perish, and so will the prophets who prophesy to you.”30

Shortly after Jeremiah’s warning, a rival prophet, Hananiah from Gibeon, confronted Jeremiah in the presence of all the priests and the people who filled the temple courtyard. Hananiah declared, Yahweh Sabaoth, the God of Israel, says this, “I have broken the yoke of the king of Babylon. In exactly two years’ time I shall bring back all the vessels of the Temple of Yahweh which Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon took away from here and carried off to Babylon. And I shall also bring back Jeconiah son of Jehoiakim, king of Judah and all the exiles of Judah who have gone to Babylon, Yahweh declares, for I shall break the yoke of the king of Babylon.”31

Jeremiah still wore the symbolic yoke across his shoulders, the sign of his word from Yahweh. But he responded to Hananiah with a swift “Amen! May Yahweh do so.” Hananiah’s word from Yahweh was a peace oracle; Jeremiah’s a war oracle. Jeremiah reminded all who listened that he stood in a long line of prophets who prophesied “war, famine, and pestilence,” but a prophet of peace was a novelty indeed, and if peace came, all would know that Hananiah spoke for Yahweh. Hananiah then



From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem   25

performed his own symbolic act. He tore the yoke bars from Jeremiah’s neck and broke them, repeating his verdict: Yahweh says this, “This is how, in exactly two years’ time, I shall break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon and take it off the necks of all the nations.”32

We can imagine the consternation among the crowd. One of the prophets of Yahweh was a false prophet, but which? It may have been that even Jeremiah had some doubt, for he simply walked away. Soon after, however, empowered by a new oracle from Yahweh, he confronted Hananiah again in the public square. Jeremiah charged Hananiah with false prophecy and predicted that he would die because of it. Two months later, the tradition informs us, Hananiah died. At this time, King Zedekiah dispatched a delegation to Babylon, and Jeremiah sent an oracle of Yahweh with them to the leaders of the exiled community in Babylon. There were other prophets predicting a short exile, and Jeremiah sought to counter the false prophecy, as well as give hope to the exiles. He reminded them that Yahweh had sent them into exile, but not to destroy them. He urged them to thrive, to plant and build, to give their sons and daughters in marriage and bring forth a second and third generation. He then spoke words that for the Jews would reverberate across the centuries: Work for the good of the city to which I have exiled you; pray to Yahweh on its behalf, since on its welfare yours depends.33

The word of encouragement to the exiles became, in due course, the blessing of Yahweh upon the dispersion of the Jews as they spread out across the whole Mediterranean world. At the time, however, certain leaders in the Babylonian exile community rejected such a commitment to a long exile and wrote to the priest in Jerusalem, asking why he had not put the madman Jeremiah in stocks and collar. Shortly after the first delegation to Babylon, Zedekiah went to renew his oath of loyalty to Nebuchadrezzar. Among the royal delegation was the scribe Seraiah, brother of the scribe Baruch. Jeremiah sent another letter by the hand of Seraiah in which he predicted the fall of Babylon. Seraiah was to read it to the exiles, then wrap it around a rock and cast it into the Euphrates, symbolizing the sinking of Babylon, with the message that the exile would eventually end.34 The two messages from Jeremiah may also have inspired Ezekiel son of Buzi, for in the following year (593) he began seeing visions and launched his prophetic ministry of chastisement and consolation to the community of exiles.35 Jeremiah remained a free man for a few years, protected by his own supporters, but Zedekiah continued to vacillate under the persistent pressure from the proEgyptian party in Judah, as well as the surrounding kingdoms. Hophra (Apries) ascended to the throne of Egypt in 589, and within a year—and against the advice of Jeremiah—Zedekiah broke his oath of loyalty to Babylon. Nebuchadrezzar laid siege to Jerusalem. Early in the campaign an Egyptian army came to the aid of Judah, and Nebuzaradan, the Babylonian commander, lifted the siege to confront the Egyptians. Jeremiah took the opportunity to return to Anathoth to arrange his affairs, but at the gate he was accused of deserting to the enemy. Despite his denial

26   Vines Intertwined

of treason, Jeremiah was beaten and thrown in prison. Zedekiah secretly summoned Jeremiah from prison and asked him for a word from Yahweh, but Jeremiah could only repeat the grim judgment he had given all along. Jeremiah then pleaded with the king that he not be returned to prison. Zedekiah, now virtually powerless against the pro-Egyptian faction, was able to have Jeremiah confined to the court of the guard, where Jeremiah was given a loaf of bread daily as long as grain could be found in Jerusalem. The Babylonian army dealt Pharaoh Hophra a crushing blow, and the Egyptians fled back to the Nile. Thereafter, the siege of Jerusalem resumed.

1.6 Fall of Jerusalem The siege of Jerusalem lasted 18 months, from January 588 to July 587 (or possibly 587–586). Jeremiah continued to prophesy doom, that the city would be given into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar and burned with fire. Though his advice of surrender went unheeded, his voice was not unheard. The leaders of the resistance came to Zedekiah and warned the king that Jeremiah was undermining the will of the people to resist Babylon. They must have come with force, because Zedekiah, admitting that he was powerless to confront them, gave Jeremiah into their power. They seized Jeremiah and lowered him by ropes into an empty cistern within the city, where the prophet’s voice could not be heard. There, left to die, he sank into the mud. But an Ethiopian, Ebed-melech, when he heard of Jeremiah’s plight, obtained permission from the king to rescue him. Together with three companions, they took rags and old clothes as padding, pulled Jeremiah out of his miry grave, and returned him to the court of the guard. Jeremiah no doubt agreed to remain silent. In July of 587 (or 586), the Babylonian army breached the northern wall of Jerusalem. When Zedekiah saw the army captains sitting at the gate, he fled the city out a back way but was soon captured. Jeremiah’s assurance that he would die in peace must have rung hollow as Babylonian judgment was rendered. His sons were slain before his eyes, and then his eyes were gouged out. This sightless and defeated figure led away in chains to Babylon offered the people a trenchant symbol of the end of Judah. Nebuchadrezzar delayed the destruction of the city for a month. Destruction of cities and temples was not his modus operandi. He desired a loyal kingdom of Judah and he may have consulted various figures in Judah as how best to achieve his goal. If so, he likely consulted Jeremiah. In the end, the decision to destroy the city of Jerusalem and its central temple deprived the Yahweh nationalists of their primary rallying cry, that the city of Yahweh’s throne could never be destroyed.36 After a month, the walls of the city of Jerusalem were torn down, the palaces burned, and the temple in like manner destroyed. Nebuchadrezzar carried off the remaining bronze utensils of the temple, including the great bronze bath and pillars, as scrap metal, and whatever remained of the gold and silver. He beheaded Seraiah the high priest (not to be confused with the scribe Seraiah) and imprisoned his son Jehozadak in Babylon, along with Zedekiah. Josephus tells us that after Zedekiah died, Nebuchadrezzar gave him a royal burial and released the high priest Jehozadak



From Josiah to the Fall of Jerusalem   27

from prison.37 Jehozadak fathered a son, Jeshua, who would someday return to Jerusalem as the first high priest of the new temple. No mention is made of the Ark of the Covenant in the historical record. The ark may have been returned to the temple from some storage place during the reform of Josiah, and if so, it was most likely carried off with the best utensils during the first exile in 597, or with the booty after the destruction, and broken up for the gold it contained.38 This end to the ark is supported by the later lament that the “ark of our covenant was plundered” and a tradition that it was carried off to Babylon.39 At some point, either before or after the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah prophesied that the people would no longer speak of the Ark of the Covenant of Yahweh, for it will not be remembered, missed, or be constructed again.40 Despite the prophecy, a legend persisted that Jeremiah hid the ark from the Babylonians in a cave in the mountain where Moses died,41 while another legend claimed that Josiah had already hidden the ark under a rock in the temple precinct, where it remained hidden throughout the Second Temple era, and perhaps to this day.42 After the dust settled, the captain of the guard, Nebuzaradan, under a direct order from King Nebuchadrezzar, offered Jeremiah carte blanche liberty, whether to go Babylon under his protection or to remain in the land under the protection of Gedaliah, whom the king had appointed governor of the cities of Judah. Jeremiah chose to remain. He received a food allowance and a gift from Nebuzaradan and entered into the house of Gedaliah at Mizpah.43

Chapter 2

Exile and Return (586–500 b.c.e.)

2.1 Judah During the Exile After the destruction of Jerusalem in August of 587, the scraps of historical record in the book of Jeremiah tell of anarchy in the land of Judah. Gedaliah set up his administration at Mizpah, a town some 8 miles north of Jerusalem.44 As word of the new administration in Judah spread to the neighboring kingdoms, many Judaean refugees returned to Judah. Gedaliah also met with four military commanders who came out of hiding. He assured them all that if they now remained loyal to Babylon, he would intercede for them. Then he set about to repair the land and urged the people to gather the wine and summer fruit, which they did in great abundance. It happened that one of the military leaders among the Judaean refugees, Ishmael ben Nethaniah, a member of the royal Davidic line, led a band of Judaeans still opposed to the dominion of Babylon. They assassinated Gedaliah, his household, and a small garrison of Babylonian troops.45 They also slaughtered eighty pilgrims from the north who had come to offer gifts and burn incense in the desolate temple courts. The bodies of the slain were cast into a large cistern. Military skirmishes followed, and Ishmael escaped with his men to Ammon, where they sought protection from Baalis, king of Ammon, who had supported the plot against Gedaliah. The account given in the book of Jeremiah implies of the administration of Gedaliah that his assassination occurred within a few months, that is, in October of the same year Jerusalem was destroyed. But the memory of Gedaliah was sufficiently honored that his death was still commemorated by a fast in the early postexilic era and is noted to this day on the third of Tishri.46 The book of Jeremiah also tells of a third deportation of 745 Judaeans in the twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar, 582.47 There is some evidence that Nebuchadrezzar campaigned in Palestine and Egypt in 582–581.48 The deportation recorded in Jeremiah would have been in reprisal for the murder of Nebuchadrezzar’s appointed governor of Judah. If so, the most plausible scenario is that Gedaliah’s administration lasted several years, and among the peasant Judaeans who remained, it marked a hopeful beginning for a renewal of the devastated land. After Nebuchadrezzar removed the ruling elite and the supporting classes from Judah, it was understood by those who remained that Yahweh had punished Judah for its sins, and they naturally concluded that the wicked had been removed and



Exile and Return   29

“God’s people” remained. The land, once belonging to their evil oppressors, now belonged to them, along with the promises given to Abraham. They said, “Abraham was only one man, yet he got possession of the land; but we are many; the land is surely given us to possess.” This view was not shared by the repentant Judaeans in exile, as their spokesman, Ezekiel, attests: Thus says the Lord God: You eat flesh with the blood, and lift up your eyes to your idols, and shed blood; shall you then possess the land? You depend on your swords, you commit abominations, and each of you defiles his neighbor’s wife; shall you then possess the land? Say this to them, Thus says the Lord GOD: As I live, surely those who are in the waste places shall fall by the sword; and those who are in the open field I will give to the wild animals to be devoured; and those who are in strongholds and in caves shall die by pestilence. I will make the land a desolation and a waste, and its proud might shall come to an end; and the mountains of Israel shall be so desolate that no one will pass through. Then they shall know that I am the Lord, when I have made the land a desolation and a waste because of all their abominations that they have committed.

For Ezekiel, the claim of divine provision made by those remaining in Judah was completely at odds with divine purpose. Yahweh intended to purge the land, and divine favor rested on the exiles in Babylon.49 After the assassination of Gedaliah, Nebuchadrezzar probably removed Jehoiachin from his privileged status among the exiles in Babylon and imprisoned the king. The justification for imprisonment was that Jehoiachin had either ordered the assassination or had sanctioned it by Ishmael, a member of his household. This will have dashed the hopes of the Davidic family and its supporters in exile that they might yet return to Judah. The Judaeans remaining in Judah feared a reprisal by Babylon, and amid the chaos, a group of Jews came to Jeremiah, begging from him a word from Yahweh that would tell them what to do. They promised to abide by whatever he said. He told them that if they remained in the land, they should not fear Babylon, for Yahweh would protect them, but if they fled to Egypt, they would die there, abandoned by Yahweh. Likely the people of the land would have followed the word of Jeremiah, but not the leaders. They accused Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch of lying, and soon after, a good portion of the people fled to Egypt. They took all the household of Gedaliah and forced Jeremiah the prophet and his faithful scribe to go with them. Jeremiah was now a worn but well-used man of nearly 60 years. In the final act of his drama, we see him among the community of Judah’s refugees at Tahpanhes, a city in the Nile Delta region of Egypt. At the command of Yahweh, he buried large stones in the mud outside an official Egyptian building. These stones, said Jeremiah, would serve as a base for the throne of Nebuchadrezzar when he came to subjugate Egypt and delouse the land of its Judaean exiles, like a shepherd cleans out the vermin from his cloak.50 Disbelieved to the end, the curtain closed on Jeremiah as he listened to the Judaean refugees blame their plight not on disobedience to Yahweh but to the fact that they ceased to offer sacred cakes to the Queen of Heaven and pour out libations

30   Vines Intertwined

to her. In a persistent struggle to understand the gods, they believed all their woes began when Josiah stopped the worship of the Queen of Heaven.51 Over the next 40 years, three distinct communities of former Judaeans struggled to survive. In Egypt, the refugees of Judah added their numbers to the Judaeans who had settled along the Nile during the previous two centuries, in the Delta region, in Memphis, and in Pathros, the region of Upper Egypt, as far as Elephantiné, a small island in the Nile near the first cataract.52 The Jews of Egypt retained a form of syncretistic Yahweh worship, which over time either died out or conformed to the dominant religion of Yahweh from Jerusalem. In 582, Nebuchadrezzar sent his Babylonian Imperial Guard to subdue Judah, Moab, and Ammon, whose king had harbored the assassins of Gedaliah. The last of the exiles, 745 Judaeans, were removed to Babylon, and the remaining Judaeans in Judah fell under the domineering yoke of Babylon without the benefit of a Judaean governor. Babylonian governors harvested as much tribute for the king as they could, and the people of the land suffered for two generations. Those born at this time will have only heard of the former land and will have had small hope of a restoration or reason to worship the god Yahweh. It is, perhaps, at this time that an anonymous poet composed the final poem in the book of Lamentations (5:2–5): Our inheritance has been turned over to strangers, our homes to aliens. We have become orphans, fatherless; our mothers are like widows. We must pay for the water we drink, the wood we get must be bought. With a yoke on our necks we are hard driven; we are weary, we are given no rest.

2.2 Exile in Babylon While Nebuchadrezzar secured a kingdom greater than that of Assyria, he also launched a massive building program to restore the glory of the city of Babylon, most of which now lies buried beneath modern Baghdad. Nebuchadrezzar repaired the walls and embankments that controlled the Euphrates River, which ran through the city of Babylon, as well as protecting the lowland flood zone. He spent much of his remaining 43-year rule rebuilding the temples of Marduk, Ishtar of Agade, Shamash, and other deities, as well as law courts and an administrative center to unite the many peoples incorporated into his empire. But the most enduring monuments of his building enterprise were the ziggurat of Marduk, which we suppose inspired the biblical story of the Tower of Babel, and the famed Hanging Gardens. Neither monument has survived, but the estimates of more than 300 million bricks, including many glazed and separately cast to form modeled reliefs on the walls, attest to the vast numbers of laborers employed by the king, many of whom were imported specialists. Exiled Judaeans skilled in construction were quickly added to their number, whether in Babylon or in the reconstructions of other cities, especially Nippur.53 The immense building program of Nebuchadrezzar, designed to return Babylon to its glory under Hammurabi, was accompanied by his desire to be known as the “king of justice,” to be a wise king who sided with the poor, the widow, the weak,



Exile and Return   31

and brought them justice against all oppressors. He “ceaselessly worked to please the great lord god Marduk and for the betterment of all peoples and the settling of the land of Babylonia.”54 For the Judaeans who remembered Jeremiah’s admonition to pray to Yahweh for the welfare of the city of their exile, however, they were reaping the blessings of Yahweh. Nebuchadrezzar settled the Judaean deportees in a few sites along the Chebar canal, north of the ancient city of Nippur, which lay between the Tigris and Euphrates about 150 km southeast of Babylon. The Chebar canal departed the river Euphrates and flowed near the city of Nippur, to return to the Euphrates south of the city. The known list of settlements are Tel-aviv (Tel-abib), Tel-melah, Tel-harsha, Keruv (Cherub), Addan, and Immer, and perhaps Kassifia (Casiphia), which apparently held a treasury and is usually included among the settlements in Babylonia.55 Three of the sites were on mounds (Arabic, tel), the ruins of earlier settlements. With very little information about communities of the Babylonian exile, we must extrapolate from references in later sources.56 A cuneiform text from 498 reveals another place settled by Judaeans called “the city (of) Judah,” perhaps near Sippar. All evidence suggests the Judaean exiles quickly turned their attention to survival, and then to thriving among the native and foreign peoples that dwelt in the fertile land of Babylon. The Judaeans were indeed exiles, but far from slaves, and competing with other groups of exiles, they proved themselves able to succeed within the rise of the celebrated Neo-Babylonian Empire. Those who knew agriculture farmed the lands around their villages. Artisans plied their trade or were employed in the many building projects of Nebuchadrezzar, as well as supporting tasks. Others, with connections and means, turned to finance and trade. Ancient traditions preserved in the book of Daniel tell the believable tale of gifted Jews rising within the court of the king as advisors. Nebuchadrezzar granted King Jehoiachin an elevated position in exile, and he would have retained some sort of court. He sired sons and grandsons who kept the Davidic royal family alive. The exiles used his reign as their calendar, which coincided with the first year of exile.57 Stability and success may be inferred from the fact that within two generations the Judaeans were able to provide substantial gifts to those who wished to return to Judah. The Murashû archive, a collection of accounting tablets of the Murashû family (ca. 454–416), attest to some eighty personal names of Jewish descent involved in economic and legal matters. The individuals rarely did business on the sabbath but otherwise blended into the general life of Babylon as small landowners, officials, and witnesses.58 Nebuchadrezzar established his son, Amel-Marduk (the biblical Evil-Merodach), as heir, and upon his death in 562, Amel-Marduk took the throne of Babylon. The new king concentrated on the internal affairs of his vast empire, and among his initial acts, he released the aging king of Judah, Jehoiachin, from prison, where he had likely been constrained since the assassination of Gedaliah. According to an addition to the book of Jeremiah, Amel-Marduk gave Jehoiachin a seat of honor above those of other kings exiled in Babylon.59 Amel-Marduk’s reign was cut short after 2 years. Neriglissar, a leading general under Nebuchadrezzar, led a conspiracy to assassinate the king, and he took the

32   Vines Intertwined

throne.60 The change of power, although probably due to tribal conflicts, passed smoothly. Restoration of the city continued, and in the third year of his reign, 557, Neriglissar marched west to secure the territory of east Cilicia, and though having succeeded, he died the following year on his return to Babylon. The chosen heir, Labashi-Marduk, reigned for 3 months. Another band of conspirators assassinated him, and power again shifted to a new leader, Nabonidus, “Praised be Nabu,” whom Berossus calls a priest of Bel. It is possible that Nabonidus married a daughter of Nebuchadrezzar, as Neriglissar had done, so that his son, Bel-sharra-usar (the king Belshazzar of Dan 5), was a grandson of the great king. Nabonidus is remembered for his efforts to continue the religious revival begun by Nebuchadrezzar, the restoration and patronage of temples in the great cities. The queen mother, Adad-guppi, devoted herself to the moon god, Sin, and the particular attention Nabonidus payed to the Ehulhul temple of Sin at Haran came at the expense of Marduk, the city god of Babylon, and quickly made enemies within the powerful priesthood of Babylon. After a military campaign in Syria, Nabonidus turned his attention to securing the southern trade route. He made Belshazzar co-regent in the heartland of the empire, while he campaigned across the Arabian Peninsula as far as Edom and settled in Tema (modern Teima) in Arabia, an oasis along the ancient incense road. There, Nabonidus dwelt for 10 years, establishing his control as far as Medina. Why Nabonidus went into self-imposed exile is not clear, and the fact that he did not return to Babylonia at the death of his revered mother in the ninth year of his reign suggests his reason for doing so was more than consolidating the trade routes of Arabia. The Prayer of Nabonidus, discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls, tells of a Jewish exile who taught Nabonidus a prayer by which he was healed from a plague of boils. While there is no confirmation of a plague on Nabonidus, such a disease would provide a good reason for his sojourn in the desert. During the decade of the king of Babylon’s isolation, Cyrus of Persia rose to power. Cyrus was born around 590, probably in Parsa, the modern Iranian province of Fars on the eastern coast of the Persian Gulf. The origin of the Persian (Iranian) peoples remains unknown, except they are part of the Indo-Iranian (Aryan) migrations from central Asia that crossed the Zagros Mountains around 1000 b.c.e. and mingled with the ancient Elamites. Sometime after 692, when the Elamite king Kudur-Nahunte still called himself king of Anshan, a new ruler called Kurash came to the throne and founded the Achaemenid dynasty, known first as the king of Parsua and later, by the time of Cyrus, the king of Anshan. Cyrus inherited the throne of Parsa around 560. Within a few years he had consolidated his power and formed an alliance with the new king of Babylon, Nabonidus, against Astyages, king of the Medes. By 550, Cyrus defeated Astyages and became king of the Medes and the Persians. Cyrus then turned his attention to the northwest territory of Anatolia (Greek “the east” = Asia Minor = modern Turkey). His expansion met little resistance until Croesus, king of Lydia and inventor of the coin as a medium of trade, did battle in central Anatolia in 547. According to Herodotus, after an indecisive battle near the Halys River in central Anatolia, Croesus returned to Lydia to strengthen his army, supposing Cyrus would not continue the attack during the winter. But



Exile and Return   33

Cyrus did pursue and met up with Croesus in the plain of Lydia outside of Sardis. Acting on the advice of a Median general, Cyrus placed his baggage camels at the fore, with mounted men equipped for battle. The strange odor of the camels set the Lydian horses in disarray, and they fled, leaving the cavalry no choice but to dismount and confront the Persians on foot. Cyrus swiftly won the battle and took Sardis. He brought Croesus captive back to the city of Persis and left his generals to assert control of Anatolia.61 During the next few years, Cyrus consolidated his command of the eastern empire of the Medes while preparing to advance on Babylon. An uneasy anticipation lay like a mist over Babylon in the years between 546 and 539. The foresight of peasants and day laborers sufficed to predict that Cyrus would invade Babylon. The certainty that Cyrus would succeed was a political calculation, one that many Babylonians among the upper classes were preparing to facilitate. Certain Judaeans, aware of the unrest and dissatisfaction, were making their own preparations. Toward the end of the decade, we hear the voice of an anonymous prophet whose words have been attached to those of the prophet Isaiah and therefore called by moderns Deutero-Isaiah. The prophet declared Cyrus an anointed one of Yahweh. Thus says Yahweh to his anointed one, to Cyrus whom, he says, I have grasped by his right hand, to make the nations bow before him and to disarm kings, to open gateways before him so that their gates be closed no more: I myself shall go before you, I shall level the heights, I shall shatter the bronze gateways, I shall smash the iron bars. I shall give you secret treasures and hidden hoards of wealth, so that you will know that I am Yahweh, who calls you by your name, the God of Israel. It is for the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, that I have called you by your name, have given you a title though you do not know me. I am Yahweh, and there is no other, there is no other God except me. Though you do not know me, I have armed you so that it may be known from east to west that there is no one except me. I am Yahweh, and there is no other, I form the light and I create the darkness, I make well-being, and I create disaster, I, Yahweh, do all these things.62

By this declaration of the sovereignty of Yahweh over the nations, and the singular existence of true Deity, the prophet has scaled a new mountaintop of Jewish theology. There remained only the task of surrounding Yahweh with the heavenly hosts and distinguishing between the good and evil angels. Babylonia and Syria had suffered a drought in 545, which came to an end in 543, the year Nabonidus returned to Babylon from Arabia. Nabonidus finished building the temple of Sin in Harran and restored the Sin cult, sacred also in southern ancient city of Ur. The religious reform was no doubt meant to unify the empire under the god Sin. What it did, however, was unify the priests of Marduk in Babylon against Nabonidus over his neglect of Babylon. In 539, Nabonidus celebrated the new year festival in Babylon while Cyrus marshaled his forces for an assault on Babylon. The advance came in October of that year. The northern defenses in Opis along the Tigris fell quickly, and Sippar surrendered without a battle. Nabonidus, powerless without significant support among the priesthood, fled to Babylon. Two days later the Persian army entered Babylon without opposition. Belshazzar was immediately slain, and Nabonidus

34   Vines Intertwined

soon surrendered. Cyrus exiled Nabonidus to the province of Carmania in central Persia, where the last king of the Neo-Babylonian empire lived out his life.63

2.3 Cyrus of Persia Cyrus entered Babylon on the third day of Marcheshvan (30 October) to the acclamation of the people. He dutifully attributed his victory to the will of Marduk, who surveyed and looked throughout all the lands, searching for a righteous king whom he would support. He called out his name: Cyrus, king of Anshan; he pronounced his name to be king over all (the world).64

Cyrus ordered all deities to be returned to their cities and lands, and he resettled displaced peoples in peace. Among the peoples given leave to return to their ancestral homeland, we may count the Judaeans, whose tradition states simply: Thus says Cyrus king of Persia, “Yahweh, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth, and he has charged me to build him a house at Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever is among you of all his people, may Yahweh his God be with him. Let him go up.”65

Despite the obscure and conflicting accounts, it is likely that Cyrus did give the Judaeans permission to return to Judah and placed the temple vessels into the care of a leading Judaean emissary known to us as Sheshbazzar, and called a prince of Judah.66 He may have been a descendant of the royal line but need not be, since the account in Ezra imitates the first exodus from Egypt, in which heads of tribes are called princes.67 Cyrus, in any case, would have chosen a respected leader among his Judaean subjects for the task of rebuilding the temple. Sheshbazzar, also called the governor of Judah, led a select group of Judaean exiles back to Jerusalem in 538 and began the massive work of clearing the temple ruins.68 It is not clear whether he succeeded in laying a base foundation for the rebuilding of the temple or left the task to others, but the anticipation of a new beginning for Judah soon gave way to the realities of economy and politics. Such a beginning, then, is all that Sheshbazzar achieved, and thereafter he disappears from history. The Judaeans who returned had to reclaim their lost land and make peace with the Judaeans who had remained, as well as with immigrants and opportunists from the surrounding territories who had staked a claim and given birth to new generations of natives. All disputes over property would have to be settled within a legal system established by Persia. So it is no surprise that the temple project stalled, and of the next 16 years we are told nothing. But during this time, thousands more returned to Judah. Cyrus set his son Cambyses on the throne of Babylon while he embarked on building projects and palaces and extending his reach to the northeast between Bactria and the Aral Sea. On one such campaign in 530, according to Herodotus, Cyrus died in battle against a nomadic people called the Massagetai. This people



Exile and Return   35

was ruled by a widowed queen, Tomyris, who warned Cyrus that he should withdraw and be content with the land he possessed. After an initial battle in which the queen’s son was captured, Tomyris sent a herald demanding the return of her son, and if Cyrus refused, she warned, “I shall give even you who can never get enough of it your fill of blood.” The captured son, however, had already committed suicide, so they joined in battle. The full remaining force of the Massagetai engaged Cyrus and defeated him. The warrior queen filled a skin with human blood, and when she had located the slain Cyrus, she dunked his head in the blood, that he should at last have his fill. Herodotus assures us that of the many stories about the death of Cyrus, this is the most credible, and in the absence of a rival account, it has lived on in annals of ancient lore.69 Despite his ignoble end after having reached too far in his empire building, Cyrus retained the praise of posterity as few other conquerors had. The Elamites, Medes, and Babylonians accepted him quickly as their legitimate ruler, and so did the Judaeans. Key to his success was a desire to befriend the religious leaders of any people and pay due respect to their gods. Cyrus himself probably worshiped Ahura Mazda, but he gave credit to both Marduk and Yahweh for his victory in Babylon.

2.4 Cambyses Cambyses (530–522) assumed the throne of Persia and spent the next few years preparing to invade Egypt. In 526 he launched his campaign. Arabs provided camel trains of water as he crossed the desert, and Phoenicians provided a fleet of ships to provision the troops as they penetrated the Nile delta. The aged Pharaoh Amasis died while Cambyses marched on Egypt, and the new Pharaoh, Psamtik III, buckled beneath the onslaught and was soon captured in Memphis. In the summer of 525, Cambyses became ruler of Upper and Lower Egypt. Following the policy of his father, he was careful not to be seen as a foreign usurper but as the legitimate Pharaoh of Egypt. Cambyses attempted to bring the Ethiopians of Meroë under his domain, but for lack of supplies he failed. Herodotus describes Cambyses as going mad after his failed campaign against Ethiopia, perhaps due to an illness contracted in the desert. He offended the Egyptians by wounding their sacred bull Apis and executing the leading men of Memphis; he offended his own Persian nobles by accusing them of treason and slaying their sons. Then, having already sent his younger brother, Smerdis, back to Babylon, he then feared his brother would take the throne and so sent a trusted commander to go and kill his brother. The fratricide was accomplished in Susa.70 While Cambyses returned to Babylon, word came that Smerdis had usurped the throne. In fact, a leading member of the magi, also called Smerdis according to Herodotus but called Gaumata by Darius, pretended to be the king’s brother Smerdis and took control of Babylon. Herodotus tells us that Cambyses, now quite mad, mounted his horse in such haste that the sheath of his dagger fell off, and he stabbed himself in the thigh, just where he had plunged his dagger into the Apis bull. He died soon after near Ecbatana. Without confirming the story, other sources agree that Cambyses

36   Vines Intertwined

B ( O

Der

Nippur

Ur

k R oa d

Samaria Shechem

Sa m ar ia

Gr

Shiloh

Ramah

RE

Ashkelon

Yeh u d

D

Gaza

Hebron

Bes or B

SE

I dumea

ro

A

ok

(Edomites)

THE N

Am

Mo

Kir-hareseth

EGEB

©2003 CHK America www.mapsusa.com

A

0 10 20 Kilometers

B

C

D

E

N Z ere Edom

AB

20 Miles

AB

10

AR

0

AH

AT

6

Jericho Jerusalem

(Judah)

Lachish

Jab b

Tob

EA

E

Ashdod

Jorda n R i ver

B eyo P h o nd e Th n i e c i a Ri v

e at

un Tr

od

er

GR

ia

Joppa

N

A

a Dor

Thebes

i le Ethiopia/Kush

Eshunna

on

i

Dedan

Syene/ Elephantine

Z

a

b

TH

R iv

. . B ab

Uruk/Erech

Tema

Egypt Edfu

Arrapkha

Sippar Babylon Borsippa

K e d a r

Dumah

Ezion-geber/ Elath

M

Euphr

Damascus

Heliopolis/On

Abydos

Tadmor

R.

Arbela

Asshur

S YRIAN D ESERT

Pelusium

Si nai

5

er

r

Memphis/Noph

4

Amathus Gebal(Byblos) Sidon Tyre

As

Nineveh

es

Lake Urmia

yl

Sais Naukratis Tahpanhes/Daphne

A r a r at/ Urartu

Carchemish Haran Arpad Aleppo Thapsacus Hamath

Salamis Kition Arvad

(Alexandria)

Melitene (Malatya)

T Ro a d M Com mag ene

A r ax

Lake Van

R

SEA

M u r a t R.

es

EAN

S.

l

Issus

Kyrenia

Soli

C

at

AN

ia Ci l ic

US

Roya

S.

Lake Seyan

i a R r Ti g r is s y

a

Cyprus

T

Tarsus

R AU

n

IN

Trapezus

Moschi/ Meshech

A

by

RR

yl

ia

Li

TE

L

3

DI

a

Cyrene

Gortyna

ME

Rhodos Xanthus (Rhodes)

ia

TA

d S ea

i

E

yc

UN

T h e D ea

Iconium Pa m p h

MO

us

Miletus C aria

ys R. s ia

US

yr

al

Lake Tuz

r

n

TH

Crete

Phasis

g hla Pa p a nga s R. r iu u m

Sardis Ephesus

AS

chi

s on ian

UC

Pe

o

S EA

Sinope

S

Mytilene

Thebes Marathon Corinth Athens Peloponnesus Samos Sparta

CA

D a s c Cappadocia l i Pteria? L y d i a P h Gordiony r y g i a Cimmerians H

Lesbos

I

2

Byzantium

Hellespont

T H E A EGEAN

E

Co l

Dorsicus

Thermopylae Delphi

D

T HE B LACK S EA

Thrace/ Scudra

Macedonia Thessaly

C

As

1

B

hd

A



Exile and Return   37

F

G

H

I

(Bokhara)

us

.

H y

Ecbatana (Achmetha) Behistun (Bisutun) OS

MT

r

m/ l a E us i a n a S

r

m

a

R

S

Gerrha?

Rabbah

N

SEA

n

TH

Heshbon

TS

E

A

TE

BA

d om

Bro

E S E R T

Antigonid kindgom 0

H

Region

Ptolemaic kindgom

0

G

City

Seleucid kindgom

ok

F

5

ELBURZ MTS. Geographic feature

S EA

Z ere d

KU

MEDIA

AN

D

R A B I A N

Pattala

OF P ERSIA with Divisions of the Empire of Alexander the Great

BI

A

du

T H E E MPI R E

RA

Moa b

SH

M

i a

A

A m mo n

eseth

U

Gedrosia/ Maka

Pura

s R.

(Gulashkird)

4

In

PE

To b i a d s

3

(Kandahar)

Kerman

a

E IA

Jab b o k R .

Sattagydia

Arachosia

C

a P e r s i

TH G i l ea d

Parsagarda (Pasargadae)

(Ghazni)

a Ari

Yazd

Anshan (Tall-i-Malyan) Persepolis

a

. us R

Drangiana

Gabae (Isfahan)

Susa (Shushan)

Arei

Artacoana

P a r t h i a Sagartia

S.

actri

ND

n a

Rages (Rhagae)

us B R

Tesmes (Mashhad)

2

Gandhara

(Damghan)

S.

Zadrakarta (Turang Tepe)

Hin (In du di sh a)

e

ia

MT

Astrabad (Gorgan)

c

RZ

.

M

d

BU

Bactra

HI

i a

R

EL

Margiana (Margus)

rg Ma

ia

GR

us

.

Sogdiana

Ox

Chorasmia

.

yr

R.

sR

Cyropolis

S EA

C

xe

Saka (Scythians)

C ASPIAN

S.

1

rtes R .

THE

n

J

J ax a

A RAL S EA

I

Hellenistic provinces

100

200 Miles

100 200 Kilometers

J

6

38   Vines Intertwined

died on his return to Babylon and that a revolt had occurred in Babylon, led by a Magus called Gaumata. Following this revolt, the Revolt of the Magi, we rely on the famous Behistun (Bisitun) monument of Darius for his version of events. Darius, with the help of six others, put down the revolt, and he emerged as the strong man. He claimed an Achaemenid ancestry through a common great-great-grandfather with Cyrus and was therefore a legitimate successor to the throne. Darius became king of Persia in October 522, but almost immediately he was faced by revolts in various parts of the empire and rival claimants to the throne. According to the Res Gestae of Darius, inscribed on the Behistun monument, he fought nineteen battles in 1 year and took captive nine kings.71 By mid-521, Darius had secured his position and entered into a long and stable reign of 38 years, until November of 486. It is here, then, that the story of the Judaeans resumes. Once Cambyses had brought the land of Egypt into the Persian Empire, the province Beyond the River, where Judah dwelt, took on new significance. The Judaeans who accompanied Sheshbazzar, as well as those who remained in Babylonia, were well aware of this, and soon after, a new leader, Zerubbabel, enters the history of the book of Ezra.

2.5 Return under Zerubbabel Darius (522–486) established a new empire structure of 20 satrapies. Egypt, including Cyprus and Lybia, comprised one satrapy; Babylon and Beyond the River was another. In order to secure the vast province of Egypt, which had recently broken away, Darius required a secure route through Phoenicia and down along the Mediterranean coast, including the small but strategic territory of Judah. The most effective policy was to set up local leaders who would remain loyal to the Persian crown. Darius made Ushtannu the satrap of Babylon and Ebirnari “Beyond the River,” and under him, Tattenai, the governor of Beyond the River only, and beneath Tattenai, a Judaean named Zerubbabel (Seed of Babylon) to be the governor of Judah. In the some 60 to 70 years since the destruction of the first temple, the exiled community in Babylon and the people of Judah who had remained in the land (and the few who had returned in 538) had grown further apart, so that in sheer economic terms, few if any in Judaea would have welcomed back the former ruling class. In the absence of the old elite, a new elite emerged, and most everyone who remained would have moved up the ladder of wealth. The return of exiles was a mixed blessing. If the immigrants brought wealth and renewed opportunity for wealth, all well and good. And if the temple were rebuilt, that too had advantages. But it is clear from the archeological record that a decree from Cyrus and the return to Zion made no significant impact on the demography of the land, and those who returned from exile must have been a mere trickle over two generations. The population remained between 30,000 to 40,000, rather less than half, perhaps a third, of what it had been during the last days of the kingdom of Judah.



Exile and Return   39

Zerubbabel arrived in Judah in August of 520, along with Jeshua son of Jehozadak, the grandson of the last officiating high priest before the exile, Seriah.72 It is not altogether clear what Zerubbabel and Jeshua were supposed to do, beyond watching over the king’s interests, ensuring the loyalty of the king’s subjects, and resuming the official worship of Yahweh, the god of the land, so that the land might prosper. But whatever the expectations of Babylon, the hopes of the beleaguered Judaeans likely revived at the sight of a royal descendant of David and a priest from the lineage of Zadok, the anointed chief priest of the temple under Solomon, a priest who could trace his genealogy back to Aaron.73 Immediately the prophet Haggai declared that the blessings of Yahweh depended on the completion of the house of Yahweh. Zerubbabel resumed the temple restoration, and within a week, they restored the altar and offered up sacrifices morning and evening.74 Work on the temple structure resumed, but when the foundation had been laid, amid the songs of praise and shouts of joy, the old priests and Levites who remembered the temple of Solomon from their youth wept aloud at so meager a foundation. Tradition recalls that weeping and joyful shouts mingled indistinguishably from Jerusalem.75 The discouragement of the elders who remembered the former glory and saw the present efforts as nothing must have dampened the enthusiasm of the others, for the prophet Haggai responded with a word from Yahweh. Once again, in a little while, I will shake the heavens and the earth and the sea and the dry land; and I will shake all nations, so that the treasures of all nations shall come in, and I will fill this house with splendor.76

Haggai was soon joined by another prophet, Zechariah, son of Berechiah, son of Iddo. The two prophets encouraged Zerubbabel and Jeshua to complete the temple quickly. They seem to have been aware of the prediction of Jeremiah that the exile would last 70 years, and counting from 587–586, the end would soon arrive, in 517–516. The full restoration of the kingdom of Yahweh appeared to be just on the horizon, but it was a new thing, not like the kingdom of old. Zechariah brought new visions of the overarching work of Yahweh. Zechariah saw Jeshua the “high priest” standing before the angel of Yahweh, with Satan at his right hand to accuse him. But Yahweh rebukes this new enemy of Judah and promises Jeshua that if he walks in the ways of Yahweh, he will rule the house of Yahweh.77 Again, in another vision, Zechariah saw a golden, seven-branch menorah between two olive trees, signifying the completion of the temple and the inauguration of Yahweh’s rule through his two “sons of oil,” his anointed ones.78 The essential diarchy of rule shared by the governor Zerubbabel, a prince of David, and the great priest Jeshua is of great significance to the formation of Judaism. The historian of Ezra remembered it as a matter of fact, but at the time, the prophets Haggai and Zechariah exulted in it. The rule of the Judaeans was to be lodged in two offices, and each office kept separate in its own domain, civil for the prince, and sacred for the high priest. That such a polity should appear well established on the scene suggests years of deliberation in Babylon. The king was Darius, and the oracles of the prophets are dated according to his reign. (The dated oracles of both Haggai and Zechariah took place within a period of just over 2 years,

40   Vines Intertwined

between August 520 and December 518.) With the king’s blessing, the Judaeans were free to re-establish the temple cult, which would honor and serve the true king Yahweh. When work on the temple resumed, leaders from Samaria came up to Jerusalem and offered to join in the rebuilding of the temple. According to Ezra (4:1–3), they claimed to have been worshiping the God of the Judaeans, including sacrifices, ever since they were settled in the land by the Assyrian king, Esar-haddon, in 676. Zerubbabel and Jeshua declined the offer, however, on the grounds that permission to rebuild the temple had been granted only to the Judaeans, and the Samarians had nothing to do with it. Although this confrontation would later be seen in both Samaritan and Jewish tradition as the start of the long antagonism between Jews and Samaritans that led to bad blood between the neighbors, it is most likely that the opponents of the Judaeans at this point were merely residents of the northern territory, Samarian leaders, not Samaritans claiming descent from the tribes of Israel and therefore with a right to the temple of Yahweh.79 After the temple construction was well under way, the Samarians brought their dispute to Tattenai, the governor of the province Beyond the River. In order to settle the matter, he questioned the authority of Zerubbabel to rebuild the temple. Told simply that Cyrus had decreed it years before, he sent a letter to Babylon asking for confirmation that Cyrus had authorized the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem. After some effort, the officials found a record of the decree in Ecbatana, where Cyrus had resided at the time. Darius then instructed Tattenai to ensure Zerubbabel’s completion of the temple with the aid of state funds, so that sacrifices to the God of heaven might resume and the Judaeans would “pray for the life of the king and his sons.”80 The letter of Darius, likely drafted with the help of Jewish advisors in Babylon, marks another step in the establishment of a political structure for the Jewish community under a Gentile monarch, which had begun with Jeremiah’s admonition to pray for the welfare of their cities in exile. Temple reconstruction resumed, and according to the tradition preserved in Ezra, it was completed in the sixth year of Darius the king, 516/515, remarkably close to 70 years after its destruction. In reality, it may have taken another decade or longer to finish, but sacrifices had already been made on the altar, and for purposes of the rituals and holy days, the temple was likely functioning. The following year priests and Levites sanctified themselves, and the Passover celebration resumed. Not only did the Judaeans who had returned from the exile eat the Passover lamb, but also proselytes who had separated themselves from idolatry and ritual impurity joined them.81 This is the last we hear of Zerubbabel and Jeshua. One imaginative reconstruction of events to explain the disappearance of Zerubbabel is that Darius removed the governor due to a nationalistic fervor inspired by Haggai and Zechariah over the leadership of a Davidic descendant and the elevated high priest, a movement that sought independence from Persia under a new Davidic ruler. While that is possible, the silence is equally explained by the stable tenure of a modest governor. Archaeological evidence reveals a governor named Elnathan soon after Zerubbabel, possibly his successor.82 The names of two other governors, Yehoezer and Ahzai, likewise appear on stamped jar handles that may be dated later than



Exile and Return   41

Elnathan but before Nehemiah. It appears, therefore, that Persian kings continued to appoint governors on an individual basis. Jeshua continued as the first high priest of the second temple and established stable relations with the subsequent Persian monarchs, as well as the governors of Beyond the River. The early “messianic” enthusiasm of Haggai and Zechariah was no doubt genuine but may be understood as the hope and expectation that the temple would be completed within the 70- (or 72-) year exile prophesied by Jeremiah and the need to rally the participation of a dispirited people. A theocratic, rather than a strictly political, reading places their words in a more theological perspective. Haggai’s final word is dated to December 18, 520: Speak to Zerubbabel governor of Judah. Say this, “I am going to shake the heavens and the earth. I shall overturn the thrones of kingdoms and destroy the power of the kings of the nations. I shall overthrow the chariots and their crews; horses and their riders will fall, every one to the sword of his comrade. When that day comes—Yahweh Sabaoth declares—I shall take you, Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel my servant—Yahweh declares— and make you like a signet ring. For I have chosen you—Yahweh Sabaoth declares.”83

This word of Yahweh, perhaps in response to a query by Zerubbabel concerning his future, seems to promise him kingship in the symbol of the signet ring, a symbol that Jeremiah used earlier when the despised Jehoichim was removed from Jerusalem in the same fashion as a signet ring might be removed from the hand of Yahweh.84 If so, the prophecy went unfulfilled. The prophecy, however, bears the marks of a more distant eschatology, similar to the “shake the heavens and the earth” of 2:6–9, and may have been the more distant vision of the prophet.85 Zechariah’s last dated prophecy, December 7, 518, deals with the fasts of the fifth and seventh months commemorating the destruction of the temple and the assassination of Gedaliah respectively.86 Thereafter, we are left with a historical lacuna that must be imagined. The people of Judah continued their struggle to survive in their land. They tilled the land and dressed their vines and prayed for rain. They married and had offspring to increase their wealth and security. While many remained faithful to Yahweh, survival did not allow the luxury of ritual refinement or fastidious observance of religious laws they may, or may not, have remembered.

Chapter 3

Restoration of Judah (500–400 b.c.e.)

While the Judaeans settled into their role of an obscure temple state at the western edge of the Persian Empire, the Greeks entered into the era that would be called the classical age. Homer’s Iliad and the Odyssey (ca. 750) were well established epics, and if legends may be believed, Thales (ca. 624–545), first of the seven wise men (sophoi), developed a rudimentary geometry and predicted the year of a solar eclipse, while Pythagoras (ca. 571–497) discovered numerical ratios and their impact on musical intervals. Anaximander (ca. 610–546) thought all life comes from the sea, and animals, including man, therefore evolved from fish. Now, a new class of literati would give the world tragedy, satire, and comedy: Aeshylus (ca. 525–456), Sophocles (ca. 496–406), Euripides (ca. 485–406), and Aristophanes (ca. 450–385). Anaxagoras (ca. 500–428) would bravely declare the sun was not a god, merely a very hot rock, and the moon was made of dirt like the earth. Anaxagoras was the first scientist to be condemned for impiety against the gods and exiled. Empedocles (ca. 484–424) postulated all things could be reduced to four elements, earth, air, fire, and water, and two forces, love and strife. Democritus (ca. 460–370) would propose an atomic theory that all things are comprised of indivisible particles, atomoi, which are combined in different patterns. Among the new class of thinkers, the sophists, Protagoras (ca. 490–420) would boldly declare: “Man is the measure of all things.” But then he wrote, “As to the gods, I have no means of knowing either that they exist or that they do not exist. For many are the obstacles that impede knowledge, both the obscurity of the question and the shortness of human life.”87 For this the Athenians expelled him and burned his books. Others would assume the inquirer’s mantle and orchestrate elaborate schemes of human knowledge: Socrates (ca. 469–399), Plato (ca. 428–348), and Aristotle (ca. 384–322). Herodotus of Halicarnassus in Anatolia (ca. 484–425), the father of history, traveled much of the eastern Mediterranean world in his effort to write his history of the Persian and Greek wars. King Darius of Persia inherited the lands of Anatolia from Cyrus the Great. The Mycenaean culture of western Anatolia invited expansion beyond the Hellespont (Dardanelles). In 512, Darius invaded the Balkans, and Amyntas I, king of Macedonia, became a Persian vassal. When the Athenians ousted their tyrant Hippias and fashioned a democracy in 510, Hippias fled to Persia. Darius demanded that Athens restore Hippias and offer the tokens of submission, earth and water, to the king of kings. The Athenians refused.



Restoration of Judah   43

In 500/499 the Ionian Greeks in Asia Minor revolted against Darius, but after a 6-year war they were suppressed and the inhabitants enslaved or relocated. In 492 Darius then sent an army to bring the Greek city-states into submission, and thus began the Persian Wars. The initial advance was thwarted when Darius lost most of his naval fleet in a storm, but in 490 a small force of about 25,000 landed on the plain of Marathon, where 10,000 Athenians confronted Darius and the battle of Marathon entered Greek lore forever. Of the ten Greek generals, Miltiades argued for an attack, which he reckoned, “if the gods are impartial,” the Athenians would have the better of it. The Greeks did attack, and won the battle. Herodotus claims the Persians lost 6,400 men while the Athenians counted their dead at 192.88 Xerxes ascended the throne of Persia in 486 and reigned until 465. The province of Yehud (Judaea), as best we can tell, continued to struggle. Recent archaeological surveys substantially correct the inflated population numbers recorded in the biblical sources. Jerusalem remained wretchedly poor and largely uninhabited, even though the temple and altar served as the cultic center. The population of Judah, including the hill country of Benjamin to the north of Jerusalem as far as Bethel, and south as far as En Gedi along the Dead Sea, appears to have hovered between 30,000 and 40,000, a meager lot in comparison with the more than 100,000 prior to the destruction under Nebuchadrezzar.89 Some who migrated from Babylon to Yehud regained their ancestral lands, and increased in wealth as their ancestors had done. Sons and daughters were given in marriage for reasons of love and alliances. Jews from Babylon married Jews who had remained, and Jews married Samaritans, Moabites, Edomites and no doubt a variety of others, even as Jews in Babylon were marrying among themselves or with Gentiles. Intermarriage may be inferred in Babylon from the mixtures of Babylonian and Jewish names, and in Yehud because it became a matter of conflict by the middle of the fifth century.

3.1 Ezra the Scribe The biblical books of Ezra and Nehemiah (a single book in the Hebrew canon) resume the written tradition of Judaeans during the reign of Artaxerxes (465–424), the son of Xerxes. The relationship of the two men, Ezra the scribe and Nehemiah the governor, remains one of the great enigmas in Jewish history. Did they know each other, and did Ezra precede or follow the mission of Nehemiah? Some have suggested the figure of Ezra is a later fiction.90 Under the strictest constraints of historical verification, we are left with few anchors in the sea of obscurity, and the result is a nagging frustration. However, the record of Nehemiah appears to be the more historically solid, and it is possible to exercise the historical imagination and reconstruct a plausible series of events drawn from the mélange of memories and later embellishments in the book Ezra-Nehemiah. One such plausible, and widely accepted, reconstruction goes as follows.91 The Jews in Babylon thrived while the Judaeans in Yehud stagnated. Despite a functioning temple, the land remained impoverished and without strong religious

44   Vines Intertwined

leadership. A certain Eliashib was probably serving as high priest. In 458 Artaxerxes authorized a Jewish priest and scribe, Ezra by name, to help stabilize the province of Yehud: he was to lead a delegation of Jews who wished to return to Yehud, convey various gifts and grants in support of the temple cult, conduct an inquiry in Judah and assess compliance to the law of his God, and to appoint magistrates and to teach the law. The recorded number of people in Ezra 2 who came up to Jerusalem (50,000), as well as the amounts of money at Ezra’s disposal (650 talents of silver, 100 talents of gold), are too fantastic to be historically relevant, but the embellishments, typical of ancient histories, need not undermine the historical event of a man called Ezra bringing people and funds to Jerusalem. A realistic number of those who came up with Ezra hovers around 1500 heads of families, or about 5000 in all (Ezra 8:1–14; 1 Esdras 8:1–36). Ezra, we are told, was a “scribe skilled in the Torah of Moses” (7:6). The Torah of Moses was at least a version of the book of Deuteronomy, or possibly the entire Pentateuch, although there were differences from our received text, which we should expect at such an early state of the five books of Moses. The king authorized the civil authorities to support Ezra’s enforcement of the law of God and the law of the king.92 The recognition of two law codes reflects the realpolitik that had existed since the destruction of Jerusalem, and this statement of two grounds for authority, sacral and civil, begins the distinction between the institutions of religion and government, that is, temple and state. In the preexilic era, the king of Judah was the head of state, which included the temple, but from second temple onward, the high priest emerges as the guardian of all matters of Yahweh, which are distinct from the affairs of the king.93 Shortly after Ezra arrived, on the first day of the seventh month, the people of Yehud gathered in the square before the Water Gate in Jerusalem. Ezra brought forth the Torah of Moses and read from it. Levites stood among the people and paraphrased it so the people could understand. The people answered “Amen, Amen” and bowed their heads and worshiped Yahweh with their faces to the ground. Ezra also initiated the celebration of Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles, which appears to have been an innovation for the people of the land, for it had not been done since the days of Joshua.94 Nevertheless, we are told that they happily went out into the hills to gather the appropriate branches, built booths on their roofs or in their courts, and dwelt in them for a week in commemoration of their ancestors wandering in the wilderness. A far less pleasant task that came before Ezra was to confront a number of Jewish men, including priests and Levites, who had taken non-Jewish wives, though some may have been from among the Judaean women who had remained in the land and were involved in mixed religious practices. This was not just a matter of exogamy, mixed marriages, a fact of life that had always occurred in Israel and indeed, was not expressly forbidden in the laws of Moses, but the dissolution of the “holy seed,” the offspring of Abraham.95 Ezra understood that with the loss of ethnic identity, a decline in cultic purity was bound to follow. As an expression of the gravity of the moment, Ezra tore his cloak, pulled out hair from his head and beard, and sat on the ground until the evening. After the evening sacrifice, Ezra cited the law of Moses, and he called on all to repent of this evil.96 Three days



Restoration of Judah   45

later, Ezra summoned the men to make public confession of sin, and he set up a commission to determine the extent of the matter. In the end, a number of leaders did divorce their wives and sent them away, along with their children. Within a year, Ezra reported success in his effort to retain ethnic, as well as cultic, purity in a stable and loyal nucleus of Jews.97 Thereafter, we do not know whether Ezra returned to Babylon or remained in Judah as a private citizen. If the mention of Ezra in Neh 12:26 is accurate, then he remained in Judah for a while. Josephus completes his narrative of Ezra with the eulogy: “And it was his fate, after being honored by the people, to die an old man and to be buried with great magnificence in Jerusalem.”98 Rabbinic tradition, however, has Ezra die in Babylon, where his grave remains.99 Despite the judgment of Josephus, it may be significant that Ezra disappears from written records for more than 500 years until he is revived in the apocalyptic work 4 Ezra around the year 100 c.e. Soon afterward, he becomes the Second Moses in rabbinic tradition. At some point, the Jews attempted to rebuild the city of Jerusalem and repair the wall. This was undertaken without the authority of the governor of the province, and officials in Samaria, Rehum and Shimshai quickly wrote to the king warning him of the potential for revolt by this “rebellious and wicked city.”100 Artaxerxes ordered the repair of the walls to stop until further notice. Whether the Jews ignored the order and resisted, or Rehum and his colleagues were bent on settling an old grudge, the report says Sanballat and his men stopped the rebuilding by force and power. That is, there may have been resistance, and the work not only stopped, but the walls were torn down. Historians have placed this event within the broader context of a revolt by Megabyxus, the satrap of Trans-Euphrates around 448, which would help explain the desire to fortify Jerusalem and the violent response by Samaria. The revolt, however, depends on a single mention by the historian Ctesius.101 The ravaging of Jerusalem, for whatever reason, explains the report received by another Jewish official in the court of King Artazerxes, the man Nehemiah.

3.2 Nehemiah the Governor Nehemiah is a colorful man, known to us from a first-person account of his life, called the Nehemiah Memoirs, preserved in the biblical book by his name.102 Around the time that Pericles undertook to fortify Athens by walls and laws and Herodotus was traveling the Mediterranean world, drawing up a narrative for the enlightenment of the Greeks, Nehemiah sought to strengthen the city of his ancestors’ graves, also by walls and laws (450–440). Two years after Pericles began building the Areopagus in Athens, Nehemiah began rebuilding the walls of Jerusalem. In their own limited ways, Ezra and Nehemiah were trying to do for Jerusalem and Judaea what Pericles was trying to do for Athens: establish the city as a strong cultural and religious center for the people. Just as Pericles limited Athenian citizenship to those born of Athenian citizens, so Nehemiah, like Ezra, attempted to purify the citizenry of Jerusalem. Besides his ardent religious goals, Nehemiah understood the pragmatic need for loyalty and stability in the city state.

46   Vines Intertwined

In the twentieth year of Aratxerxes (446–445), word came to Nehemiah in the city of Susa from Judah that “the wall of Jerusalem is broken down, and its gates have been destroyed by fire” (Neh 1:3). Nehemiah, son of Hacaliah, was a “cupbearer” in the court of Artaxerxes, likely a trusted servant though not necessarily a high official. He obtained permission from the king to go to Judah and rebuild Jerusalem. Artaxerxes apparently reversed his earlier decision because he believed Nehemiah would not only prevent rebellion in Judah but also stabilize the small province to the benefit of his western frontier. He sent Nehemiah with letters of authority for the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including timber from the king’s forests. Nehemiah arrived with an escort of cavalry and handed the letters to the existing governor, Sanballat the Horonite, and a second official, Tobiah the Ammonite. They did not receive him well, perhaps because Nehemiah had gone over their heads, or because they stood to lose tax revenue from Judah. Any concentration of wealth and power in another city was bound to encroach on the status quo, and no other reasons need be sought for the conflict. Following the aborted attempt to rebuild the city, Sanballat may have been appointed as caretaker governor, and Tobiah was the overseer of Jerusalem under the authority of Sanballat. Whatever the cause of the conflict, from the start Nehemiah saw them as opponents. According to his memoirs, Nehemiah found the land in disarray. Neither patient nor diplomatic, Nehemiah kept his plans confidential. Soon after arriving in Jerusalem, he set out at night to inspect the walls by torch or moonlight. Secrecy was no doubt necessary in order for him to organize and begin the repair before his opponents could undermine him. When he did share his plans with the community leaders, a majority committed themselves to the rebuilding, and Nehemiah assures us they did so enthusiastically. Nehemiah included in his memoire a list of individuals and the portions of the wall and gates they restored. Once the rebuilding project became known, Sanballat accused them of rebellion. Sanballat and Tobiah brought in a third member to oppose Nehemiah, Geshem the Arabian, the king of Qedar, a significant territory stretching from north Arabia to Syria. They first accused the Judaeans of rebellion, then taunted: “That stone wall they are building—any fox going up on it would break it down!” (Neh 4:3). But as the gaps in the wall began to close, Sanballat brought in more leaders among the Arabs, Ammonites, and Ashdodites threatening violence. Nehemiah split his men between construction and guard duty, and even the builders and burden bearers kept swords in their sashes. Nehemiah recalls, “So neither I nor my brothers nor my servants nor the men of the guard who followed me ever took off our clothes; each kept his weapon in his right hand” (4:23). It appears, then, that in distant Yehud the authority granted by king Artaxerxes was not respected as the law of the Medes and the Persians. As the repairs came to a close, we are told that Sanballat asked for a parley, but Nehemiah, suspecting it was a trap to kill him, replied that he could not leave the work. After several attempts, Sanballat sent an open letter accusing the Jews of plotting rebellion. He claimed that reports had reached him from the neighboring provinces, including Geshem the Arabian, that Nehemiah had set up prophets in Jerusalem proclaiming “There is a king in Judah.”103 Because Nehemiah had



Restoration of Judah   47

no known association with the Davidic lineage and is not likely to have rebelled against his benefactor, the accusation was no doubt little more than an attempt at blackmail. Sanballat informed Nehemiah that he would report this act of rebellion to Artazerxes and suggested they meet to discuss it. Nehemiah rejected Saballat’s accusation as mere invention and refused to meet with him. Tobiah, whose influence in Yehud surpassed that of Sanballat, attempted to influence Nehemiah by corresponding with nobles and family members in Jerusalem. Although we are told little of the source of conflict between them, it appears that not all Judaeans favored the isolationist intentions begun by Ezra and pursued by Nehemiah, which were being imposed on them from the Jewish community in Persia. The ruling class had always favored political ties with other elite groups as a means of keeping their wealth in the family, and to them social hierarchy was more important than ethnic solidarity. The name of Tobiah, “Yahweh is good,” suggests Israelite descent, and he was probably a member of a large and wealthy Israelite clan known from various sources over several centuries as the Tobiads. He had married into the family of returned exiles and married his son and daughter to important families in Judaea.104 Nehemiah was disrupting the status quo, and wealth and influence were at stake. The added burden of the communal labor among the Judaeans brought to a head the economic inequalities that had developed over the decades since the return from exile. Many of the poorer peasants who perpetually lived at the subsistence level were forced to sell their children to buy grain, while others who owned land had suffered crop failures and still had to pay the king’s tax, mortgaged their lands, and had lost their fields and vineyards.105 While indentured servitude did not go against Mosaic law, indeed, it was regulated, the prophets had long condemned the inequalities among the brethren, and Nehemiah drew upon that tradition. He demanded that the wealthy landowners, among whose number his own family stood, return all lands held in pledge to their owners, cancel all debts, and no longer charge interest of probably 12 percent on loans. Nehemiah then performed a symbolic act, reminiscent of the prophets: he shook out the folds of his garment to let things kept secure in his sash fall out. He said, “So may God shake out every man from his house and from his labor who does not perform this promise. So may he be shaken out and emptied.” And the assembly said, “Amen” (5:13). The wall was completed after 52 days, on the twenty-fifth day of the month of Elul, in the autumn of 444.106 When the gates had been hung, Nehemiah put his own men in control of the city and began the process of repopulating Jerusalem and controlling access to non-Jews. The people agreed that a sufficient number of leaders and temple officials should reside in Jerusalem, along with a portion of the people of Judah, some 10 percent. But the summons for a repopulation of Jerusalem did not gather enough volunteers, so they turned to the system of casting lots, invoking the will of God, and thereby supplemented the volunteers who were required to migrate to the city. We are told the people blessed all those who willingly offered to live in Jerusalem.107 Nehemiah returned to Babylon in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes (433), but at some point thereafter, he learned that Tobiah had again established himself

48   Vines Intertwined

in Jerusalem and had even secured a private chamber in the temple complex for his use. Nehemiah requested leave of the king and came again to Jerusalem. There he found the situation worse than he anticipated. It appears that Tobiah was dismantling the reforms of Nehemiah and opening up the city to the interethnic commerce with the peoples surrounding Jerusalem, and the sabbath was an ideal market day. Tyrian fishmongers and other merchants came up each sabbath to sell their goods to the people of Judaea and Jerusalem. Nehemiah found that the Levites had returned to their fields because they no longer received the prescribed tithes from the people, and the people themselves were treading grapes or harvesting produce on the sabbath. In addition to all this, the aristocracy was intermarrying with non-Jews, despite the promises a generation earlier under Ezra, and the high priest’s grandson had married a daughter of Sanballat. In his righteous indignation, Nehemiah drove Sanballat’s son-in-law from the temple and threw out all the furnishings of Tobiah. He ordered the temple chambers ritually purified. He condemned the nobles of Judaea for allowing the Levites to starve. He shut the gates of Jerusalem on the sabbath and warned the Tyrian merchants to stop coming to Jerusalem on the sabbath. After a few sabbaths of camping outside the gates of Jerusalem in hopes the people would come out to buy their wares, Nehemiah threatened force, and they eventually stopped coming. It is apparent from Nehemiah’s memoir that many of the people did not share his vision or the implications of the sabbath rest, and this lends credulity to the decade’s long struggle to establish the law code of Deuteronomy as a way of life in Judaea. We do not know the extent to which Nehemiah’s energetic final campaign was successful because his memoir ends. We only know how he wished to be remembered: “Remember me, O my God, concerning this, and wipe not out my good deeds that I have done for the house of my God and for his service” (13:14). And Nehemiah was remembered, above all for building the walls of Jerusalem. He would be listed among the heroes by the second century b.c.e. sage Jesus ben Sira.108 The missions of Ezra and Nehemiah reveal the spirited effort of some Babylonian Jews who were probably inspired by the “school of Ezekiel” to colonize the province of Yehud, to establish a new religious people in the land of their ancestors. This colonization confronted many people of Judaean, Samaritan, and Arab descent, a majority of whom had never left the land and who had no desire for the religious and ethnic exclusivity demanded by the colonizers. The move from Babylon may be likened to the migration of the Pilgrims from Britain to America with their religious purity and high ideals, or the establishment of the modern state of Israel by European Jews. They formed a nucleus among the Judaeans and other peoples of the land that lays the foundation and ancestry for the later traditionalist and sectarian groups that will emerge in the history of Judaea.109

3.3 Jews of Babylon Apart from the visitations of Ezra and Nehemiah, we have very little evidence for the growing Jewish community scattered around the Persian Empire. One



Restoration of Judah   49

source, however, allows us to extrapolate the growth of the Jews, namely, the Murashû Archive. The archive consists of more than 800 cuneiform tablets, or fragments, that preserve financial records of what may be called an ancient banking firm of the Murashû family. The records date from 454–404, hence the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius II, and deal with members of the royal families, small landowners, and numerous lesser individuals. Among the lesser individuals are many personal names that appear to be of Jewish extraction, about 80 individuals, such as Haggai and Shabbatai. From the details of their transactions, we learn that Jews lived in about 30 villages around the ancient Babylonian city of Nippur. Some served as soldiers and minor customs officials, while others were farmers, merchants, or slaves. They gave their children Babylonian names, but these offspring in turn revert to naming their children with Jewish names in the third generation. The Jews blended into the acculturation of the empire along with many other minorities, yet retained at least one hallmark of their religion, sabbath observance. According to the records, they rarely conducted business on the sabbath, but they are otherwise undistinguished from the rest of the population. It is against this background of striving for a religious identity amid cultural assimilation that the stories of Daniel and his friends become the model of keeping dietary laws and praying three times a day.

3.4 Elephantiné Conflict Upon the death of Artaxerxes, a brief struggle for the throne of Persia followed in which the initial successor, Xerxes II, was slain after a three-month rule, and a strong man named Ochos took both power and the throne name of Darius II in 424/423. Jerusalem no doubt sent a delegation to renew the oath of loyalty and life went on as before. Due to the fortuitous discovery of the cache of Aramaic papyri in the southern Egyptian frontier town of Elephantiné, we know the name of the governor of Judaea and something of the continuing spread of the Jewish Diaspora. Egypt had long cast its imperial shadow over the land of Judah, attracting immigrants, mercenaries, and refugees. The patriarchal traditions of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob represent oral traditions of the long ties with Egypt, and the exodus under Moses likely tells the legend of a genuine escape and migration of a portion of the people who claimed the name Israel. Solomon, we are told, made a marriage alliance with the Pharaoh of Egypt, and his rebellious general, Jeroboam, fled there. Jeremiah likely died in Egypt amid his wayward brethren, and their descendants continued to live there, with some form of syncretistic religious attachment to the Judaeans in Judaea. For centuries we knew of these Judaeans only from the traditions of Jeremiah. In the archaeological discoveries from Elephantiné, however, we have the independent voice of a community that traced its roots to a distinct migration, perhaps under the reign of Manasseh, or at the latest under Josiah.110 According to the archive, the temple of Yahu was built before Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525, and it was the only temple in the area left undisturbed by the Persian conqueror.111

50   Vines Intertwined

Elephantiné was a small island in the Nile, just over a mile and a half in length, and a quarter of a mile wide. Due to the great ivory trade throughout antiquity, and perhaps the appearance of the rock emerging from the Nile, the island was called Elephant place, Abu in Egyptian, Yeb in Aramaic, and Elephantiné in Greek. The military garrison stood as sentry of the southern gate of Egypt, just below the first cataract and 500 miles south of the delta. On the east bank of the Nile lay the larger town of Syene, modern Aswan. The community of Jews, numbering perhaps 200, retained an ethnic quarter within the sun-dried mud brick residences, merely one group of foreign legionnaires among a variety of languages, including Ionian and Aramaean. The papyri archive opens a window into the fifth-century life of Diaspora Jews. A dozen documents belonged to the family of Mahseiah, son of Jedaniah, who were among the wealthier Jews at Elephantiné. Mahseiah had two sons, Jedaniah and Gamariah, and a daughter, Mibtahiah. The documents, dated between 460 and 420, permit a tentative reconstruction of her life. We learn that Mibtahiah was given in marriage at age 20 to Jezaniah, another Jew in the community, in year 6 of Artazerxes (459). Mibtahiah received a house near the temple of Yahu and a parcel of land. Her husband retained certain rights to the property, but with sufficient restrictions to protect Mibtahiah. The foresight was well founded, for later documents, dated to 446, find Mibtahiah a childless widow and Mahseiah impatient to be a grandfather. She married a second time, to an Egyptian called Eshor, who may have taken the Jewish name Natan as he entered into their community. Mibtahiah bore two sons and named them after her father and grandfather, but in other documents they are called the “sons of Eshor,” according to their Egyptian descent, as well as the “sons of Natan,” noting their Jewish identity. The dual identity portrays a general acceptance of mixed marriages. Mibtahiah again became a widow around 420, age 60, and died within 6 years. We learn two things of particular interest for understanding the Jewish Diaspora of the fifth century. At one point, she sued an Egyptian architect, and in court she swore an oath by Sati, the goddess consort of the chief Egyptian ram god, Khnum.112 We also learn that she kept control of her property and retained the right to file for divorce on her own initiative. Both of these actions, swearing by foreign gods and female-initiated divorce, run contrary to what will become normative Judaism. The papyri contain other evidence of a syncretistic Judaism. In one litigation document a Jew swore an oath “by the sanctuary and by Anat-Yaho,” a female deity known as the consort of Yahweh. In Syene there was a temple to the Aramaean goddess Anath, and this may be the deity given the title Queen of Heaven by the Jews who confronted Jeremiah.113 Another text provides a list of offerings to Yahu, god of the Jews, and for Anat-Bethel, and for Ashim-Bethel, other lesser deities.114 Despite the syncretism, the Jews seem to have observed a sabbath rest; for we learn from an ostracon that no Jew would cross the Nile or transport goods on the sabbath.115 The picture of the Jewish community at Elephantiné is not surprising for the fifth-century Diaspora. The Jews respected the shrines and cults of their neighbors, and in particular the deities associated with Bethel worshiped by the Aramaeans from Samaria. In some cases, the Jews were still polytheistic and reluctantly gave up



Restoration of Judah   51

their worship of the goddesses associated with the ancient worship of Yahweh. But the Jews in Babylon and Judah under the leadership of Ezra and Nehemiah were fighting for the pure monotheism of the prophets and its uniform cult directed from the temple in Jerusalem, and this battle was being waged in distant Egypt. It is against this background that we set the Elephantiné community and its demise in what may be called the tale of the two temples. The life-giving center of Elephantiné was the temple to Khnum, chief god of the region and of the first cataract of the Nile. The pink granite sanctuary was as grand as it was vital to the fertility of Egypt, for the ram-headed god, Khnum, controlled the Nile, and the Nile gave life to Egypt by its annual flood, which began at the summer solstice and continued for one hundred days. All Egypt awaited the swelling river, and during flood season, priests of Khnum kept watch over the ancient Nilometer near the temple, a square pit with two scales marked upon the sandstone walls, one to measure the rise of the river and the other to calibrate its height above the arable land. Each day priests recorded the height of the Nile and sent the information by couriers to the cities along the Nile. A second Nilometer at Memphis and a third in the delta helped coordinate the anticipated flood plain, hence the extent of the arable land, and the bounty for Egypt, and indeed, bread for much of the Mediterranean world. The temple of Yahu, though far smaller than the temple of Khnum, stood nearby in the center of the town. The documents note that the temple was already standing when Cambyses conquered Egypt in 525, and the initial permission to erect the temple of Yahu near to the temple of Khnum was likely granted by the Egyptian Pharaoh, Psamtik I, sometime around 650. According to this reconstruction, Manasseh, king of Judah, sent a contingent of soldiers to Psamtik, who needed to replace the former garrison at Elephantiné after the garrison deserted south to Nubia (modern Sudan). At the same time, Manasseh is known to have set up various altars to different gods in the Jerusalem temple of Yahweh, as well as the shedding of innocent blood.116 A plausible scenario is that some priests of Yahweh escaped Manasseh’s polytheistic campaign and fled to Egypt, where they erected the temple to Yahu/Yahweh for the Jews stationed there.117 The early Jewish settlers built their temple with gray and pink granite cut from the quarries of Syene and built the sanctuary roof of cedar wood brought from Lebanon. There were also five gates of cedar suspended by large hinges of beaten bronze. The priests of Yahu offered up incense and meal offering in basins of gold and silver and bronze. They also offered up burnt offering upon the altar, and this ancient temple—the only temple of Yahweh during the Babylonian exile—attracted Jews from the lower Nile on pilgrimages to worship Yahu and participate in the sacrifices, as well as the pilgrimage festival of Passover. One of the most important documents of the archives is known as the “Passover papyrus.” It is poorly preserved, but the text has been brilliantly reconstructed.118 It is a letter dated to year 5 of Darius II (419–418), from a certain Hananiah to Jedaniah and his colleagues. It is possible this Hananiah is the brother of Nehemiah, or the commander of the citadel in Jerusalem.119 The letter reports a decree of Darius that instructs the Persian satrap, Arsames, to “keep away from the Jewish garrison.”

52   Vines Intertwined

Given the context of the letter, which deals with the Passover, it apparently means that Arsames is not to interfere with the Passover. The letter then instructs the community in Elephantiné to observe the Passover and the Feast of Unleavened Bread on the fifteenth and twenty-first day of Nisan, which would be more precise than the traditional time when “you first put the sickle to the standing grain.”120 It lists other regulations concerning purity, use of fermented drink, and the storage of leaven during the festival. These regulations, not found in the Torah, represent a developing tradition that will be added to “the customs of our fathers” so prominent in later Judaism. It also reveals the early attempts of Jerusalem to regulate the main festivals of Jews no matter where they were celebrated in the growing Diaspora. The Jerusalem official, Hananiah, later paid a visit to Elephantiné, perhaps to see that the regulations were enforced, and his presence caused resentment among the Egyptian priests of the temple of Khnum, for as another document tells us, “It is known to you that Khnum is against us [Jews] since Hananiah has been in Egypt until now.”121 A few years later, around 416, Athens supported a revolt against Persia in eastern Anatolia, and Darius II found himself again embroiled in troubles from the west, and the conflict between Athens and Sparta. Arsames, the satrap of Egypt, periodically left his post in Memphis to campaign for Darius. Egyptian discontent began simmering with the outbreak of the revolt in Anatolia, and in 410, while Arsames visited Persia, rebellion broke out under the leader known as Amyrtaeus. In the month of Tammuz (July-August), the priests of Khnum conspired with the Persian commander, Vidranga, and a band of Egyptian rebels attacked the temple of Yahu and destroyed it. They also pillaged the Jewish quarter. The attack was probably sparked by Egyptian resentment of animal sacrifices performed in the Jewish rituals. Khnum was the ram-headed god, and the slaughter of rams upon the altar of the Jews during Passover was likely a grave insult to the Egyptians, perhaps as symbolic deicide. Such sacrifices at Passover had long been a protected religious rite, but now, under the rise of Egyptian patriotism, the Jews were seen as loyal soldiers of the foreign Persian Empire and therefore part of the foreign oppression. When Cambyses invaded Egypt, he demolished all the Egyptian temples but left the temple of Yahu untouched, since the Jews served in the outpost of a recognized province of the empire. This, too, would have been an aggravating memory. Another cause for a growing antagonism was the nature of the Passover festival, a celebration of the escape from Egyptian oppression, hardly the sort of holiday to endear one to one’s Egyptian neighbors. All together then, the Passover slaughter of a male sheep, sacred to Khnum, and celebration of deliverance from Egypt, coupled with a rising Egyptian patriotism and perhaps a general xenophobia, gave cause to what may be considered the first recorded anti-Jewish pogrom in history.122 Our information for all this comes from two draft documents that appeal for permission to rebuild the temple.123 These letters, and the memorandum of an official sent from Jerusalem to Elephantiné to deliver an oral response, provide us with a pivotal development in Judaism. After the destruction of their temple, the Jewish community of Elephantiné went into mourning, prayers, and wearing sackcloth. They appealed to the king for justice and received it. Vidranga was



Restoration of Judah   53

removed and the rebels executed. The Jews then appealed to Johanan the high priest in Jerusalem for support in rebuilding their temple, so that meal offering, incense, and burnt offering might resume. Johanan did not reply to the request, perhaps because it presented Jerusalem with a novel dilemma, whether to support their co-religionists in Egypt or the Persian authorities who did not wish to exacerbate Egyptian resentment over the temple of Yahu. Three years later, in 407, Jedaniah and his colleagues wrote a letter to the governor of Judah, Bahogi, and to Delaiah and Shelemiah, sons of Sanballat, the governor of Samaria, renewing their request for support. Finally a response came from Bahogi and Delaiah. They instructed the Jews to rebuild the “Altar-house of the God of Heaven” and offer meal offering and incense as done formerly. The request to resume burnt offerings, however, was denied. The reason is assumed to have been a diplomatic compromise as well as the desire of Jerusalem to establish its authority over all Jews within the Persian Empire. On the one hand, Persian interests were served by eliminating the sacrifices that had sparked the conflict, and on the other hand, Jerusalem interests were served by limiting the full cultic ritual including burnt offerings to the temple in Jerusalem. Another letter of the archives preserves the request to rebuild the temple with the understanding that no sheep, ox, or goat will be made as burnt offering, but only incense and meal offering.124 With the last dated document from Elephantiné archives, in 399, the Jewish community disappears from history without a trace. Josephus knew nothing of them, nor does rabbinic tradition. Herodotus visited Elephantiné around 464 while the temple of Yahu thrived, but he does not mention the Jews. It is just possible that Deutero-Isaiah did know of their existence, for when he predicts the return of the exiles from the four corners of the earth, he scans the compass and comes to rest at the southernmost part, the land of the Syenians, which is how the Jews referred to themselves in one of the archive documents.125 Likewise, the prophet Zephaniah, active during the reign of Josiah (640–609 b.c.e.), knew of a distant Diaspora: “From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia my suppliants, my scattered ones, shall bring my offering” (3:10). Elephantiné is but one of the Jewish Diaspora outposts of Egypt and beyond. In one of the oracles of Isaiah that looks to the restoration of the exiles, we see listed Assyria, Egypt, Pathros, Ethiopia, Elam, Shinar, Hamath, and the coastlands of the sea.126 In another oracle, Isaiah foresees a new Diaspora in Egypt. On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the Lord of hosts. One of these will be called the City of the Sun (Heliopolis). On that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the center of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border.”127

We may have here a genuine prophecy, one that acknowledged the consistent spread of the worshipers of Yahweh to Egypt and the expectation that in due course, Egypt would join Assyria in worshiping Yahweh. This oracle, if made in the late eighth century (ca. 715), may have provided the divine approval for erecting the temple of Yahu in Elephantiné. Later, in the second century b.c.e., the prophecy will be used to build another temple to Yahweh at Leontopolis, in the Nile delta.

Chapter 4

The Hellenistic Age Begins (400–301 b.c.e.)

4.1 Judah of the Silent Generations As the Judaeans entered the fourth century, we find the efforts of Ezra and Nehemiah did not go unrewarded. The high priest was becoming the de facto ruler of the Jews, able to guide the people in obedience to the Torah of Moses. The office was powerful, and worth killing for. Josephus preserves a single incident in Jerusalem, around 400, that is otherwise unknown to history.128 The high priest Eliashib was succeeded by his son Johanan during the reign of Artaxerxes II Mnemon (404–359). A second son of Eliashib, named Joshua, desired the high priesthood and engaged the governor Bagoses (probably the governor Bahogi of the Elephantiné archives), who promised to help him obtain the office.129 Joshua initiated a quarrel with Johanan in the temple, and in the end, Johanan killed his brother. Bagoses immediately attempted to enter the temple, but the Jews prevented him because he was a foreigner. Bagoses forced his way in, adding his defilement of the temple to that of a slain corpse, and imposed a fine of 50 drachmae for every sacrificial lamb slain over 7 years. Bagoses may have desired to reduce the status of Jerusalem as he had done with the temple in Elephantiné, but Josephus considered the desecration to be divine retribution for the impiety of the murder within the temple precinct and assures his readers that “neither among Greeks nor barbarians had so savage and impious a deed ever been committed.” The high priest Johanan died, and his son Jaddua became the high priest. Josephus has nothing else to offer for the next 70 years of Judaean history, which we, too, must pass over in silence. He leaves the conflict between Johanan and Joshua under Bagoses and turns immediately to the coming of Alexander of Macedonia. Therefore, we assume some two generations of quiet in Judaea, as well as the various communities in the Diaspora. It was a time of growth and stabilization for the Jews, while Persia and the Greeks pursued their conflicts and intrigue.

4.2 Persia and Macedonia In the winter 405/404, Darius II fell mortally ill on a campaign in the north of Media and died. Artaxerxes II (404–360/359), surnamed Mnemon by the Greeks,



The Hellenistic Age Begins   55

was crowned king of Persia, but a second son of Darius by a different wife, Cyrus the Younger, soon began plotting to take the throne. Egypt immediately revolted against Persia and essentially gained independence under an Egyptian prince, Amyrtaeus, because Artaxerxes had greater problems to settle with his brother and with the Spartans in western Anatolia. Cyrus raised a Greek force of more than 10,000 heavily armed hoplite mercenaries which he kept hidden outside of Anatolia, and after gaining support from some Persian nobles, he marched against his half-brother Artaxerxes in 401. Among the Greek soldiers of fortune was a young Athenian named Xenophon, a future literatus who had studied under Socrates. In his famous work, the Anabasis (March Upcountry), Xenophon recounts the march of Cyrus though northern Anatolia with his “Ten Thousand” Greeks, who are the heroes of the story. Although the boat bridge on the upper Euphrates south of Carchemish had been burned by the retreating Persian forces, Cyrus forded the river at a low point in mid-July and marched against Babylon along the eastern bank. As Xenophon tells it, when the battle was joined against Artaxerxes, the Ten Thousand Greeks forged through the Persian army along the river, but before they could close up the right flank, Cyrus wrested defeat from the jaws of victory by rashly charging ahead to render a mortal blow to the king. He was cut down before he reached Artaxerxes. With Cyrus dead, the battle lost its purpose, and after several defensive skirmishes, the Ten Thousand elected new leaders and found their way as an army safely back through Media and Anatolia to the Bosporus Straits. The successful retreat through Persian territory and without the aid of supplies was a great military feat that bolstered the confidence of the Greeks, a confidence they would hone and refine until Alexander of Macedonia would marshal them all for the final assault on their age-old enemy. Within 3 years, Sparta invaded the Persian territory of Anatolia to liberate the Ionian Greeks. Artaxerxes responded by encouraging the rivalries between the Greek city-states, and in 394 he destroyed the Spartan navy at Cnidus, giving Persia supremacy in the Aegean Sea. By 486, Athens submitted to a settlement called the “King’s Peace,” which left Persia in control of Anatolia. Artaxerxes then mounted two expeditions against Egypt, in 385 and 373, both of which resulted in Persian defeat. These military failures emboldened the satraps of Anatolia, and with the support of Egypt, Athens, and Sparta, they rose up in the so-called Revolt of the Satraps around 366. Artaxerxes was unable to defeat them in battle. He did, however through intrigue and treachery, cause sufficient chaos to put down the uprising, so that by his death in 360, at about age 86, he left his empire intact and essentially at peace. Although Egypt occasionally encroached into Palestine as far as Phoenicia, and Persian forces passed by Judah to invade Egypt, there is no record of Judah’s being caught up in the political struggles of Persia. We may well suppose, however, that young Jews, like their Greek counterparts and many others in the Levant, availed themselves of the chance to make an early, if small, fortune as a mercenary for a Persian or Egyptian paymaster. We know already of the Jewish soldiers of Elephantiné as well as some in Babylonian Persia, and Josephus explicitly says as much with the coming of Alexander the Great. Though history is silent on the life

56   Vines Intertwined

of fourth-century Jews, whether in Judaea or in the Diaspora, we may assume they were engaged in the wars between East and West. In 359, two rulers took their places on hereditary thrones. Ochos, known as Artaxerxes III (359–338), became king of Persia, and Philip II (359–336) took up the throne of Macedonia. Artaxerxes Ochos won the reputation of being as bloodthirsty as any of his ancestors and immediately eliminated any relative who might challenge his rule. He demanded his western satraps disband their private armies and began centralizing his power. Meanwhile, Philip secured his vulnerable kingdom of Macedonia, on the east by a treaty with Athens, on the north by a victory over the Paeonians, and on the west through a marriage with the Molossian princess, Olympias, who bore his legitimate heir, Alexander, in July of 356. The two rulers ignored each other in favor of consolidating their respective domains. Aratxerxes occupied himself with a series of minor revolts throughout his empire. In 351 he attempted to reconquer Egypt, but his army was repulsed. The failure prompted another revolt in Sidon, the so-called Tennes Rebellion, that may have involved Palestine and Phoenicia, but this too, was crushed in 345. Artaxerxes hired a number of Greek mercenaries for a second invasion of Egypt in 343 and succeeded in bringing lower (northern) Egypt under his control, but the king of Egypt, Nectanebo, escaped south up the Nile and kept the dynasty alive. Philip of Macedonia spent the first decade of his rule reinventing the art of war. He began with a standing professional army, self-sustained by raids and hardened by thirty-five-mile-a-day marches without benefit of a supply train. The eighthcentury hoplite phalanx, a wall of long spears, the sarissa, had already rendered such an infantry superior to the horsemen. Philip lengthened the sarissa from 8 to between 13 and 18 feet, with a larger spear head and a balance weight at the other end, producing a genuine pike that required two hands to wield and thrust. The three-foot concave shields were reduced in size and slung over the neck. He raised a Macedonian phalanx of 25,000 men, supplemented by mercenaries, and organized into brigades, companies, and sections, all highly trained to retain mobility. They advanced in formation three deep presenting before them a jagged wall of long spears, backed up with additional ranks behind ready to finish off any man or beast that fell beneath their onslaught. While Philip prepared his army, he also prepared his heir, Alexander. Around 342, he summoned the philosopher-scientist, Aristotle, from the city of Assus on the northwestern coast of Anatolia, to tutor the crown prince. Aristotle, whose father Nicomachus had served as the court physician of Philip’s father, King Amyntas III, came to the capital, Pella, and took up the task of educating the 13-year-old Alexander. The length of the engagement cannot have been long, no more than 4 years, but Aristotle instilled in his young ward a thirst for knowledge. During Alexander’s campaigns, he sent new biological specimens back to his teacher for observation. Philip continued to use alliances and force in his bid to gain a dominant position among the Greek city-states. He joined in the Sacred War to liberate the oracle of Delphi from the Phocians, and as an ally of Thebes, he defeated Thessaly. After his victory, he was elected leader of the Thessalian League and prepared to engage Athens. Isocrates (436–338), a leading Athenian political philosopher who



The Hellenistic Age Begins   57

favored a pan-Hellenic unity, welcomed the leadership of Macedonia. Around 346 he published his address to Philip, in which he encouraged him to lead a Greek army against the barbarians, namely, the Persians. Athens, however, did not trust the Macedonian and declared war in 340. The following year Philip asked Thebes for passage into Greece, and when they refused, he engaged them in a one-day battle at Chaeronea. His brilliant victory won him the entire war, for it was clear no Greek city-state could defeat him. Philip wisely allowed the Athenian soldiers to return home without ransom. From then on he worked to establish the common peace, which followed under the League of Corinth in 337, with the goal of leading a combined Greek army against Persia. Among his numerous marriages, for sport or alliance, Philip erred with his final one in 338. He married the Macedonian princess Cleopatra, also called Eurydice, for no apparent political reason, and thus compromised the status of Alexander as his successor.130 Aware of the danger, his queen Olympias left the country with Alexander, but Philip was soon reconciled to his firstborn son. Then in 336, during a wedding ceremony of his daughter to the brother of Olympias, Philip was assassinated by a young Macedonian noble, Pausanius. Soldiers executed the assassin on the spot. Olympias was suspected of plotting the assassination, but before any action could be taken, Alexander secured his father’s power and eliminated all rivals to the throne of Macedonia. After Philip’s funeral, Alexander marched to Greece, where the League of Corinth voted him the leadership of the Persian campaign and renewed their loyalty to the new king. With Greece subdued, Alexander returned north, but on the way he visited the Delphi oracle to make a dedication and receive a favorable omen. Two years before the death of Philip, Bagoas, a eunuch in the Persian court, poisoned Artaxerxes and set Arses, a son of the king, on the throne as Artaxerxes IV.131 But Arses was not the compliant one Bagoas had hoped, so he poisoned Arses as well. He then sought a more distant member of the Achaemenid lineage, another Darius, and made him king. Thus in 336, Darius III and Alexander of Macedonia took their seats of power and prepared for the final conflict.

4.3 Alexander of Macedonia In 335 Alexander launched his lightning campaign. He began by subjugating Illyria and then marched northeast across the Danube to secure his route to the Hellespont and avenge his father on the Thracian tribes who once had wounded Philip and stolen war booty from him. While on campaign, a rumor of Alexander’s death spread through Greece. Thebes revolted against the hegemony of Macedonia, with other city-states, including Athens, joining in. Alexander reappeared and ruthlessly destroyed the great city of Thebes, erasing from the face of the earth all but the house of the sixth-century poet, Pindar, which he spared as a monument to his Hellenism. Thebians slain in the streets numbered 6000, and the remaining populace of 30,000 including women and children, were sold into slavery. The rest of Greece fell into abject silence at the terror of the 21-year-old.

58   Vines Intertwined

Alexander assembled his invasion force of 40,000 phalanx infantry, 6000 cavalry, and a fleet of 160 ships. The war against Persia had always been a crusade to avenge the Greeks for the impieties that Xerxes had inflicted on their temples, a religious cause that had united them under Philip, and it would remain a theme of Alexander. He left his general Antipater as governor of Greece with an army of 12,000. The Macedonian army crossed the Hellespont in the spring of 334. Alexander led his picked cavalry known as the Companions on the right, and Philip’s old general Parmenio rode with the Thessalian calvary on the left. In their train were supply wagons and siege engines that would be assembled as required along the way. Upon setting foot in Anatolia, we are told, Alexander cast his spear into the soil and declared that all Asia belonged to him. He made a pilgrimage to the city of Troy, where he paid religious homage at the tomb of Achilles, his hero and legendary ancestor through his mother’s line. Alexander also sacrificed at the temple of Athena, where he dedicated his own armor and received in exchange a shield and weapons said to have come from the days of the Trojan War, another testament that Alexander saw himself and his campaign in Homeric terms. The assembled forces of the Anatolian satraps met the Macedonians at the river Granicus. Alexander achieved a swift victory over them, killing some 20,000, and after the main force fled, the Macedonians surrounded 15,000 Greek mercenaries. He chose to massacre them all. The tactic was not to win a battle, which he had done, but to destroy the enemy that one might never face it again, and in this case, to let it be known that no Greek should side with the Persians against a fellow Greek. Alexander declared the Ionian states liberated democracies. He appointed new governors, thereby announcing that he had assumed the role of Persia, and peaceful submission would be rewarded. Although not every city submitted, Alexander advanced toward Syria, destroying Halicarnasus on the way. As he passed through Gordium of Phrygia, so the story goes, he heard of the chariot of king Midas who had ruled Gordium 400 years earlier. The chariot was bound to its yoke by a knot of cornel bark, with its end hidden, which the Phrygians believed could be untied only by the conqueror of all Asia. According to Callisthenes, Alexander’s official historian, before departing Gordium, Alexander visited the famed chariot and its knot. After attempting for several embarrassing moments to pry the knot loose, Alexander drew his sword and slashed the knot in twain, noting that it was now loose, if not untied. Thus the legend of Alexander and the Gordian knot. The conqueror of all Asia then proceeded south, and Darius himself met Alexander near the town of Issus in Cilicia with a large army in 333. The battle was difficult for Alexander and his men. Vastly outnumbered, he was able to force the engagement along a river called Pinarus at a place favorable to his cavalry, and by daring and tactics the Macedonians won the day. Darius fled on a horse, leaving his tent, his wife, his mother, their children and servants, a horde of golden vessels, but above all, his war chest of gold coin and bullion silver in Damascus. Alexander spared the royal family, letting them retain their rank, and used the gold to pay off all his debts and employ his army for another year. Alexander continued his march south. Tripolis, Arados, Byblos, and Sidon each submitted in turn, but the ancient island city of Tyre resisted and delayed



The Hellenistic Age Begins   59

Alexander by 7 months. His persistence and ultimate victory over the coastal city of Tyre and its fortified island redoubt demonstrated that nothing could resist the ingenuity of the Greek military might. On the final day of battle, the Macedonians slaughtered some 8000 in the streets, impaled 2000 surviving men on stakes along the beach, and in due course sold 20,000 or more women and children into slavery. Within 2 months, in late October, the walled city of Gaza in southern Palestine was taken. Again, they showed no mercy to those who did not submit. The men were slain to the last one; the women and children sold into slavery. According to his historians, Alexander slit the heels of Bastis, the ruler of the city, passed a leather thong through them which he tied to his chariot, and in imitation of Achilles’ punishment of Hector, dragged him around the city until he expired. While the kings of Persia had to reconquer Egypt repeatedly throughout their empire’s 200-year history, the ancient land of the pharaohs opened its gates to Alexander, and he received the kingdom without drawing his sword. The satrap of Pelusium on Egypt’s eastern frontier wisely offered Alexander 800 talents in exchange for safe passage. Alexander renewed his crusade as avenger of Persian impiety. When Alexander arrived in Memphis, he sacrificed to the gods, and especially to Apis, thereby restoring the honor of the sacred bull-deity who suffered from the desecrations of Cambyses. In return, Alexander was crowned Pharaoh of Upper and Lower Egypt. He founded a city on the strip of land between the Mediterranean Sea and Lake Mareotis to be called Alexandria, the first of many new cities founded throughout his empire of the same name. In his enthusiasm, Alexander marked out the broad outlines of the city himself, and Arrian claims that he did it by having his soldiers pour out the corn meal of their ration sacks along the lines he indicated, a gesture that augured well for the future of the city, in particular the export of grain to the Mediterranean world.132 Soon after, Alexander took a small military contingent west to accept the submission of Lybia, and on the return he visited the oracle of the deity Ammon at the oasis of Siwa in the Western Desert. Ammon, the Lybian god associated with Egypt’s Amun-Ra, had long been known to Greeks, and revered by many, such as the poet Pindar (whose house alone was spared by Alexander during the destruction of Thebes), who wrote a hymn to Zeus Ammon and erected a statue of him in Thebes. Alexander surely wished to know the extent to which he would be victorious in his march east. We are told that when he reached the Indus River in India, he paid homage to the “gods whom Ammon had bidden him honor,” which reinforces his sense of divine mission. But more than that, Alexander took to heart the oracular pronouncement that he was a son of Zeus Ammon.133 Early depictions of Alexander give him the horns of a ram, symbol of Ammon. Alexander returned to Memphis where he set up his administration of Egypt, and then he set his gaze eastward once again. In May 331, Alexander passed by Judaea (Yehud) on his way north to Tyre. After his victory over Tyre, Alexander had replaced the governor of Samaria with a Macedonian. While Alexander had been in Egypt, the Samaritans had risen up against the Macedonian ruler, Andromachus, and burned him alive. Alexander now responded by destroying the city of Samaria and hunting down the rebels in the caves of Wadi Dalayeh north of Jericho.134 While

60   Vines Intertwined

we are told about this campaign only from a single historian of Alexander, Quintus Curtius Rufus, who probably published his history during the reign of Claudius, about 43 c.e., the event has been supported by archaeology in recent times and proves the occasional value of a single source. If Alexander put down this Samaritan rebellion, what did he do with the Judaeans? The historians of Alexander are silent. It is here that we may turn to Josephus for history’s only description of Alexander the Great and the Jews. During the Hellenistic age, and well into the Roman period, the romance of Alexander spawned many a local legend, and the Jews, no less than others, would not be denied their own. While Josephus has undoubtedly polished this legend to his own liking, he can hardly have invented it so late in the day of Hellenistic Judaism. He begins as follows: And Alexander, coming to Syria, took Damascus, became master of Sidon and besieged Tyre; from there he dispatched a letter to the high priest of the Jews, requesting him to send him assistance and supply his army with provisions and give him the fits which they had formerly sent as tribute to Darius, thus choosing the friendship of the Macedonians, for, he said, they would not regret this course. But the high priest replied to the bearers of the letter that he had given his oath to Darius not to take up arms against him, and said that he would never violate this oath so long as Darius remained alive. When Alexander heard this, he was roused to anger, and while deciding not to leave Tyre, which was on the point of being taken, threatened that when he had brought it to terms he would march against the high priest of the Jews and through him teach all men what people it was to whom they must keep their oaths. . . .135

After Alexander had taken Tyre and Gaza, says Josephus, he hastened to punish Jerusalem. Jaddua had by now seen the writing on the wall and called on the people to supplicate God for deliverance. In a dream, God instructed Jaddua to submit to Alexander and promised to spare the city. When Alexander approached Jerusalem, the gates opened and the high priest, dressed in his purple and scarlet robes of splendor, led a procession out to greet the conqueror. At the sight of the high priest, with the miter on his head and the golden breastplate with the name of YHWH inscribed, Alexander approached alone and prostrated himself before the Name; then he greeted the high priest. The Macedonian generals were confused, and the auxiliaries who hoped to plunder the city were vexed. Parmenio took Alexander aside and asked the meaning of this obeisance to a mere priest, when normally all men bow to the great king. To which, Alexander replied. “It was not before him that I prostrated myself but the God of whom he has the honor to be high priest.” Alexander explained that while yet in Macedonia he had seen this man in his holy vestments in a dream, and the one so dressed had encouraged Alexander to cross over confidently to Anatolia, promising to give over the empire of the Persians. Having thus explained his actions, Alexander ascended to the temple surrounded by a joyful multitude and sacrificed to God under the guidance of the priests. Thereafter, they brought out the book of Daniel to show him the prophecy that the Greeks would destroy the Persian Empire, and Alexander believed the prophecy spoke of him. The next day Alexander summoned the Jerusalem council and asked what gifts he might bestow on them. Jaddua asked only that they might



The Hellenistic Age Begins   61

continue to observe their own customs, which included exemption from tribute during the seventh year of sabbatical rest, and that the same privilege be extended to the Jews of Persia. Alexander granted all this. He then extended an invitation to any Jews who wished to join his army while still adhering to their customs, and Josephus assures us that many joined in the service of Alexander. Because of the utter silence on a visit to Jerusalem by Alexander’s ancient historians, and the prophecy of the book of Daniel, specifically 8:21, likely composed 180 years or so later, the entire incident has been generally dismissed as typical Alexander legend. But when broken down into components of realpolitik, and the anachronism and artistic flourishes of Josephus removed, three believable points emerge; namely, the submission of Jerusalem to the new conqueror after some soulsearching deliberation, Alexander’s response to the temple of Jerusalem, and Jewish involvement in the army of Alexander with a view to aiding their coreligionists in Babylon. Alexander’s policy was to placate the gods of all peoples in the Persian Empire, and to receive the blessing of another god upon his campaign bolstered his divine mission, if for no other reasons than continuing to reward peaceful submission and leaving no hostile city on his flank as he marched east. In short, the basic scenario plausibly rests on the historical foundation that Jerusalem submitted peacefully, the tale of which got grander with each successive generation. Another version recorded in the Babylonian Talmud has the high priest lead a delegation to meet Alexander at Antipatris, a site en route from Jerusalem to Caesarea, where again Alexander bows to the high priest, who is anachronistically called Simon the Just (ca. 200 b.c.e.). And here it is the Samaritans in his company who question the act of a king bowing to a priest, but Alexander gives a similar reply that it is the image of the high priest who wins all his battles. This version also includes a conflict between the Samaritans and the Jews, so the two issues were bound together in Jewish memory, but other than the more realistic meeting outside of Jerusalem, the Talmudic legend has little to offer.136 According to Josephus, the incident took all of two days, and such a minor side excursion could easily escape notice in the grand scheme of things for later historians. Josephus includes an incident with the Samaritans at this time that is more difficult to assess but that vaguely aligns with the troubles in Samaria preserved by Quintus Curtius Rufus. The Samaritans, who by our definition are those who claim some relationship to the ancient northern kingdom of Israel and worship the god of Moses, retaining their own Pentateuch, had been in the process of defining themselves against the growing population of Judaea over two centuries. The initial Samaritan rejection of the temple in Jerusalem continued during the fifth century under the governor Sanballat and seems to have come to a decisive schism around the time of Alexander. Josephus speaks of a Sanballat (II), whose daughter married Manasseh, a brother of Jaddua the high priest of the Jews. The council of Jerusalem issued an ultimatum that Manasseh either divorce his non-Jewish wife or give up his privileges as a priest. Sanballat, however, promised to build Manasseh a temple in his territory over which he could preside as high priest. Manasseh agreed to the idea, and Josephus says that many priests and Israelites who had likewise married

62   Vines Intertwined

non-Jews left Jerusalem and supported Manasseh. While waiting for permission from Darius to build a new temple, Alexander entered the scene. Sanballat, perhaps like Jaddua, did not think Alexander would defeat Darius, but after the battle of Issus, Sanballat, unlike Jaddua, quickly changed sides and supported Alexander with troops for his siege of Tyre. Sanballat also asked and received permission from Alexander for the new temple, which he built before the fall of Gaza, at which point he had died. Before Alexander advanced to Egypt, the Samaritans asked him for privileges similar to those given the Jews, since they were distant kin. Alexander promised to look into the matter on his return from Egypt.137 For Josephus, this marks the great schism between the Samaritans and the Jews. Although scholars now agree that more than one Sanballat was governor of Samaria during the Persian era, the marriage relationship with a member of the high-priestly family in Jerusalem is suspiciously similar to the event recorded in Neh 13:28, which Josephus leaves out of his Nehemiah narrative. Many favor the Nehemiah account, which Josephus has erroneously placed during the time of Alexander. But intermarriage was a constant concern, and such marriages among the ruling elite were not unusual. Therefore, although the precise building of the Samaritan temple and the principal schism between the Samaritans and the Jews remain obscure, we may say that by the time of Alexander, the distinction between Jews and Samaritans was finalized. And if the Samaritan rebellion recorded by Curtius Rufus is historical, the advantage for influence with Alexander went to the Jews. By May of 331, Alexander had given Darius sufficient time to marshal his largest army from all parts of the empire, thus concentrating the Persian strength in one location. Alexander met up with Darius in the plain of Gaugamela, east of the Tigris along the Persian royal road. The army of Darius numbered at a quarter million, that of Alexander at 50,000. The battle was joined, Darius fled, and the leaderless Persians were routed with upwards of 50,000 men cut down, along with some 2000 Greek mercenaries, to a loss of less than 500 for Alexander. Babylonia and Susa quickly surrendered. Alexander marched on to Persepolis, the Persian capital built by the Achaemenid dynasty located in what is today Iran. In retribution for what Xerxes had done to Athens in 480, Alexander looted and burned Persepolis. With that act of righteous vengeance, the Persian campaign was essentially over. Darius was soon murdered by his own men, and Alexander assumed his entire kingship, including Persian dress and royal etiquette such as proskynesis, the prostration before the king. Josephus preserves a brief comment taken from Hecataeus of Abdera about the Jewish soldiers in Alexander’s army. Alexander intended to rebuild the temple of Bel that had fallen into decay and ordered his soldiers to begin hauling earth. The Jews refused and willingly suffered fines and punishments until Alexander forgave them and let them be.138 For the next 7 years, Alexander proceeded to take control of the eastern empire, Bactria and Sogdiana, essentially modern Afghanistan. Alexander fell in love with the Bactrian princess Roxane and took her as his first wife, much to the resentment of his Macedonian court. In 326, Alexander crossed the Indus River at the invitation of the king of Taxila and defeated Porus, the king of an Indian people along the



The Hellenistic Age Begins   63

river Hydaspes (Jhelum). When he heard of yet another opulent but aging empire further to the east, one unknown to Greece, the lure of further conquest overpowered Alexander. He would have marched across the Hyphasis (modern Beas) river, one of the five rivers of the Punjab Himalayas that feed the Indus, but his army refused to go any further.139 They had marched more than 11,000 miles in 8 years and met Alexander’s plea with dejected silence. When Alexander realized he had lost his men, he ordered sacrifices to determine the will of the gods. The sacrificial omens sided with the men, and Alexander turned back. His most costly error was the march through the Gedrosia desert of southern Iran, which swallowed more dead than all his battles combined. When at last Alexander reached Susa in 324, he released his faithful Macedonian troops, paid off the debts of all his soldiers, and with 80 of his officers, married Persian women. Alexander was preparing a new army to invade Arabia, and perhaps Africa, when he fell ill of a fever during a feast, and within a few days he died. With the death of Alexander on June 13, 323, according to modern historians, the classical age of Greece ended and the Hellenistic age began.

4.4 Diadochi As Alexander lay dying, Arrian tells us, his Companions asked him to whom he left his kingdom, and he replied, “to the strongest.”140 Such an answer, while in keeping with the legends of Alexander, secured nothing. There was no dearth of commanders confident they could hold and administer the newly won empire, but dynastic legitimacy stood in the way. The first potential successor was a half-brother of Alexander, Philip Arrhidaeus, a son of Philip of Macedonia and his mistress Philinna of Larissa. He was, however, a reputed half-wit, therefore incapable of assuming command. Of greater potential was the pregnant womb of Roxane, by right Alexander’s queen. If she gave birth to a son, he might hold the unity of the empire as a figurehead under the regency of others. While the Macedonian general staff deliberated, the Macedonian phalanx soldiers, who by tradition had the right to choose the next king, found Philip Arrhidaeus in Babylon and proclaimed him King Philip III. When Roxane gave birth to a son, named Alexander IV, the council of generals agreed on a plan: Perdiccas, who had obtained Alexander’s ring, would serve as regent for the two royal heirs providing the stability of succession, while the leading generals would govern the various territories. Antipater, whom Alexander had left as viceroy over Macedonia, retained his position. Lysimachus, another prominent member of Alexander’s council, received Thrace, and Antigonus Monophthalmos (“One-Eye”) kept control of Asia Minor, including Syria-Palestine. Ptolemy asked for Egypt and received it. Perdiccas appointed Craterus satrap of Cappodocia. Three generals attempted to serve as regent over Philip III Arrhidaeus and the baby Alexander IV, but four generals formed a coalition against them: Antigonus OneEye, Antipater with his son-in-law Craterus, and Ptolemy. By 320, the five principal generals, known as the Diadochi (“Successors”), were in position to expand their

64   Vines Intertwined

power and turn provinces into kingdoms. Then the “games” began in earnest. It is perhaps here that another last word of Alexander sprang to life, as Arrian recounts: “He saw that there would be a great funeral contest on his death.” The contest would last more than 20 years, and as Josephus puts it, “while these princes ambitiously strove one against another, everyone for his own principality, it came to pass that there were continual wars.”141 Ptolemy was one of the better strategists among the principal players. He annexed Cyrene, the western province of Africa, without official sanction from the regents. He was condemned but without reprisal. Then, Alexander was to be buried in Macedonia. The impressive funeral cortege set out from Babylon, but at Damascus, Ptolemy managed to spirit away the charismatic corpse to Egypt for a pharaoh’s funeral. He claimed that Alexander had wished to be buried near the oracle of Ammon in Siwan. In the end, he kept the revered body at Memphis until he had built a suitable mausoleum in Alexandria. Perdiccas, who had been in control of Alexander’s burial, saw his power slipping away. He invaded Egypt in 320. At the Nile delta he suffered losses, 2000 from drowning and many others from crocodiles. The remaining soldiers mutinied, and his generals quickly assassinated Perdiccas. Among the army leaders was Seleucus, a young man who rose to prominence during the campaigns in Bactria and India. The elderly Antipater, viceroy of Macedonia, confirmed Ptolemy’s annexation of Cyrene and rewarded Seleucus with the satrapy of Babylon. Antipater also took charge of the titular kings Philip III and Alexander IV. Meanwhile, court intrigues fueled by Alexander’s mother, Olympias, distant rebellions, and the struggle for power kept the others occupied in Asia Minor and Macedonia. By agreement, the generals owed their positions to the regents acting on behalf of the kings, but in reality, on the time-honored principle that might makes right, geography and manpower conferred real authority. The elderly Antipater died in 319 and left the throne of Macedonia, as well as the future of Alexander’s heirs, in disarray. Philip III and his wife, Eurydice, perished in 317 at the hands of Olympias, who was determined to see her grandson succeed her son Alexander. Antipater’s son, Cassander, took Alexander IV under his protection. Ptolemy wasted no time. He advanced north and annexed Syria-Phoenicia, taking it from the satrap Laomedon. Then he waited to see how things played out in Asia Minor. By 316, Antigonus the One-Eyed had gained the most power in Asia Minor and prepared to unify the empire of Alexander under his rule. Before he threatened Babylon, he raided the treasuries of Ecbatana, Persepolis, and Susa of 25,000 talents and forced Seleucus to flee to Egypt. This power grab by Antigonus alarmed the others. They gave Antigonus One-Eye an ultimatum, that he be content with central Phrygia and give back other lands, return Seleucus to Babylon, and share all wealth taken. The ultimatum was refused, and all prepared for war. Antigonus advanced into Phoenicia, besieged Tyre, which had been garrisoned by Ptolemy, and then captured Joppa and Gaza. In 313 Tyre capitulated. The following year Ptolemy invaded the Gaza strip and defeated Demetrius, son of Antigonus, reclaiming all of Phoenicia-Palestine. With the support of Ptolemy, Seleucus then returned to Babylon and regained his rule.



The Hellenistic Age Begins   65

In 311 all the parties agreed to a temporary truce that sustained the status quo and promised autonomy to the Greek cities. Self rule for the many Greek cities in Asia Minor was a carrot all the aspirants to power were ready to promise for the support of those cities. Cassander retained Macedonia, as regent for Alexander IV, but it was clear that the legitimacy of Alexander’s reign was little more than a pious fiction, and the following year Cassander executed the 16-year-old Alexander and his mother, Roxane. The line of Alexander had come to an end. Nothing remained but to revere his memory to one’s advantage, and that, it seems, will live on forever. By 306, the aging Antigonus called himself king and bestowed the title on his son Demetrius as well. The following year, Ptolemy became the king of Egypt with the crown name Soter (“Savior”), and soon thereafter, Seleucus enthroned himself as Nicator (“Conqueror”) of Babylon, followed by Lycimachus in Thrace and Cassander in Macedonia. The empire was officially dissolved. In 305, Antigonus sent his son Demetrius to besiege Rhodes and remove it from the influence of Ptolemy. The year-long siege, which featured the latest in Greek machine technology, ended in a stalemate settlement but earned Demetrius the nickname Poliorcetes, the “Besieger,” and he consolidated his control of Greece by removing Cassander’s support. In 302, Cassander appealed to the remnant of the Diadochi, Lysimachus, Seleucus, and Ptolemy. The end game now lay in sight. Seleucus had ceded the lands east of the Indus River to the rising power, Chandragupta, king of the Mauryan empire in north India, in exchange for a brigade of elephants, some say 500. These animals of war he marched west to join up with Lysimachus. In 301, two armies met each other on a field of Ipsus in Asia Minor for the Battle of the Kings, a final gambit to retain control of a unified Macedonian Empire. The octogenarian Antigonus One-Eye and his son Demetrius the Besieger confronted Seleucus Nicator and Lysimachus. Historians tell us the battle was decided by the elephants. Demetrius charged ahead with his forces, leaving his father’s flank exposed. Seleucus maneuvered his elephants between them, preventing Demetrius from coming to the aid of Antigonus. Old One-Eye died in a hail of missiles, and Demetrius fled the field, escaping to Ephesus. The victors divided up the lands of Antigonus. Seleucus took Syria and Lysimachus central Asia Minor, while Cassander kept Macedonia. Ptolemy, who was part of the winning coalition but had not participated in the battle of Ipsus, nevertheless controlled Phoenicia and kept it from Seleucus. Seleucus objected but did nothing to change the status quo. In this manor Judaea became subject to the king of Egypt, Ptolemy I Soter. The age of the Diadochi was, Josephus says, a generation of wars and uncertainty for all the lands conquered by Alexander. The territory of Judaea, hedged as it was between the strategic coast of Palestine and the Dead Sea, emerged largely unscathed, except for a single incident recounted by the historian Agatharchides of Cnidus, who wrote in the second century b.c.e. and used it as an example of the foolish superstition of the Jews, that they refuse to defend themselves every seventh day. On one of Ptolemy’s campaigns in the area, he took Jerusalem by deception. Ptolemy approached Jerusalem, ostensibly to offer sacrifices at the temple. Because it was the sabbath, the Jews let him enter, and he seized the city by force of arms. Ptolemy may have desecrated the temple by entering the sacred enclosures,

66   Vines Intertwined

as hinted by a later historian, but Josephus does not say so. Ptolemy also took many captives, probably military conscripts and skilled laborers, from the hill country of Judaea and Samaria and settled them in Egypt. One account of this forced migration gives the inflated number of 100,000, with 30,000 enlisted as soldiers. Even a tenth of this, however, would have been a major shift in the Jewish population, a shift that supplemented the emerging Diaspora community.142 Just as the Jews had taken sides between Egypt and Assyria, and later Egypt and Babylon, in the seventh and sixth centuries, we must assume they took sides between Antigonus and Ptolemy and even joined in the battles between the Diadochi. If Jerusalem favored Antigonus, this would have been sufficient cause for Ptolemy to subjugate Jerusalem anew, even though the Jews had already acknowledged Alexander as the rightful king. Josephus makes the sweeping statement that the Jews received privileges for serving as auxiliaries to the kings of Asia and were even granted citizenship by Seleucus Nicator in major cities such as Antioch, with rights equal to the Macedonians who settled there.143 The claim is likely based on later developments, since the numbers of Jews remained insufficient to warrant special treatment, but it assumes the plausible notion that Jews, like the thousands of Macedonians, Greeks, and Egyptians, fought in the wars. At this stage of history, in which Jews were but one small specimen of the polyglot humanity captured in the net of Alexander, we should expect Jews to receive like rewards for like service and to settle in the newly conquered lands and cities such as Antioch in Syria and Alexandria in Egypt. Others in Judaea, as always, will have called down a curse on all foreigners. An oracle from Zechariah, which many consider to be a later addition, may reveal a Jewish response to Macedonian invasions: For I have bent Judah as my bow; I have made Ephraim its arrow. I will arouse your sons, O Zion, against your sons, O Greece, and wield you like a warrior’s sword.144

Chapter 5

Ptolemaic Era (301–201 b.c.e.)

5.1 Ptolemy I Soter Ptolemy I Soter, as pharaoh, owned all the land of Egypt except that which belonged to temples. The Egyptians had opened their gates to Alexander that he might rid them of the Persians but found themselves less enthusiastic about the Macedonian who followed. Ptolemy spent the last two decades of his reign gaining their acceptance. He restored many of the temples destroyed by the Persians and established the Serapis cult at Memphis, by which he married Greek and Egyptian religions. Ptolemy founded only one city, Ptolemais, in Upper Egypt, but he continued the building of Alexandria. The city of Alexandria became the jewel of the Hellenistic world under the Ptolemies. Inspired by the muses and financed by courtiers, Ptolemy I erected the famed lighthouse around 285 on the rock island called Pharos. It rose up in three stages, with a square base, an octagonal middle, and a cylindrical tower, crowned, some sources report, by a statue of Zeus Soter. It was probably completed and dedicated by Ptolemy II and was worthy of inclusion in the later lists of the seven wonders of the ancient world, joining the pyramids of Giza, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, the statue of Zeus at Olympia (ca. 403), the Temple of Artemis at Ephesus (ca. 550), the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus (ca. 531), and the Colossus of Rhodes (ca. 282), which collapsed in an earthquake in 225. Atop the Pharos tower, said to be more than 350 feet in height, a fire burned in a chamber and, by means of mirrors, sent a beacon of light far out to sea. From the Nile delta, one entered Alexandria through the Canopic Gate, which opened to a broad avenue a hundred feet wide, that ran straight as an arrow 4 miles through the heart of the city. Other east-west avenues lay parallel, and all were intersected by north-south avenues. A causeway 1300 meters long, built over two large arches, connected the shore to the Pharos island and permitted pedestrians to reach the island as well as allowing boat traffic between the east and west harbors. The center of the city, the palace district, sheltered the official residences of the Ptolemaic government and the museum where the leading intellects of the age dwelt and explored the world around them. The buildings were made of polychrome limestone, three and four stories high.

68   Vines Intertwined

Beneath the king stood the top official of the kingdom, the minister of economics and finance, charged with responsibility to enhance the wealth of the king and his entourage. Egypt and its provinces were divided into administrative districts, each under the oversight of a military governor and a fiscal administrator. Garrisons were set up in strategic urban centers, responsible for keeping the king’s peace. Revenue was auctioned out to tax farmers responsible for a fixed tribute to the king. The Ptolemaic tax system was notable for its complexity and efficiency. Judaea, as part of the Syria-Phoenicia province, was a temple-state owned and administered by Ptolemy. Beyond the fixed tribute, the people of Syria-Phoenicia were subject to various other taxes, a poll tax, a crown tax, and a salt tax.145 Specific taxes on vineyards, orchards, and gardens (wine, fruit, and vegetables) were often assessed by administration officials, though collected by the tax farmers. Around 300, shortly after the battle of Ipsus between the Diadochi, the Jews of Judaea settled in for what would be a century of Ptolemaic rule. The archaeological trail of coins reveals a significant change in the political administration of the land of Judah. Under Persian rule, it was a province called Yehud, but under Ptolemy, it was called Yehudah. Coins from the time of Alexander onward no longer carry the title of pakhah (“governor”), so it appears the Ptolemaic administration began dealing with the chief priest as representative of the Jewish people. As always, a small elite class of wealthy and learned Jews rubbed shoulders with their fellow elites of other lands.146 Many coins bear the image of Ptolemy and the inscription Yehudah.

5.2 Syrian and Punic Wars The third century marks the zenith of Hellenistic culture and the implosion of Hellenistic power as the Roman Republic appeared on the western horizon and the barbarians emerged in the north. In 279, hordes of Celts, whom the Romans called Gauls, the ancient Indo-Iranian nomads who migrated across Europe as early as the second millennium b.c.e., broke into Thrace and ravaged the countryside of Macedonia. One group crossed the Hellespont and settled in the mountains of Phrygia but were contained by Antiochus I Soter and his elephants to a territory soon to be called Galatia. The new threat to the Mediterranean world would be immortalized in bronze by the sculpture of the “Dying Gaul” (ca. 230–220). While control of Macedonia and the Greek city-states became the means by which Rome inserted its hegemony, as well as the focus of western history, it was of little moment to the Jews. Judaea remained within the domain of the Ptolemaic dynasty but witnessed a series of conflicts for control of the Mediterranean coast, known as the Syrian Wars, between the Ptolemaic and Seleucid dynasts. It was a time in which the Jews learned the art of Hellenistic politics, an art that would prove both useful and devastating within a century. Antiochus I, son of Seleucus I, began joint rule with his father in 292 and was given the task of securing the eastern half of the old Persian Empire stretching from the Caspian Sea to the Indian Ocean. In 281 Seleucus was assassinated, and Antiochus became the sole ruler. He soon found his domain threatened by revolts



Ptolemaic Era   69

in northern Anatolia and then by the invasion of the Gauls. Antiochus managed to defeat the Gauls with his Indian elephant brigades but let them settle in Phrygia as a buffer state. For this victory, the other Greek city-states acclaimed Antiochus as Soter (“Savior”). In Egypt, Ptolemy II (283–246) received his sister Arsinoë (I) when she fled the Celtic invasion of Macedonia and returned to her native Egypt. There, sometime before 274, she persuaded her brother Ptolemy to repudiate his wife, also named Arsinoë, and to marry her. The incestuous marriage, besides earning him the sobriquet Philadelphus (“sister-loving”), had the advantage of imitating the divine Isis and Osiris myth for the Egyptians and that of Zeus and Hera for the Greeks. She appears on coins as Arsinoë Philadelphus (“brother-loving”) and was probably the power behind the throne. She gave her brother several children, including the heir Ptolemy III. Queen Arsinoë died in 270 and was immediately deified, though sailors already prayed to her while she lived. Ptolemy launched a campaign in 274, known as the First Syrian War, to expand his northern boundary into coastal Syria and southern Asia Minor, and he won from Antiochus I Soter the territories of Phoenicia, Cilicia, Pamphylia, and Lycia. At this time, Antiochus I was occupied with troubles in the eastern end of his unwieldy empire, despite his famous boast preserved in cuneiform Akkadian: “I am Antiochus, the Great King, the legitimate king, the king of the world, king of Babylon, king of all countries, the caretaker of the temples Esagila and Ezida, the first-born son of King Seleucus, the Macedonian, king of Babylon.”147 Antiochus I Soter died in 261, having lost control of Pergamum, Pontus, Bithynia, and Cappadocia (western and central Asia Minor). The successor to the Seleucid throne, Antiochus II Theos (261–246), relinquished the eastern lands of Bactria and Sogdiana and initiated the Second Syrian War (259–253). With the help of Antigonus Gonantas, king of Macedonia, and the people of Rhodes, he regained his control in Asia Minor of Ionia, including the prize city of Miletus, where he was hailed as Theos (God), and the territories of Greater Syria, Cilicia, and Pamphylia. Ptolemy offered Antiochus his daughter Berenice Syra in marriage, and the Seleucid king accepted. She, however, insisted that he depose his queen, Laodice, and her son Seleucus, which he also did. The two now-allied rulers then concentrated on their own national affairs and died in the same year, 246; Ptolemy Philadelphus in January, Antiochus Theos in August. Upon the death of Antiochus in Ephesus, the scorned Laodice reasserted her right of succession against the Ptolemaic Berenice and her young heir. Berenice called to her brother Ptolemy III for aid in securing the throne for her son, but by the time he reached Antioch, Berenice and the infant were dead, and Seleucus II Callinicus (“gloriously triumphant”) was enthroned. This led to the Third Syrian (Laodicean) War, in which each side gained minor victories, but Ptolemy won back the coasts of Syria and southern Asia Minor by 241. During the next 20 years of his reign, he brought the Ptolemaic dynasty to the height of its prestige and is remembered as Ptolemy III Euergetes (“benefactor”) (246–221). Meanwhile, Seleucus II remained hard pressed throughout Asia Minor until his death in 226. He lost Pergamum to its independent king Aratus I Soter. Moreover,

70   Vines Intertwined

Antiochus Hierax (“falcon”), the brother of Seleucus II who had been made ruler of Asia Minor, rebelled against his brother with the help of Mithridates II of Pontus and the Gauls of Galatia. Seleucus suffered a defeat by the Galatians but eventually drove Antiochus Hierax out of Asia Minor and into Thrace, where he died in battle. Shortly thereafter, Seleucus III Ceraunus (“thunderbolt”) (226–223) succeeded his father, but he was soon assassinated during a war with Attalus I, king of Pergamum, and the brother of Seleucus, another Antiochus, came to the throne in 223. Antiochus III (223–187) spent his long reign engaged in battles to reclaim the vast Seleucid Empire. In the west he regained most of the territory lost in Asia Minor, and in 221, shortly after the death of Ptolemy III, he began a series of campaigns (Fourth Syrian War) to seize Syria and Phoenicia, the land rightfully his according to the peace agreement among the Diadochi after the battle of Ipsus (301). Antiochus captured Seleucia-in-Pieria, the port city of Antioch, and thereafter Tyre surrendered, along with the port city of Akko. The road to Egypt lay open. Unlike the lightning war of Alexander the Great, however, Antiochus entered into peace negotiations with the young Ptolemy IV Philopater (“father-loving”) (221–204). Ptolemy used the 2-year truce to assemble a new army under Sosibius, his most capable general. Sosibius broke with tradition by training 30,000 native Egyptians for his phalanx, rather than relying on Macedonians and mercenaries, probably because of the prohibitive expense to a weak treasury. In 217, Ptolemy IV, with an army of 55,000, met Antiochus III, with 68,000 troops, in battle at Raphia in southern Palestine, a few miles south of Gaza. Although Antiochus gained an early advantage with his cavalry and elephants, he allowed his army to be split, and in a counter offensive, the Egyptians crushed the Seleucid phalanx and rendered Antiochus a humiliating defeat. Palestine was to remain in the realm of Ptolemy IV for the rest of his reign. Ptolemy, however, did not press his advantage but settled for the return of Greater Syria. In 212 Antiochus turned his energies to the east, where he met with success. He subdued Arsaces II and forced Parthia to resume tribute, made an alliance that brought the Bactrians under his sway, and made a treaty of friendship with northern India. By 205 he had returned to his capital Seleucia-on-the-Tigris as ruler of the empire briefly held by Seleucus Nicator, for which he was called “the Great.” The decade-old conflict between Philip V of Macedonia and the Republic of Rome, the so-called First Macedonian War, came to an end, while Rome still confronted the Carthaginian, Hannibal, in the Second Punic War. In the summer of 204, Ptolemy IV was assassinated by his powerful ministers, Sosibius and Agathocles, leaving as heir the 5-year-old Ptolemy V. Egypt plunged into a bloody conflict over the right of regency, and Agathocles briefly held the regency, until an Egyptian mob lynched him. The child king was enthroned in 203, Ptolemy V Epiphanes (“God manifest”), and survived a succession of ambitious advisers serving as regent while the native Egyptians engaged in widespread insurrections. Upper Egypt, from Memphis south, essentially broke away and remained under independent pharaohs for two decades. The chaos in Egypt enticed Antiochus III to resume his claim to Greater Syria. He is said to have made a secret pact with Philip V to split up the overseas



Ptolemaic Era   71

possessions of Egypt. In 201, Antiochus swept south into Palestine, launching the Fifth Syrian War. Once again, he was halted at Gaza by the Aetolian general Scopas, in the employ of Ptolemy. The following winter, Scopas launched a counteroffensive, recapturing many cities, including Jerusalem, and pressed north into the Galilee. But Antiochus finally defeated Scopas at Panias (modern Banias) in the upper Galilee at the head spring of the Jordan River, and the whole of Palestine came into his possession. Many Jews, Josephus tells us, sided with Antiochus and opened Jerusalem to him. “For while [Antiochus] was at war with Ptolemy Philopater and 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 turn of his fortunes.”148 The Judaeans provided Antiochus with supplies for his troops and elephants, and they joined forces with him in besieging the citadel still garrisoned by Ptolemy’s soldiers until the Egyptians were expelled. Thereafter, Antiochus installed his own men in the citadel and helped the Judaeans restore Jerusalem.

5.3 The Diaspora Jews Jews continued to spread out across the Mediterranean world. Despite the paucity of evidence from this century, we know it to be true because when the sources do appear, they reveal Jews dwelling throughout the Mediterranean. There is a faint reference of Jewish participation on the side of Seleucus II and his Macedonians in Babylonia against Galatian mercenaries who probably fought for Antiochus Hierax in the so-called War of the Brothers.149 Josephus also preserves a letter from Antiochus III to Zeuxis, his governor of Lydia. In it, the king instructs Zeuxis to facilitate the transportation of two thousand Jewish families from Babylonia to Phrygia. The men were to join certain fortresses, and others set up in the important cities, and to be given land for building houses. The king also stipulates that they must be allowed to keep their own customs. The migration took place in the last decade of the third century.150 The letter, though edited in praise of Jews, contains genuine communication and a rare glimpse of the spreading Diaspora and their ready participation in imperial affairs. The relationship between Jews in Egypt and those in the homeland is complex, and little information in this century remains. Hecataeus of Abdera, a contemporary of Ptolemy, wrote that when Ptolemy gained control of Syria following the battle of Gaza in 312, many inhabitants of the land migrated to Egypt in order to take advantage of the new kingdom. In Egypt, Hecataeus met a leading priest called Ezechias (Hezekiah) who had fled Judaea or perhaps had been deported. Ezechias, after settling in Egypt, wrote to his compatriots in Judaea, describing the advantages of emigrating to Egypt, and finally, that “myriads” did move to Egypt and Phoenicia during the war years. Many scholars question the authenticity of the passage attributed to Hecataeus. Some consider it a Jewish forgery, hence “Pseudo-Hecataeus,” or at least an edited Jewish version of Hecataeus. It is agreed,

72   Vines Intertwined

however, that Hecataeus wrote about the Jews, and the Pseudo-Hecataeus passage reflects a kernel of historical truth that contributes to the rise of the Jewish community in Egypt.151 Some Jews accompanied Alexander to Egypt and joined those who had lived in Egypt for centuries. More immigrated during the wars of the Diadochi, and many thousands came to Egypt enslaved by Ptolemy but later gained their freedom. Throughout the third century, fresh immigrants from Judaea added to their numbers, and the Jewish community of Alexandria was formed. From the first, it appears, Jews settled in the northeast quarter of the city. Later known as the Delta quarter, it stretched from the avenue to the sea and may safely be called the birthplace of the Hellenistic Jew. At some point during this era, the Jewish community of Alexandria translated the Torah into Greek. The legend of its translation would be set down in writing only during the next century in a letter by an Alexandrian Jew known as Aristeas. The Letter of Aristeas also contains a decree of Ptolemy Philadelphus by which he emancipated enslaved Jews who had come to Egypt during the campaign of his father, Ptolemy Soter. The Judaeans had been taken as booty by the Macedonian soldiers, and they were to be set free upon receipt of a stipulated purchase price. The decree has received external verification from a papyrus document dealing with the registration of slaves in Egypt during the reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, so that despite some artistic enhancements by Aristeas, he refers to a historical event that marks a major development in the establishment of the Jewish community of Alexandria.152

5.4 High Priests The high priests during the Ptolemaic era functioned as princes and were, according to Josephus, a model of dynastic succession. Jaddua, the high priest who welcomed Alexander the Great, was succeeded by his son Onias I, and he in turn by his son Simon I. Because the son of Simon, another Onias, was too young for the office when Simon died, a brother, Eleazar, became high priest, and after he died, Manasseh, an uncle, served as high priest until Onias II was old enough. He was followed by his son Simon II, and he in turn by his son Onias III. The years they held the office, however, are not known. Onias I (ca. 300–265) may have made far-reaching gestures of diplomacy among the Hellenistic kingdoms in an effort to gain respect for Judaea. Later sources preserve such a diplomatic exchange between Areus I, king of the Spartans, and the Jews. According to the letter, “It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brothers and are of the family of Abraham.” It then proposes that each people pledge its wealth (livestock and property) to each other’s welfare. The advantage of such a diplomatic exchange for the Jews can only have been prestige, but for Areus it may have been an invitation for Jews, whose military prowess was already established, to join his Spartan army as mercenaries. While the letter may be genuine, the common ancestry of Abraham is not. The curious suggestion, however, may have arisen from a legend spawned in the deep



Ptolemaic Era   73

well of mythical etymologies and preserved by Hecataeus of Abdera, who listed the early Greeks, Cadmus and Danaus, among those foreigners, including the Jews, expelled from Egypt due to the plagues. In Greek lore, Cadmus became the founder of Thebes in Boeotia (associated, perhaps with the Thebes of Egypt). Danaus, a brother of Aegyptus (eponym of the Egyptians), was the ancestor of the Danaids, who founded two Spartan dynasties. Whether or not this is the source, the legend adds to the widespread legacy of Abraham that would embrace Pergamenes, the Arabs, and even the Parthians.153 Simon I (fl. 265–?) receives from Josephus the epithet “the Just.”154 Although Josephus has little to say about Simon the Just other than confirm his obvious virtue, he is highly lauded in rabbinic traditions, and a Simon the high priest is likewise praised by the author of Sirach. Both traditions imply that Simon the Just lived closer to the end of the Ptolemaic era than at the start, and scholars have generally thought Josephus erred, and Simon “the Just” is the descendant, Simon II (ca. 221–204).155 Eleazar (fl. ?–246) is remembered because he was the high priest who communicated with Ptolemy concerning the translation of the Torah into Greek. Of Manasseh, nothing is known. Onias II (?-ca. 221) became allied with the Tobiad clan through the marriage of his sister, and this produced a new ruling power in Judaea that controlled the temple and much of the land.156 The marriage alliance suggests the office of high priest was losing prestige, and the wealth of the Tobiads was brought in to bolster it. Onias II is well known, but only through the tale of the Tobiads.

5.5 Tale of the Tobiads We have some evidence of the close Jewish relations between Egypt and Judaea. A cache of papyri dated to the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus contained the business transactions of Zenon, an agent for Apollonius, the Egyptian minister of finance. In 259 Zenon toured Palestine and Transjordan, and his records preserve two letters from a certain Toubias that enumerate a gift to the king: Toubias to Apollonius, greeting. Just as you wrote me to send presents for the king in the month of Xandikos, I sent on the tenth of Xandikos my man Aineas with two horses, six dogs, one wild mule [born] out of a donkey, two white Arabian donkeys, two foals [born] out of wild mules, one foal [born] out of a wild ass, but they are tame. I have sent to you also the letter written by me about the presents to the king, and likewise also a copy of it [for you] so that you may be informed. Goodbye. Year 29, Xandikos 10 [May 12, 257 b.c.e.].157

Tobias, a wealthy and important Jew, a prince, appears to be at a comfortable level with a powerful minister of Egypt. This Tobias is most likely the father of Joseph son of Tobias who plays an important role in the relations between Jerusalem and Alexandria during the Ptolemaic era. There are also good reasons to believe that Tobias is a descendant of Tobiah “the Ammonite Servant” who joined Sanballat,

74   Vines Intertwined

the governor of Samaria, in opposing Nehemiah’s reforms. If so, we have the enduring, if sporadic, report of a major clan of wealthy Jews throughout the Persian and Hellenistic periods whose reputation eventually spawned a literary work known as the Tobiah Romance. Only Josephus preserves the tale, and even though he erroneously sets it during the time of Antiochus III, and though he retains, or adds, a good deal of poetic license, the story is generally accepted as historical and enlightens an otherwise obscure period. The story begins with a crisis in Jerusalem. The high priest, Onias II (a contemporary of Ptolemy III Euergetes), has refused to pay a personal tribute of 20 talents to the king, which his fathers had paid; a tribute probably linked to his political office as head of the temple-state. Ptolemy threatened to confiscate some land and parcel it out to his soldiers. When the people of the area heard of this, they were dismayed, but Onias was unperturbed. At this point, Joseph the Tobiad, the young and enterprising hero of the tale, enters the scene. Now there was a certain Joseph, who was still a young man but because of his dignity and foresight had a reputation for uprightness among the inhabitants of Jerusalem, his father being Tobias, and his mother a sister of the high priest Onias; and, when his mother informed him of the envoy’s arrival—for he himself happened to be away in the village of Phichola, from which he had originally come—he went to the city [of Jerusalem] and upbraided Onias for not regarding the safety of his fellow-citizens and for being willing, instead, to place the nation in danger by withholding the money on account of which, Joseph said, he had received the chief magistracy and had obtained the high-priestly office. As Onias, however, answered that he did not desire to hold office and said that he was ready to give up the high-priesthood if that were possible, and would not go to the king, for he was in no way concerned about these matters, Joseph asked him whether he would give him leave to go as an envoy to Ptolemy on behalf of the nation. And when Onias gave his permission, Joseph went up to the temple and, calling the people together in assembly, exhorted them not to be disturbed or frightened. . . .158

Joseph first befriended the envoy of Ptolemy who was still in Judaea, entertaining him at great expense for many days. The envoy returned to Egypt and informed the king about the arrogance of Onias, but also the excellence of Joseph, thus preparing the way. Joseph then raised funds from friends in Samaria, for the friendship between the Tobiads and the Samaritans went back to the days of Nehemiah. When Joseph reached Egypt, he found that magistrates from the cities of Syria and Phoenicia had come to bid on the tax-farming rights, which the king sold every year. Ptolemy happened to be in Memphis, and Joseph immediately went up to see him, where he charmed the king and his wife. When Ptolemy complained about Onias, Joseph replied, “Pardon him because of his age; for surely you are not unaware that old people and infants are likely to have the same level of intelligence. But from us who are young you will obtain everything so as to find no fault.” And the king delighted in him all the more. When the day came for the bidding on rights to reap the king’s taxes, Joseph accused the others of bidding low by prior agreement and promised that he could give double their proposed sum. The king granted Joseph the tax-farming rights



Ptolemaic Era   75

and even waved off the customary surety demanded of the winner in lieu of the tribute. Joseph returned to Judaea with a king’s army of 2000 soldiers in order to enforce the tribute. In the end, he used the necessary force to extract the tribute from the cities, executing nobles who refused to pay and confiscating their property for the crown. He collected great sums, became wealthy in the process, and used his money to secure the powerful office of tax farmer for 22 years. During this time he raised seven sons by one wife, and an eighth, named Hyrcanus, by a second wife, who turned out to be his niece. As it happened—and here the romance presses on—while visiting Alexandria, Joseph fell in love with a dancing girl. Although forbidden by law to have sex with a foreign woman, his desire overpowered him. One of his brothers had come down to Alexandria with him, bringing a daughter whom he hoped to marry off to a wealthy Alexandrian Jew. Joseph confided in his brother the lust he had for the foreign dancer and asked for help in gaining access to her while yet concealing his sin. His brother agreed, but out of brotherly protection, he brought his own daughter to Joseph in the night, and Joseph, being sufficiently drunk, relieved his longing and “fell still more violently in love with her.” When Joseph learned the truth, he was grateful to his brother and married his niece, by whom he had the son Hyrcanus. As the story continues, the avant-garde Hyrcanus becomes his father’s favorite, and like his father, he retained the intimate friendship of the Ptolemies, and probably the tax-farming rights. After Hyrcanus spent a huge sum of the family money on a gift for the king, his half-brothers sought to kill him, but in the fratricide war that followed, he killed several brothers. This conflict not only split the family loyalties but also divided the people in Judaea. By now, after the death of Joseph, we have reached the last decade of the century, and Antiochus III is eying the land of Syria. The contest between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies has split the Jews, so that the surviving Tobiad brothers are now leading a pro-Seleucid party, while Hyrcanus remains loyal to the Ptolemies. The tale bears a number of parallels with biblical tales of Jacob and Joseph, which undermine its historical value, and other blatant errors and chronological difficulties convince some scholars that it is simple fiction.159 However, Onias and the Tobiads are real and display the normal conflicts and intrigue of powerful men engaging the Hellenistic kings and Jews outside of Judaea. If there is a historical substratum of realpolitik beneath the tale, as many scholars accept, the Tobiads at least managed to weaken the authority of the high priest and transfer authority to the princes of the land, hence a classic power struggle between religious authorities and the natural leaders of elite among the people. But even if it is entirely fiction, it is a tale worth retelling; for the novella realistically portrays the Jews as able Hellenists and helps pave the way to the next century, when our knowledge of the history blossoms and the political intrigue in Jerusalem will cause the Tale of the Tobiads to pale by comparison.

Synthesis of Part One

Religious Development—Foundations I (640–201 b.c.e.)

S1.1 The Axial Age The 440 years from Josiah to the end of Ptolemaic rule marks the great transition of the people called Israel to their descendants called Jews. It was the Jewish version of a world transition of human thought often called the Axial Age (800–200), a word coined by the German philosopher Karl Jaspers to describe the pivotal change from cosmological worldviews in which we imagine divine beings according to what we observe in the cosmos, to transcendental worldviews in which we posit a single divine being (or an ultimate reality) beyond what we see, but which must be there as the foundation (or first cause) of the visible cosmos. The leap was made, it is argued, independently from the Far East to the Mediterranean West, from China to Greece. It included such known figures as Lao Tzu, Confucius, Siddhartha Guatama (the Buddha), possibly Zarathustra (Zoroaster), the Hebrew prophets from Hosea to Jeremiah and above all Deutero-Isaiah, and the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle.

S1.1.1 Greek Transition The Greeks leapt to the transcendent in their own inimitable way. Greek thinkers had introduced to humanity a rational wonderment about the world, while poets and artists bequeathed an aesthetic appreciation of the world that is still called classical. The dialogues, plays, geographies, histories, and compendia of medical cures questioned and organized all human knowledge. Scrolls proliferated, and libraries boasted of thousands, tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of volumes. When Ptolemy II built his magnificent museum and library in Alexandria, his librarian Demetrius admitted to 200,000 volumes but promised to accumulate 500,000, so that all of human knowledge could be sheltered beneath a single roof—a quest that brought the Torah into the Greek tongue. Philosophers knocked relentlessly on the gates to Mount Olympus. Some salvaged the myths of Homer and Hesiod by means of allegory. Others, such as Xenophanes (ca. 570–478), plainly uprooted the divine stories. “Homer and Hesiod have attributed to the Gods everything that is a shame and reproach among men, theft and adultery and mutual deception.” Furthermore, “the Ethiopians represent



Religious Development—Foundations I   77

their Gods as flat-nosed and black; the Thracians say theirs have blue eyes and red hair.” On the contrary, there is “one God, greatest among both Gods and men, resembling mortals neither in form nor in thought.”160 Xenophanes boldly imagined, “The substance of God is spherical, in no way resembling man. He is all eye and all ear, but does not breathe; he is the totality of mind and thought.”161 This cannot be considered far from the vision of his contemporary, Deutero-Isaiah, though it tends toward pantheism more than monotheistic personal singularity. As Aristotle would later observe, Xenophanes gazed upon the universe and said, “The one is God.”162 The pupil of Xenophanes, Parmenides, is said to have been “the first to declare that the earth is spherical and is situated in the center of the universe.”163 Socrates and Plato imagined a theoretical perfection which they called the Ultimate Good, or God, a rarified philosophical monotheism worthy of thinking men. It was more or less in the same era that the Greeks rationalized divine myths through allegory and the author of Genesis 1 wrote the Jewish prologue to human existence. The two camps of rational inquiry were not often in communication (though we cannot say how much or how little), but the goal appears to have been the same, to remove the embarrassing stories of anthropomorphic gods and elevate human origins. The philosophy of classical Greece was followed by schools of thought that permeated the Hellenistic world and that, like seeds, spawned new schools of thought among the Jews. One seed was skepticism. Among the artists and intellectuals in the train of Alexander the Great was Pyrrhon of Elis (ca. 365–275), a painter, educated somewhat in philosophy under Anaxarchus, who also went with Alexander. Together, says Diogenes Laertius, they conversed with the magi of Persia and the sages, or gymnosophists as the Greeks called them, of India. From such encounters, Pyrrhon developed an agnosticism that takes the form of a suspension of judgment: nothing is knowable in its essence, but only through human convention; likewise no action is more right, but humans follow a comfortable custom. All values, like beauty, are in the eye of the beholder—a relativism not so different from postmodern modernity. “The Sceptics, then, were constantly engaged in overthrowing the dogmas of all schools, but enunciated none themselves; and though they would go so far as to bring forward and expound the dogmas of others, they themselves laid down nothing definitely, not even the laying down of nothing.”164 Pyrrhon wrote nothing, but among his students was Hecataeus of Abdera, whom we know had positive associations with Jews.165 Another seed of thought was Epicureanism. Epicurus (341–270), an Athenian by birth, was born on the Aegean island of Samos, studied philosophy in various places, and finally settled in Athens around 306. He and his followers, along with slaves and women, avoided the tumults of Athenian city life by living communally in a large house with a cloistered garden where they discussed philosophy. For Epicurus the aim of the good life, the “alpha and omega,” was the state of pleasure. Pleasure he defined as the “absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul.” Wisdom, or prudence, permits us to avoid most physical pain, and we can endure what we cannot avoid. Trouble of the soul comes from fear, and the main fears are of death and the gods, with which calamities of nature are associated, such as the

78   Vines Intertwined

lightning bolts of Zeus. Epicurus sought to remove fear from the human condition, and his philosophy toward that end could be summed up as the tetrapharmakos, his fourfold cure: there is nothing to fear from the gods; there is nothing to feel in death; the good life may be attained; evil may be endured. He did not abolish belief in the gods but rendered them benign. He accepted the atomism of Democritus that all existence is compose of atoms, and the cosmos, including mortals and gods, came about by the chance collision of atoms. Humans are comprised of body atoms and more rarified soul atoms. The gods should be seen in the likeness of perfect humans (so their language must be similar to Greek), but they live in their own blissful part of the cosmos, without a care for humanity: they neither help nor harm. Tyche (Chance, Fortune) is not a god, as most men believed, but the basic state of the random movement of atoms in the universe. Epicurus denied divine Providence, or divine creation. Matter is eternal; nothing comes from nothing. As for death, it is the absence of sentience, abject nonexistence. At death the atoms of body and soul dissipate back into the randomness of the cosmos. Death should no more be feared than sleep. A third seed was Stoicism. Zeno of Citium, Cyprus (ca. 336–263), began teaching his philosophy in the Stoa Poecile (Painted Porch) of the Athenian Agora, and for his regular presence there, the building lent its name to his disciples, who became known as Stoics. The religious aspect of his philosophy was a form of pantheism: all is God, and God is all that exists. Because metaphysical thought was still elementary, God should be understood as a substance like fire, and like heat, God diffused himself throughout the cosmos. But God was also Pure Reason (Logos), or the fiery Mind (Nous) of the universe. Diogenes Laertius epitomizes Zeno’s thought as follows: God is one and the same with Reason, Fate, and Zeus; he is also called by many other names. In the beginning he was by himself; he transformed the whole of substance through air into water, and just as in animal generation the seed has a moist vehicle, so in cosmic moisture God, who is the seminal reason (spermatikos logos) of the universe, remains behind in the moisture as such an agent, adapting matter to himself with a view to the next stage of creation. Thereupon he created first of all the four elements, fire, water, air, earth. They are discussed by Zeno in his treatise On the Whole.166

God disperses himself through the cosmos via the substance of Pneuma, Wind, Breath, or Spirit, and God governs the world according to a predetermined plan. In such a universe, mankind was always in contact with God, and the good life was lived in consonance with God, or with Nature, or Zeus. As Zeno says, God does go by many names. Stoicism also allowed for lesser gods, known as daemons, and these included the celestial lights. The daemons were both good and evil, and as such, could affect the human condition, and they did communicate by divination or dream. In the eternal scheme of things, God fluctuates between two divine states: God is first alone in his perfect state, then creates the cosmos out of his divine Fire, and God again retracts the cosmos into his eternal divine state, until at another moment, the Divine plan would repeat itself, over and over. On the fate of the soul, Stoics were divided. Some denied that any soul survives death, while others claimed



Religious Development—Foundations I   79

some souls survived in the air until the next Conflagration, when all things, souls and daemons, were reabsorbed into the divine Fire. The fourth seed comes not from a recognized philosopher but a novelist, and something of a nascent atheist: Euhemerus of Messene (early third century b.c.e.). Euhemerus served in the court of Cassander, king of Macedonia (311–298), and may have written over the next two decades. He wrote of his imaginary journey to the Island of Panchaea in the uncharted Indian Ocean, populated by an imaginary tribe. While visiting a temple at the center of the island he saw a golden column on which he found written the history of the great kings of the land who had been deified and their deeds recorded by a grateful people, hence the title of his romance, “Sacred Scripture.” The names began with Uranus, Cronus, Zeus and Apollo, and worked through the pantheon. King Uranus (Heaven) had been a keen star gazer and induced his people to worship the celestial bodies. After his death, his grandson, Zeus, established a religious cult and gave his name Uranus to the heavens. Euhemerus demythologized the rest of the gods—Aphrodite, for example, had given men the institution of brothels—and he declared that the entire Greek pantheon were deified human beings. A few voices decried the impiety of Euhemerus, but in due course the novel became very popular, especially among early Christians who took it as serious evidence for the origin of polytheism, and he entered the modern vocabulary as euhemerism, the theory that all gods of mythology were once human beings. At the time, this view of the gods facilitated the trend toward deification of Hellenistic kings that thrived in Egypt and Asia and continued in Roman times with emperor worship.

S.1.1.2 Hebrew Transition The leap to transcendence in the Hebrew understanding is shown in the origin of humanity. In the old worldview, the god Yahweh fashioned a human being out of clay, and upon seeking a mate for Adam among the other animals but finding none, fashioned a woman out of the man’s rib (Gen 2). In the new worldview, the God who exists beyond (and before) the cosmos created the universe by command, “Let there be light,” and finally the human being, male and female, in the image of God (Gen 1). In the old view of God, Yahweh could be described as a “man of war.”167 Yahweh was part of a pantheon presided over by the god El, and when the nations were divided among the gods, Yahweh received the people of Jacob/Israel as his portion.168 In the new view, only one divine being deserves the name of God, Yahweh, and beside him there is no god, and Yahweh chose Israel from among all the nations of the earth to be his people.169 The people of Israel during the biblical era (the Iron Age) lived in a polytheistic world and believed many gods existed. Each people had its god, and Israel’s god was Yahweh. The struggle for Israel was to be faithful to its god, to worship Yahweh only, a cultic system called henotheism, in which only one God is to be worshiped among the many that might be worshiped, or monolatry, the practice of worshiping only one God. The gods were often placed within a hierarchy, a pantheon, reflecting

80   Vines Intertwined

human hierarchies of power. But during this age, the old pantheons bowed to a transcendent Being so much higher than other divine beings that the word God ought to be exclusively reserved for this Most High God. In this way we suppose monotheism was born in the Hebrew mind, but the Hebrew mind understood it as divine revelation first given to their patriarch Abraham. The transformation in Israel may be called the first Haskalah (Enlightenment). At this time, religion, the means of making peace with the gods, fell under human scrutiny. Human scrutiny, of course, reflects the human condition rather more than divine reality.

S1.2 Hebrew Scripture As the trauma of exile healed, and a new generation was born, and the prophets told of a restoration, the exile became a time of new beginnings. Scribes, whose business it is to keep records, began a new compilation of the court histories and the traditions of the people of Israel. In due course this labor will produce the Hebrew Scriptures, but the process of “Scripture” is obscure because it began as common, or communal, tradition within an oral society. Few members of ancient society were privy to the art of writing and reading. Significant writing was largely confined to the royal court, to keep track of royal affairs and royal accomplishments or issue royal decrees. Most of what people knew of their past they learned from the previous generation in poetry or narrative traditions. People could hear and remember, and in the case of the laws of God, the people could hear and obey. The Hebrew verb “to hear” is often and rightly translated “to obey.” “Now therefore, if you will obey [hear] my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples. . . .”170 Authority that compelled obedience came from the previous generation with the assurance that the traditions ultimately came from God. An observant member of the community needed nothing more. The authority lay in the voice of the oral communication. The oral tradition was communal, therefore anonymous, except when spoken by God. Even when God spoke, the person through whom he spoke was irrelevant. Prophets were humbly anonymous until identified by later scribes. Oral tradition, when written down, lost much of its authority. Who is to say that these markings on a piece of parchment written long ago came from our ancestors, much less from God? Who is to say they are true? Socrates reminds us of the great loss in the transition from oral to written word. Phaedrus: It is easy for you, Socrates, to make up tales from Egypt or anywhere else you fancy. Socrates: Oh, but the authorities of the temple of Zeus at Dodona, my friend, said that the first prophetic utterances came from an oak tree. In fact the people of those days, lacking the wisdom of you young people, were content in their simplicity to listen to trees or rocks, provided these told the truth. For you apparently it makes a difference who the speaker is, and what country he comes from; you don’t merely ask whether what he says is true or false.



Religious Development—Foundations I   81 Phaedrus: I deserve your rebuke, and I agree that the man of Thebes is right in what he said about writing. Socrates: Then anyone who leaves behind him a written manual, and likewise anyone who takes it over from him, on the supposition that such writing will provide something reliable and permanent, must be exceedingly simple-minded; he must really be ignorant of Ammon’s utterance, if he imagines that written words can do anything more than remind one who knows that which the writing is concerned with. Phaedrus: Very True. Socrates: You know, Phaedrus, that’s the strange thing about writing, which makes it truly analogous to painting. The painter’s products stand before us as though they were alive, but if you question them, they maintain a most majestic silence. It is the same with written words; they seem to talk to you as though they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you just the same thing forever. And once a thing is put in writing, the composition, whatever it may be, drifts all over the place, getting into the hands not only of those who understand it, but equally of those who have no business with it; it doesn’t know how to address the right people, and not address the wrong. And when it is ill-treated and unfairly abused it always needs its parent to come to its help, being unable to defend or help itself.171

The idea of authorship, hence authority, arose in response to the transfer of tradition from the oral to the written word. For the descendants of Israel, Moses became the authority, hence the author, of their earliest written traditions. The truth that Socrates put forward, that a written word is useless without a living interpreter who knows what it means, will be borne out by Jews in the concept of oral Torah, and by Christians in apostolic authority and the teachings of the church.

S1.2.1 Torah The early concept of Torah outside the Pentateuch is found in the covenant renewal ceremony under the leadership of Joshua, the successor to Moses, that combined early oral and written tradition. The people replied to Joshua, “Yahweh our God is the one whom we shall serve; his voice we shall obey!” That day Joshua made a covenant for the people; he laid down a statute and ordinance for them at Shechem. Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God (sefer torat elohim). He then took a large stone and set it up there, under the oak tree in Yahweh’s sanctuary. Joshua then said to all the people, “Look, this stone will be a witness to us, since it has heard all the words that Yahweh has spoken to us: it will be a witness against you, in case you should deny your God.” Joshua then dismissed the people, every one to his own heritage.172

The enduring stone set up by Joshua has heard the words (diberim) spoken by Yahweh that day and will bear witness to future generations. Later generations, however, did not remember. “But Jehu was not careful to walk in the law of the

82   Vines Intertwined

Lord (torat Yahweh) the God of Israel with all his heart; he did not turn from the sins of Jeroboam, which he made Israel to sin.”173 The external evidence for the Torah delivered by Moses and collected in a book comes out of Babylonia on the shoulders of Ezra.174 “And they stood up in their place and read from the book of the law of the Lord (sefer torat Yahweh) their God for a fourth of the day; for another fourth of it they made confession and worshiped the Lord their God” (Neh 9:3). All we can say of Ezra’s book of Torah is that it contained some form of the book of Deuteronomy, but not precisely the book later translated into Greek or that surfaces in the Dead Sea Scrolls library. Deuteronomy refers to the “Book of the Torah” written at the direction of Moses and bequeathed to the priests, and to be read when Israel arrives in the promised land.175 In the context of the book, Torah refers to the laws that had been expounded, or rehearsed; hence the second giving of the law (deutero nomos) by Moses at the end of his life. Obedience to these laws will bring blessings, disobedience will bring curses. The book of Joshua picks up the reference to Torah, and then we hear nothing of it until a book is discovered in the temple during the reform of Josiah.176 At some point during the century following Ezra, the Torah included five books of Moses (Pentateuch): Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy. These books contained the ancient foundation traditions, both oral and written, of the people of Israel. The process of their written formation remains an unsettled focus of modern biblical criticism, but in general we assign completion and acceptance to around 400. In this Torah we have a myth of origins, a sacred narrative from the first human pair, Adam and Eve, a survival story of the great flood, and the eponymous ancestors of the Israelites, Abram (“exalted father”) whom Yahweh renamed Abraham (“father of a great nation”) and his descendant Jacob, whom Yahweh renamed “Israel.” Israel’s sons became tribes during a 400-year captivity in Egypt, and under the leadership of Moses, an Egyptian-born prince of the tribe of Levi, the tribes became a cohesive nation as they left Egypt under the protection of Yahweh. During a 40-year wandering in the desert, the original general died, and a second generation appropriated a body of laws given them by Moses.

S1.2.2 Prophets S1.2.2.1 Sacred History Among the great literary works to emerge in the sixth century is the first history of Israel known in biblical scholarship as the Deuteronomistic History, comprised of the books of Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, and 1 and 2 Kings, which are assumed to have been prefaced by the book of Deuteronomy. Because such histories were funded by and produced for a royal house, the initial impetus for the history may have come during the renaissance of the Yahweh cult under the reign of Josiah. If so, the scribal school attached to the royal house of David later produced in exile another edition, or from their perspective, continued to keep the history alive through changes conducive to life. Other scholars think the initial composition began in the exile. Either way, it was during this time of crisis that a history



Religious Development—Foundations I   83

became necessary to provide perspective of the past and hope for the future. The Book of the Law (Torah) discovered during the reign of Josiah became the seed for the history of Israel, which is perhaps the oldest history in the world. Herodotus would later write his histories in response to the upheaval of the Persian wars, just as Thucydides and Josephus in their own days would write histories.177 The major theme of the Deuteronomistic History declares that Israel suffered defeat when it disobeyed the covenant laws of Yahweh and was restored to favor when it repented and obeyed. The authors of this history were primarily concerned to establish the exclusive worship of Yahweh and the purity of the descendants of Israel. It forms the nucleus of Jewish distinction from the rest of the nations (goyim). The Deuteronomistic scribes drew on written sources from previous generations. Some traditions are traced back to the northern tribes of Israel, in which the name El, and Elohim, for the God of Israel dominates. Other traditions speak of Yahweh as the God of Israel. These traditions are known as E (Elohim) and J (= Jahweh = Yahweh). A group of scribes who show a predilection for priestly concerns, laws, and rituals edited or composed their own narrative, a tradition called P. Another circle of scribes are identified as the Deuteronomists because of their association with the book of Deuteronomy, and the history that follows in the books of Joshua through Kings. The so-called Documentary Hypothesis describes four major written traditions, J, E, P, and D. A second collection of traditions focused on the patriarchal narratives of Israel’s oral history. The traditions associated with J, E, and P are found throughout the book of Genesis as well. Most scholars accept the verdict that Abraham is an exilic phenomenon and that all biblical references are postexilic. We cannot, however, affirm that Abraham is an exilic invention. The oral tradition of the patriarchs disappears amid the ancestral shadows, though Jacob was known to Hosea (12:3–7) and Isaac and Joseph to Amos (5:6; 7:9, 16), both of whom were prophets to the northern kingdom of Israel. The exilic interest in the ancestors is easily explained by the need for unified identity among the exiled Judaeans who were always in danger of assimilation. Therefore, the patriarchal traditions surface in the literary milieu of the exile, and their collection into the book of Genesis met the need of their day, best described by the fact that Abraham is portrayed leaving Babylon for the land of promise. Just as Abraham, the father of many nations, departed at God’s command, so his descendants should follow his example when the time is right. S1.2.2.2 Divine Oracles The prophet Jeremiah served as the voice of Yahweh in Judah, while Ezekiel spoke for Yahweh in the Babylonian exile. The exiles should not give up hope in Yahweh. They should pray for the welfare of Babylon so that in it they would find their welfare. The time of exile would be but a full generation of 70 years, after which God would restore them to the land of Israel. But only the pure in heart would return. One of the oracles of Jeremiah that would have a great impact on the development of Christianity is the “new covenant” oracle, possibly delivered in the months

84   Vines Intertwined

after the fall of Jerusalem at the time of the commemoration of the reading of Torah enjoined in Deuteronomy 31:9–13. With the failure of the covenant renewal of Josiah’s reform and the fulfillment of his prophecy that Jerusalem would be destroyed, Jeremiah looked beyond the judgment of Yahweh to the restoration of Israel and Judah. Behold, the days are coming—declares Yahweh—when I will make with the house of Israel and the house of Judah a new covenant. Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day that I grasped them by their hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I ruled them like a husband—declares Yahweh. But this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days— declares Yahweh: I will put my instruction (torah) within them, and upon their hearts I will write it. Then I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No longer will they teach, one to a neighbor and another to a sibling, saying, “Know Yahweh,” for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them—declares Yahweh—for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.178

Nowhere else in the corpus of the Hebrew Scriptures does the phrase “new covenant” (brit hadasha) occur, but Jeremiah has buttressed the idea with numerous calls for a renewal of the intimacy between Yahweh and his people. What is new about the promised covenant is that the instruction of Yahweh will be known by all, written upon their hearts, and no longer ignored. The new covenant will be made with the houses of Israel and Judah, stressing the people without kingdom organization. The metaphor of written upon their hearts is similar to circumcision of the heart, in which the will of God is the same as the will of the member of God’s people. The new covenant also looks forward to the ingathering of all Israel, a precondition for complete restoration (a point made explicit in the parallel passage of 32:37–41 where it is called an “everlasting covenant”), and as such it is eschatological. It is not clear how such an indeterminate covenant renewal was received at the time or how many even heard it. When coupled with Jeremiah’s prediction that the exile would last three generations, or seventy years, any promise of restoration would have been a distant hope to be realized only by future generations. But the oracle was written in a book at the command of Yahweh (30:2) known as the Book of Consolation (chapters 30–31), and was preserved within the anthology of Jeremiah’s oracles. In due course it gave a prophetic justification for a new covenant people, first used by the community behind the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and soon after by the followers of Jesus of Nazareth. The generation that listened in hope to the prophets Ezekiel and Jeremiah also remembered the prophets who spoke to their ancestors. The preexilic prophets, Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, had met rejection by the majority of the people, and their oracles were preserved by the small groups who supported them, by those known as the sons of the prophets. Because the prophets had predicted the doom that had fallen on the people, their words were now considered the word of God. Scribes in exile collected and edited the oracles into a small canon of the Book of the Four: Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. These prophets, among the Twelve that comprise the book of the Minor Prophets, were introduced by



Religious Development—Foundations I   85

the “Word of Yahweh that came . . .” and were dated by the reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah. Even though most scholars accept later editions of, and additions to, these four, this theoretical book represents the origin of the biblical prophetic traditions. The prophetic oracles of Ezekiel and Jeremiah were collected and edited during the exile, and probably during the period of restoration. Among the Latter Prophets, however, Jeremiah alone takes the pains to have his prophecies recorded by a scribe so they may be read to the people.179 During the early Persian era, the oracles of other prophets, with the exception of the book of Jonah, were likewise collected and preserved to complete the Book of the Twelve. The book of Isaiah is the most difficult of the Prophets to assess. The prophet Isaiah son of Amoz flourished during the reigns of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah in Judah (ca. 750–700 b.c.e.). The oracles of Isaiah were, like the other prophets of that time, preserved, presumably by a group of followers. The book of Isaiah, however, includes many later prophetic oracles and external narratives, and as a literary whole, it is probably to be dated in the later fifth century, after the advent of Ezra, perhaps as late as during the time of Nehemiah (ca. 445–435). The second portion of oracles, chapters 40–55, Deutero-Isaiah (also called Second Isaiah), are thought to come from an individual, or school, that flourished in the late exilic years (ca. 550–500) and were devoted to the traditions of Isaiah. This anonymous prophet may have discovered the loosely preserved oracles of Isaiah, and by them felt called by Yahweh to resume Isaiah’s mission.180 The voice of Deutero-Isaiah is the voice of the exile, commissioned by heaven to prophesy to the people in exile: Comfort, comfort my people, says your God. Speak tenderly to Jerusalem, and cry to her that her warfare is ended, that her iniquity is pardoned, that she has received from the Lord’s hand double for all her sins.181

This poet-prophet par excellence sees the hand of Yahweh at work in the restoration of his people. He calls on Israel to arise and be the salvation of Yahweh to bear witness to the nations of the earth. Cyrus of Persia is the Lord’s anointed, raised up to release the captives of Judah. Israel, servant of Yahweh, is to become God’s witness to the nations. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.182 This declaration of monotheism may be the first in the history of Israel, and even in human consciousness, to state a belief in only one God. In its historical context, however, such few statements probably “do not herald a new age of religion but explain Yahwistic monolatry in absolute terms.”183 As far as Israel is concerned, there are no other deities. Whether or not the far-seeing prophet denies the very existence of other gods, he has extended the horizons of the sovereignty of the God of Israel into what may be called universalism. DeuteroIsaiah has saddled the universal sovereignty of Yahweh upon the back of his servant Israel, and this challenge will have to be taken up by many a Jew in the centuries to follow, some of whom will be the forerunners of Christianity. Deutero-Isaiah contains four poems known as the Servant Songs, which are among the most difficult passages to interpret, but that also had a profound impact on the development of Christianity.184 Especially so, the Fourth Servant Song, which, as has been noted, “will remain controversial until kingdom come.”185 The

86   Vines Intertwined

original context is almost irrelevant in light of the importance the songs would come to have, but the thrust of the songs admonishes the servant, whether the individual leader, his group, or all who comprise faithful Israel, to bear witness to the work of God and remain faithful even in suffering, because the hand of the Lord cannot be thwarted. A plausible solution to the authorship of the Servant Songs is that of an individual who composed the first three songs but died without having been accepted by the people of Israel. The Fourth Servant Song was composed by his disciples about him. In the songs, the prophet calls on Israel to fulfill its raison d’etre as the servant of Yahweh, and himself embodies the servant ideal, serving Yahweh as Israel, while at the same time embodying the role of the prophetic voice from all times past. The prophet is both the voice of Yahweh and the obedient servant who stands in place of the servant Israel. Because of his obedience, his victory is assured, and in his victory lies the victory of all Israel. S1.2.2.3 Writings: An Ongoing Process As the written word gained momentum, other oral traditions were collected and new works composed. These came in the forms of poetry, proverbs, exhortation and philosophical essays, stories (novellas), visions or dreams, memoirs, and a form of history. Some of the literature was preserved in the final collection of Hebrew Scripture. The poetry is found primarily in the Psalms, or Tehillim (Songs of Praise), the book of Lamentations, and the Song of Songs. Collections of proverbs were assigned to ancient wise men, such as Solomon, king of Israel, or Lemuel, king of Massa. The book of Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) and Job are examples of philosophical treatises. Stories or novellas include Jonah, Ruth, Esther, and Dan 1–6. Visions and dreams are found in Zech 9–14 and Dan 7–12. The memoirs of Nehemiah are included in the history of Ezra-Nehemiah, which is closely tied to the great history of 1 and 2 Chronicles. The canonical status of this literature, however, is a confinement that must be set aside in order to appreciate the historical development of Jewish thought. It is the thought, rather than the collection of texts, that determines the advance of the Jews and the nature of Judaism out of which springs Christianity. The extant texts are merely a sampling of the currents of thought, and the canonical texts reduce the sample further, even if they define what most Jews considered to be the classics, or the authoritative texts.

S1.3 Currents of Jewish Thought There is a general understanding of Jewish thought during this Persian and early Hellenistic era that it may be divided into four genres; prophetic, priestly, apocalyptic, and wisdom. The prophetic current was very important at the beginning of the era, but as Torah emerged in the form of the Books of Moses, the age of the prophet came to a close, and sages and visionaries picked up their task. Sages interpreted the Torah as spokesmen of God’s word, while visionaries sought, and found, a direct link to the divine realms through the mediation of angels. Toward



Religious Development—Foundations I   87

the end of the era, then, we are left with three genres; priestly, apocalyptic, and wisdom writings, that describe the currents of Jewish thought.186

S1.3.1 Zadokite Priesthood The Zadokites were the leading priestly clan that went into exile and returned. Jehozadak, the last chief priest of the first temple, was followed by his grandson Jeshua, the first high priest of the second temple. Leadership of the Judaeans was divided between a Davidic scion, Zerubbabel, and the Zadokite priest, Jeshua. The disappearance of Zerubbabel broke the fragile dyarchy and brought an end to the royal line of David. The high priestly line of Zadok, the reputed first chief priest of the first temple alongside King Solomon, remained as the cultic leader of the Judaeans and ruled Jerusalem through the temple cult, while governors appointed by Persia answered to the Persian monarchs on matters of state. Although the recognized authority of the high priest came slowly, the political ideology of Judaea was becoming a temple state within the Persian Empire. The interventions of Ezra and Nehemiah did much to advance this development. The exchange of letters between Judaea and the Jews of Elephantiné reveal some progress in Zadokite control from Jerusalem over Jewish communities in the Diaspora. By the time of Alexander the Great and thereafter, the high priest has become the recognized prince-priest of the Judaeans, and the recognized cultic leader of all Jews everywhere. The Zadokites themselves were engaged in fashioning their power through written records. Foremost and earliest was their redaction of the Torah collection: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers.

S1.3.2 Apocalyptic (Enochian Tradition) The dawn of the apocalyptic current of Judaism, like many a dawn, is faint. The gradual withdrawal of the prophets provided an invitation for God to speak in other ways. There was, however, a common thread between prophetic and apocalyptic visions—a disclosure of the future. The prophecies of a new heaven and a new earth provided a link between God’s past and future.187 The elevation of God to a position of Most High and the emergence of intermediary divine beings, angels, also facilitated apocalyptic visions. The difficult times—the problem of the omnipotence of God, and the continued existence of evil—demanded new solutions. The earliest extant apocalyptic tradition in Judaism is preserved in a collection of works under the title 1 Enoch.188 The dates of these compositions extend perhaps three centuries, from late fourth or early third century b.c.e. to the first century c.e. The original inspiration (apart from God) for the Enochic traditions appears to come from two passages in Genesis. When Enoch had lived sixtyfive years, he became the father of Methuselah. Enoch walked with God [or the angels] after the birth of Methuselah three hundred years, and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixtyfive years. Enoch walked with God; and he was not, for God took him.189

88   Vines Intertwined

The proximity of Enoch to another enigmatic passage, the sons of God who had intercourse with the daughters of men, seems to have engendered a fertile relationship between the passages. When men began to multiply on the face of the ground, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair; and they took to wife such of them as they chose. Then the Lord said, “My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for he is flesh, but his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.” The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of men, and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown.190

The figure of Enoch mirrors, or imitates in some sense, an ancient Mesopotamia myth of the antediluvian Enmeduranki, the seventh king after kingship descended from heaven, who reigned 21,000 years, and became the founder of Babylonian divination. Likewise, this king and his wise adviser, Utuabzu, known as the seventh sage, did not die but ascended to heaven.191 Beyond the common background that may explain Enoch’s place in the biblical genealogy there is no obvious Mesopotamian influence. Enoch of the apocalyptic tradition, however, walked with the angels and was taken up to heaven to be shown the true state of human existence, past and future, knowledge he may deliver to the righteous elect who will be alive at the final tribulation.192 The myth of the sons of God who copulate with the daughters of men and the giants they produced reflects a variety of ancient mythologies and is apparently a fragmentary relic of a fuller tradition that has been inserted into Genesis only to provide God with a reason to regret his creation and decide to wipe it out with the flood.193 In the Enochic tradition, the myth of the angelic intrusion into human affairs serves to explain the true origin of evil. The Book of the Watchers (En 1–36) is probably the second oldest portion of the Enochic collection. After an introduction (1–5) drawn from numerous biblical passages that establishes its prophetic credentials, the book retells the myth of the Nephilim as the rebellion of the Watchers (6–11). The angels called “holy watchers” are the biblical “sons of God.” The story is retold on an eschatological level. The rebellion of the angels occurs in heaven, and the illegitimate offspring of giants are the cause of the chaotic violence that has ravaged the earth. The archangels of God, including Michael and Gabriel, see the devastation on earth, and on behalf of humanity they utter a plea to God for help. God responds favorably and sends an archangel to help Noah, and sends another, Michael, to bind the rebellious watchers until the day of judgment. The earth is then cleansed of all unrighteousness, oppression, and defilement and is restored. Humanity dwells in the fertile earth in which crops and vineyards produce in abundance. The Gentiles also come to worship so that the sovereignty of God over all the earth is finally realized. The biblical story of the fallen sons of God and the resulting flood becomes the eschatological restoration of all things and establishes the paradigm for future apocalyptic scenarios. Although the myth has more ancient origins, the retelling of



Religious Development—Foundations I   89

it in 1 Enoch suggests an allusion to the generation of the successors of Alexander, the Diadochi, and their interminable wars (323–301).194 A second vision resembles Hesiod’s myth of Prometheus, and even Aeschylus’ Prometheus Bound. Here the angel Azazel reveals the art of metallurgy to humans that enable them to fashion instruments of war and the use of cosmetics and jewelry, which led to lust, adultery, and war. Other angels taught incantations, the art of cutting roots (magical herbs), the science of astrology, and all forms of oppression. And the cries of the people reached to heaven. God instructed Raphael to bind Azazel hand and foot and cast him into the darkness to await the day of judgment. Raphael dug a hole in the desert, cast Azazel in, and covered him with rocks. In the remainder of the Book of the Watchers, we are then told of Enoch’s original summons to heaven, where he is commissioned to prophesy to the angels. The abode of God is described as made of fire and ice, a temple built of hailstones or ice crystals and surrounded by fire (14). When Enoch entered the cavernous temple, it was hot as fire and cold as ice, and fear enveloped him. The description of the throne room of God follows the vision of Ezek 1–2, a throne of crystal with wheels like the sun on which sat the great glory, and beneath the throne a river of fire. God is surrounded by cherubim and angels who do not look upon him, and Enoch also keeps his gaze lowered. During Enoch’s commissioning, the sin of the watchers is referred to, but now in a manner that seems to reflect the abuses of the priests in Jerusalem. Thereafter, Enoch tours the earth and the netherworld. He first journeys to the western edge of the earth’s disk where he sees the punishment awaiting the rebellious watchers. He is introduced to the seven archangels who will accompany him on the rest of his journey. Enoch then journeys to the eastern edge of the earth’s disk. He sees the spirits of the dead kept in ordered arrangement of their nature, the righteous or sinners, awaiting the final judgment. Here, the wicked already suffer, but the righteous look forward to life. During the rest of the journey, he again visits the mountain throne of God and sees the new earth, and the new Jerusalem, and touches the ends of the earth north, west, and south, finally east where he reaches the gates of paradise. The theology of Enochic apocalypticism expresses a strongly dualistic worldview between good and evil, both on earth and in heaven, and between this age and the next age. The present evil condition of the earth conflicts with the Zadokite theology of the goodness of divine creation expressed in the first chapter of Genesis. According to the Zadokite worldview, God created the world and confirmed it was good. Although the sons of God once corrupted it, the flood renewed God’s good earth, and further renewal is unnecessary. God rules his created order, and the priests of his temple mediate his rule through the sacrificial system. Evil is the consequence of individual or group actions, which merits, and often receives, punishment in this life. Zadokites know nothing of another world, or age, or justice beyond what we have here and now. The Enochic view of evil is that it originated in heaven, it has overturned the divine order of creation, and can be obliterated only by heavenly intervention, an intervention that will occur. (The Enochians also believed that the Zadokite calendar, which did not count the equinoxes and solstices

90   Vines Intertwined

as days, was wrong. The year is 364 days in length, not 360 days plus four dividers.) We cannot tell at this point to what extent the Enochic traditions represented an organized group of scholars or people, but those who adhered to those traditions appear to be priests who opposed the ruling Zadokites. In other words, at this stage, the worldviews appear to have been a theological dispute between priests, though other Jews may well have sided with the one or the other, depending on their bent of mind, or perhaps on some social advantage.

S1.3.3 Jewish Wisdom Tradition Among the earliest Greek descriptions of the Jews, Theophrastus (ca. 372–288) describes them as a peculiar segment of the Syrians, “philosophers by race” because they “converse with each other about the deity, and at night-time they make observations of the stars, gazing at them and calling on God by prayer.” Theophrastus found the daily holocaust offering worthy of remark, since the sacrifice is not eaten but, in the manner of antiquity, burned whole at night so that “the all-seeing sun should not look on the terrible thing.” This manner of sacrifice was abhorrent to the Greeks, who saw it as killing for the sake of killing, rather than for food. Theophrastus also describes the famous balsam groves in the valley of Syria (i.e., in the vicinity of Jericho and the Dead Sea), the sap of which sells for twice its weight in silver.195 Another early Greek writer, Megasthenes, a contemporary of Seleucus Nicator, visited India between 302 and 288, where he resided for a time in the court of Chandragupta. He speaks of the Jews as philosophers, whom he compares with the Brahmans of India.196 A third Greek impression of Jews is attributed to Clearchus of Soli (ca. 300 b.c.e.), who was a student of Aristotle. Clearchus claims it is none other than Aristotle who says the Jews are descendants of Indian philosophers, who in India are called Calani, but in Syria go by the name of Jews. Aristotle is supposed to have met a Jew in Asia and said that he “not only spoke Greek, but had the soul of a Greek.”197 This is most likely one of those early philosopher tales of which the Greeks were fond, but there is nothing implausible about an early Hellenistic Jew, enamored of philosophy, whether it comes from the Far East or classical Greece. The reputation of philosophers bequeathed on the Jews by early Greeks surely encouraged Jews to engage Greeks in exchange of wisdom and all knowledge. A few Jewish intellectuals had likely encountered Greek philosophy since the time of Socrates, simply because trade and curiosity require that a few minds will penetrate the cultural frontiers. We know some Greeks roamed the earth in search of wisdom, and we should imagine some Jews did as well. When Judaea came under the hegemony of Alexander and his successors, the Greek language and culture became compulsory for advancing in the Hellenistic milieu. Any member of the elite class in Jerusalem who wished to rise in the new world will have learned Greek. All those who struck out to find their fortune beyond Judaea will have made Greek their primary language, and for their children it would be the mother tongue, and for their grandchildren, likely the only language they knew. The allure of Greek



Religious Development—Foundations I   91

culture was its own dynamic stimulus. Even though the third century yields few extant works to demonstrate this, the seeds of Hellenistic Judaism were being planted, from Antioch to Alexandria. The wisdom tradition of Israel emerged from the wisdom of the ancient Near East, including Egypt. By the very nature of wisdom, the Jewish tradition is broad and universal because wisdom is not the handmaid of any people but available to all. The Assyrian book of Ahiqar, a tale of the triumph of virtue and wisdom over treachery, was preserved by the Jews despite its polytheism. The sayings of the wise in the book of Proverbs, largely attributed to Solomon, also pointedly include those of Agur, son of Jakeh the Massaite, and Lemuel, king of Massa, and probably a descendant of Ishmael, hence from Arabia. The hero of the book of Job, an Edomite from the land of Uz, lived before or during the time of Abraham, and his friends Eliphaz, Bildad, and Zophar, come from Teman, Shuah, and Naaman. Wisdom is the accumulated experience of a people that tells us how best to live life, and the fundamental rule of the wisdom of that time was, whatsoever you sow, you shall reap. Ancient wisdom saw evil as a simple cause-and-effect event. It is the way of the world. Folly suffers, wisdom prospers. “He who is steadfast in righteousness will live, but he who pursues evil will die.”198 According to the sages of Israel, wisdom came from the Creator of the universe. Wisdom personified calls out: “The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth.”199 Therefore, “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.”200 The wisdom tradition of Israel sees the world as essentially good, and the pursuit of knowledge is the exploration of the works of the Creator. Many sages and Greek philosophers studied nature and medicinal herbs as the natural course of wisdom, that is, discovering the ways of God. Because wisdom is universal, its worldview stands apart from the covenant laws revealed at Sinai. The Mosaic blessings and curses had no obvious relevance to the ways of wisdom or of the world. Nor is there a cosmic evil that has undermined Wisdom’s work of creation. The story of Job is intentionally set in a time before Moses, or even the promises to Abraham, were known. The inclusion of Satan helps date it to the postexilic times, but it is still early because Satan is among the “sons of God.” In this universalistic setting, when evil befalls the righteous man, we follow the human exploration of innocent suffering and the inherent human demand for justice apart from the Mosaic covenant. In opposition to the traditional formula that evil comes because of sin, that we reap what we sow, and that repentance is the appropriate response to evil, a theme repeated over and over by his friends, Job refuses to repent for sins he did not commit. Although the text as we have it is fraught with difficulties, obscure words, and evidence of more than one author, the treatise sets forth the limits of wisdom. Every conceivable answer to human suffering is explored, yet none is provided as final. Between the final composition of the book of Job and the other great philosophical treatise, Ecclesiastes, the Greek philosophical positions that arose after Socrates permeated the thoughts of Mediterranean humanity. But during the early Hellenistic era, the flow of philosophical influence among the Jews is difficult to

92   Vines Intertwined

trace. That the Greeks were keen to acknowledge philosophical exchanges with magi and Indian philosophers, and some included the Jews among the guild, tells us the exchange of wisdom could come from Hebrew to Greek just as easily as Greek to Hebrew. It is sufficient to say that certain modes of thought came of age during the century following the Macedonian conquest. Philosophy was in the air, and the author of the biblical book Ecclesiastes had the makings of a Greek philosopher. While Zeno taught in the Painted Porch and Epicurus taught in The Garden, the Jewish savant we know as Qohelet (the Preacher) is said to have taught in Jerusalem, studying and arranging many proverbs.201 The book of his teaching that survives was probably compiled and edited by his pupils, who likened him to the famous philosopher-king of Jerusalem, Solomon; and the master himself probably encouraged the likeness, for they believed Solomon had collected thousands of proverbs, and his great wealth opened the door to all pleasures. In keeping with philosophical schools throughout the ancient world, his students likely came from the wealthy families of Judaea, who could afford the leisure of education. Qohelet levels his critique at all ancient wisdom, and the philosophers of his own day, to the extent he knew them. His verdict: “Vanity of vanities! All is vanity” (1:2; 12:8). The earth and the cosmos are consistent and weary; the sun rises and sets, the rivers run to the sea; but this monotonous predictability will not open a window to the future. Humans are subject to the laws of time, and there is a time for everything under heaven. Life is not fair, society is not just, wisdom seems to have little advantage over folly, and certainly cannot reach its goal of the good life. Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to the skillful; but time and chance happen to them all. (9:11)

God is a distant and omnipotent ruler, one who is to be respected but not argued with. Who can make straight what God has made crooked (7:13)? The sage does not refer to Job but seems to be aware of the story, as we should expect. “Whatever has come to be has already been named, and it is known what man is, and that he is not able to dispute with one stronger than he. The more words, the more vanity, and what is man the better?” (6:10–11). God tests humans to demonstrate they are merely animals (3:18). As with all the philosophers, Qohelet warned that vows should be kept for God does not take oaths lightly nor suffer fools well (5:4–6). For Qohelet, death is the end of existence, a universal verdict that renders meaningless the desires and struggles of life. He wonders if humankind is different from the animals: “Who knows whether the human spirit goes upward and the spirit of animals goes downward to the earth?” (3:21). Who can say? From his observation, death is arbitrary, paying no respect to virtue over folly. The ancient promise to reward virtue by a long and prosperous life is too often disproved. Despite the meaninglessness of life, he advises his pupils to seek its pleasures—good food, expensive clothes, wine, and women—while they have strength to enjoy them. “Bread is made for laughter, and wine gladdens life, and money answers everything” (10:19). Qohelet ends his ruminations with an ambiguous dictum: “the dust returns



Religious Development—Foundations I   93

to the earth as it was, and the ruach [breath or spirit] returns to God who gave it” (12:7). He probably speaks of dissolution of the breath, not immortality, but it may also express such a hope. The most interesting, and to some the most troubling, aspect of Ecclesiastes is that it should have been preserved in the Hebrew canon. One explanation is that Ecclesiastes describes a debate between two schools in Jerusalem, one tied to traditional Jewish wisdom, the other enamored of Greek philosophy. But if so, Greek philosophy wins hands down. An attractive solution has recently been proposed that the treatise of Qohelet represented the learned conclusion of the Jewish Wisdom movement, which one of its opponents from the traditional “hear and obey God” school published with the epilogue attached as a warning to young minds eager to engage themselves in the wisdom of the day (12:9–14). From this perspective, a weathered old professor of Torah is telling freshmen that a university degree is a waste of life. Just follow what your parents told you, and you’ll do fine. The advantage of this interpretation is that it best explains how the book of Ecclesiastes, which is so contrary to the mainstream view of Torah, was nevertheless widely preserved and finally included in the canon. Human wisdom, because it is a human endeavor, is doomed to its own paltry limits.202

S1.4 Diaspora Jews Yahweh was now the Most High God in the minds of virtually all Jews, and the only divine being worthy of the name God. Worship of God was regulated by daily sacrifices and the pilgrim feasts of Pesach (Passover), Shavuot (Weeks), and Sukkot (Tabernacles). The laws of God were codified in the Torah. Time was sanctified by the sabbath, and the seasons regulated by the sun and the moon. Responsibility for obeying the laws had passed from the whole people to the individual. In those days they shall no longer say: “The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” But all shall die for their own sins; the teeth of everyone who eats sour grapes shall be set on edge. (Jer 31:29–30)

Kingship remained in Gentile hands, from the Babylonians, to the Persians, to the Macedonians known as the Ptolemies. Under Babylonia and Persia, governors represented the king of kings, while the high priest and his council of aristocrats ruled over the affairs of God from Jerusalem. Under the Ptolemies, the high priest and his council answered directly to the king. The office of prophet was occupied by a number of notable voices: Nahum, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk before the exile, Jeremiah and Ezekiel during the exile, Haggai and Zechariah, the “sons of Isaiah,” the traditions of Joel, and finally Malachi. But in the fourth century, that office had been filled by the sage, the scribe, and the visionary. All this could only be described as providential. The people of God were scattered across the earth, from Assyria and Mesopotamia in the east, to Anatolia in the north and Egypt in the south, and westward across North Africa. The land was holy. Jerusalem was the holy mountain.203

94   Vines Intertwined For on my holy mountain, the mountain height of Israel, says the Lord God, there all the house of Israel, all of them, shall serve me in the land; there I will accept them, and there I will require your contributions and the choicest of your gifts, with all your sacred things. (Ezek 20:40)

The vast stretch of land that Ezekiel called for to be holy, dedicated to the priests, was never implemented, but the idea of holiness was applied to Jerusalem and gradually spread outward into Judaea.204 During this era, the majority of exiles remained in Babylonia, while Jews migrated hither and yon in search of opportunities not to be found in Palestine. The wanderers took with them a primitive monotheism, a henotheism practiced as monolatry, eyes pointed toward the one temple for the one God. And over the generations, layers of custom defined their ethnic heritage. Insofar as certain Gentiles found the Jewish way of life attractive, some will join them. Looking back, Jews will speak of their ancestors colonizing the earth for their God, and the bold claim was not without merit.205 Two features of Diaspora Judaism began the universalization of Jewish faith: the synagogue and the Septuagint.

S1.4.1 Synagogue The origin of the synagogue, like many origins, remains obscure and debated. It began as a word for the community who “gathered together” but later meant also the building where they gathered. The more original word for the building was proseuche (“house of prayer”; by the second century c.e., synagogue universally meant the building where Jews gathered). Four origins have been proposed. It may have begun during the reforms of Josiah, as men gathered in a specific place in Jerusalem for nonsacrificial worship. A second suggestion is that it began in exile, as people gathered to hear the words of the prophet Ezekiel.206 A third view is that it began under the reforms of Ezra and Nehemiah, as part of the regular reading of Torah. Others argue it began in the third-century Egyptian Diaspora, where the first hard evidence appears, and was the official assembly (synagōgē), the Hellenistic religious association recognized under the Ptolemies. It took the place of the city gate for numerous social gatherings in larger cities.207 The earliest inscription of a synagogue building is in Egypt, during the reign of Ptolemy III Eugertes (246–221). The word first appears in 1 Maccabees as an assembly of the Hasidim, or gathering of scribes, or the great assembly that proclaimed Simon ruler and high priest in 141 b.c.e.208

S1.4.2 Septuagint The Jews in Egypt during the Ptolemaic era made a major break from their ancestors by abandoning the Hebrew language and adopting Greek, but they kept the faith of their ancestors by translating the sacred Scriptures into Greek. The process of translation was probably piecemeal at first and may have begun as an oral translation during sabbath readings, much like the Aramaic Targums, which



Religious Development—Foundations I   95

are often an elaborate paraphrase to draw out the fuller meaning of obscure Hebrew or to contemporize it for current needs. But at some point during the third century, the five books of Moses were systematically translated into Greek and accepted as the standard and authoritative Torah of Moses. The legend of this translation will be immortalized in the next century by the author of the Letter of Aristeas and given the seal of divine inspiration when translated by 72 sages, hence the name Septuagint (Seventy) and the Roman numeral abbreviation lxx. Later still, the Greek will be considered divine dictation, in which each translator worked independently and “under inspiration, wrote . . . the same word for word, as though dictated to each by an invisible prompter.”209 Diaspora Jews eventually considered the translation itself to be divinely inspired, of equal authority with the original Hebrew. The Septuagint replaced the tetragram YHWH with the Greek kurios (“Lord”), which tells us Jews perhaps already refrained from pronouncing the Name. The immediate significance of the translation however, is that the Greek Scriptures enabled the Diaspora Jews to explore the Divine in Greek terms and by Hellenistic hermeneutical methods. Concepts born in ancient Hebrew (Semitic) thought were transformed into contemporary Greek (Hellenistic) thought. When the process of translation of the Law, the Prophets, and many of the Writings will have been done by the first century b.c.e., a Jew well-trained in both Hebrew and Greek will note the difficulties. He had translated a book of wisdom written in Hebrew by his grandfather Jesus ben Sira and begged lenience from his readers who might be familiar with the original Hebrew. You are invited therefore to read it with goodwill and attention, and to be indulgent in cases where, despite our diligent labor in translating, we may seem to have rendered some phrases imperfectly. For what was originally expressed in Hebrew does not have exactly the same sense when translated into another language. Not only this book, but even the Law itself, the Prophecies, and the rest of the books differ not a little when read in the original.210

For example, the verse “You shall not revile God (Elohim), nor curse a ruler of your people” was rendered in Greek, “Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor speak ill of the ruler of thy people.”211 The plural form of God, Elohim, in this case, was kept in the plural gods (theous), thereby warning the Jews living among the Gentiles to not revile the gods of other peoples, just as they should not speak ill of their Gentile sovereign.212 Equally important, the Hebrew term for covenant, brit, was rendered by the Greek diathēkē, which bore the meaning of “testament” or “will” as well as the Hebrew concept of an agreement between God and his people. The new meanings opened the door to fundamental new theological views of covenant, which also entered the Latin of testamentum, including the foundation for the New Covenant as New Testament. The entire Hebrew biblical tradition translated into the Greek, and expounded upon by Diaspora Jews, will become the theological foundation for early Christianity until the nearly forgotten Hebrew will be brought back to life by the church fathers Origen and Jerome.

Part Two

(201 b.c.e.–14 c.e.)

Chapter 6

The Maccabean Revolt (201–161 b.c.e.)

6.1 Mediterranean World The history of Judaea in the second century begins with the Roman invasion of Greece, called the Second Macedonian War (200–196), and the consolidation of Seleucid control of Coele-Syria. Unlike the previous centuries, we now have several Jewish sources, of which Josephus makes good, though sometimes confusing, use.1 The pace of political intrigue and changes in leadership with its surfeit of names will cause the eyes of all but the most ardent reader to glaze over. In brief, the Seleucid dynasty will disintegrate under the pressure of Parthia in the east and Rome in the west, while the weak Ptolemaic dynasty will endure as a bread and linen basket for the Mediterranean basin. Out of the political vacuum, which human nature abhors, the Jews will assert their existence through internecine strife and will give birth to a brief independent kingdom. When Rome had sent Hannibal out of Italy, retaken Spain, and reduced Carthage to a vassal state, it resumed its conflict with Philip V, and in due course, with Antiochus III the Great, both of whom were still dividing up the Ptolemaic spoils. The war was invited by an appeal to Rome from Pergamum and Rhodes against the designs of Philip V. Other Greek city-states joined the winning side, so that after Rome defeated Philip at Cynoscephalae (“dog’s head”) in Thessaly and proclaimed the freedom of Greece at the Isthmian Games in 196, the rest of the Peloponnese soon came under the hegemony of Rome.

6.2 Seleucid Kingdom Antiochus III the Great (223–187) spent the first years consolidating his gains in Syria, including the small pockets of Jewish pro-Ptolemaic resistance in Judaea and Jerusalem. By 198 Antiochus controlled all Judaea and provided for the rebuilding of his newly won lands. Josephus preserves a document issued by the king that outlines the restoration program. Besides rebuilding the destroyed parts of Jerusalem and helping to repopulate it, Antiochus provided for the sacrifices of the temple and its repairs and other tax relief. He reduced the general tribute by a third, probably to 200 talents, and freed all Jews who had been carried off from

100   Vines Intertwined

Jerusalem and made slaves. He ordered their property, and any children born during the period of slavery, to be restored to them.2 The transition from Ptolemaic to Seleucid rule got off to a good start, and Antiochus was remembered also by his Jewish subjects as “the Great.”3 The letter of Antiochus speaks about the Jewish senate (gerousia), perhaps better translated “council of elders,” as a governing body, and toward the end it states: All the members of the nation (ethnos) 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.

The high priest is not specifically addressed as the leader of the Jewish people; rather, the senate, or the council of elders, has the leading role to play. The council of elders was drawn from the aristocracy of the land and likely included lay nobility as well as priests, or possibly lay nobility to the exclusion of priests. The stark absence of the high priest suggests some movement away from the hierocracy, or priestly rule, from the time of Nehemiah, although in the events to come, priests remain in the thick of things. Finally, the “laws of their country” is literally the “laws of their fathers” and refers to the Torah and the customs developed around it, so that by royal decree, as we saw under Artaxerxes with the mission of Ezra, the Torah is confirmed to be the law of the land. This was standard practice of the Hellenistic rulers, to confirm the legal system particular to any Greek city, but it confirmed the fact that the legal force of Torah depended on the will of a foreign king. What the king giveth, the king may take away.4 And the ruling party (Hellenists) have now appealed to the foreign king against their “brethren.” The legitimacy of their rule rests on Gentile authority. A second decree of Antiochus restricts the access of foreigners to the temple in Jerusalem and forbids the importation of unclean animals or their hides into the city of Jerusalem.5 This decree probably reflects the views and power of a conservative segment of the priesthood and their attempt to control access to the temple cult. Once again we see that the old conflict between the Jewish provincials and the cosmopolitans is alive and well, since such a ruling would not have been necessary if other Jews were not opposed to the restrictions. The high priest at this time was Simon II, son of Onias II. His absence in the official communication of Antiochus is all the more interesting because, after Jeshua the first high priest, this Simon is considered the greatest high priest of the Second Temple period. Simon was later awarded the epithet ha-tsakkiq (“the Just”), and his praises were already sung by his contemporary, a sage named Jesus ben Sira, in the fiftieth chapter of his book called Wisdom of Ben Sira (Ecclesiasticus, or Sirach). Responsibility for the restoration of the temple after the Fifth Syrian War fell upon Simon II. He had given his support to Antiochus III, leading what will have been the pro-Seleucid party in Jerusalem and no doubt carried many of the citizens with him. Against Simon, Hyrcanus the Tobiad rallied pro-Ptolemaic support, but the other Tobiads had sided with the Seleucids, and Hyrcanus was exiled from Jerusalem.



The Maccabean Revolt   101

In 196, Ptolemy V Epiphanes came of age and took the throne under the newly adapted Egyptian coronation trappings, one of many concessions to a rising Egyptian nationalism. The Egyptian priest of Memphis commemorated the event by a trilingual inscription in hieroglyphic, demotic Egyptian, and Greek. The priesthood used a black basalt slab to enumerate the benefactions Ptolemy had given to them, quite unaware, we may be sure, that they had provided the key to deciphering ancient hieroglyphs in the future discovery of the famous Rosetta Stone. The following year, according to Josephus, Ptolemy made his peace with Antiochus III, ceding to him all of Greater Syria and Judaea and receiving as his treaty wife the daughter of Antiochus, Cleopatra, whose dowry may have included part of the tribute of Greater Syria, Samaria, Judaea, and Phoenicia.6 But at this point, the Aetolians, who had been Roman allies during the earlier conflict with Philip V, declared war against Rome and appealed to Antiochus III for intervention against the Achaean League. Antiochus invaded Greece with a small force of 10,000, but he was driven back to Asia Minor by Rome and then soundly defeated at Magnesia. Two years later (188), at Apamea, Antiochus swallowed his remaining ambitions and accepted the harsh terms of the peace treaty with Rome. He lost all of Asia Minor along with his naval fleet and his famous elephant brigade. Rome required war reparations of 12,000 talents payable over 12 years. In order to raise the funds, Antiochus began raiding temples, and the following year, 187, the old king was killed by an outraged throng as he looted the temple of Bel in Susa. When Seleucus IV, son of Antiochus III, came to the throne, the new high priest in Jerusalem was Onias III, son of Simon II. Onias seems to have sided more with the growing pro-Ptolemaic factions in Judaea, possibly because he saw the Seleucids in decline after the battle of Magnesia, and the miserable way Antiochus had been slain. The pro-Ptolemaic Hyrcanus the Tobiad, still expelled from Jerusalem, now entrusted a large sum of money to the temple treasury for safety. The complex political struggles that soon followed seem to have engaged the Seleucids and the Jews equally. As usual, wealth and power, now clothed in Hellenistic garb, lay at the root of the conflict. The official in charge of the Jerusalem market, a man named Simon (called the Benjaminite, to avoid confusion), fell into conflict with the high priest Onias III, presumably over the exercise of his authority. Simon lost the argument and informed Apollonius, the Seleucid governor in Syria, of the temple wealth, which he said was available for the king’s use. When Seleucus IV learned of it, he sent his chief minister Heliodorus to obtain the money. In Jerusalem, Onias explained that the money, valued at 400 talents of silver and 200 of gold, was reserved as funds for widows and orphans, but there was also a private deposit by Hyrcanus the Tobiad. Heliodorus insisted that he was under orders to confiscate it. The fact that much of the wealth belonged to a pro-Ptolemaic war lord causing trouble for the king in Arabia could not have escaped his notice. According to the book of Second Maccabees, our sole source for the event, when Heliodorus approached the temple to inspect the treasury, he was struck down by angels and survived only because Onias offered a sacrifice of atonement for his impiety. Divine intervention, however, is not subject to the historian’s scrutiny,

102   Vines Intertwined

and we are left simply with the fact that Heliodorus returned to King Seleucus empty-handed. One can imagine, however, a good deal of political intrigue to which we are not privy but subsequently plays itself out. The inability of either Simon the Benjaminite or Onias to oust the other without appeal to the Seleucid monarchy suggests a broad power struggle within the Jewish aristocracy and marks the start of a conflict that will result in the Maccabean revolt. Simon the Benjaminite called the reported angelic intervention a hoax, claiming that Onias had in fact assaulted Heliodorus, and again he appealed to Apollonius, the governor of Syria. Simon conspired with Apollonius and hired assassins to eliminate some opponents. Onias realized the danger Simon posed to his authority and traveled to Antioch for an audience with King Seleucus. Before he arrived, Heliodorus had assassinated the king, and his brother Antiochus IV Epiphanes usurped the throne, taking it from the son of Seleucus IV, also called Antiochus.7 While Onias remained with the Jewish community near Antioch awaiting a new audience, his brother Jesus, who changed his name to Jason, appeared before Antiochus IV Epiphanes and promised substantially more tribute from Judaea if he were made the high priest. But Jason had greater ambitions that would please Antiochus. He offered the king an additional 150 talents if he were given authority to build a gymnasium and enroll the people of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch. Antiochus granted Jason all he asked, and in 175, Jason became the first high priest to gain appointment by the authority of a foreign king. It has been suggested that Jason used the deposit of Hyrcanus the Tobiad in the temple treasury to purchase his office and authority, for it was about this time, soon after Antiochus came to power, that Hyr­ canus committed suicide out of fear for his life at the hands of Antiochus.8 Onias III, however, had a son, Onias (IV), the true heir to high priesthood, who may have remained in Jerusalem and would in any case have retained Jewish supporters.

6.3 The Polis of Jerusalem Jason swiftly set out to make Jerusalem a bonafide Greek polis, Antioch-atJerusalem, and its citizens Antiochenes. The distinction of polis would elevate Jerusalem from its marginal status of a quaint temple state to the league of Greek cities that surrounded it: the great coastal cities of Gaza, Ascalon, and Joppa, the reputed site where mythical Perseus had rescued Andromeda; and cities to the north, Scythopolis, Philoteria near the Lake of Gennesaret (Sea of Galilee), and Panion at the source of the Jordan River, the city that guarded the grotto sanctuary of Pan. Why should Jerusalem, the Hellenist residents wished to know, be shackled to its humble past, to say nothing of the financial benefits the polis would bring to its citizens. The request in itself tells us that a considerable portion of the aristocracy, and even underlings who aspired to higher rungs on the social ladder, supported the transformation. Although the Hellenization of Jerusalem was a political move (the struggle for status and power), one could not escape the religious implications (keeping peace with God). Onias bore the reputation of being zealous for the laws of Moses, and



The Maccabean Revolt   103

Jason apparently set aside the enforcement of some of the customs that hampered his ambitions, perhaps sabbath restrictions among other matters. The temple cult, however, continued. Jason then erected the gymnasium (gymnasion) near the citadel and enrolled many young men of the nobility into an ephebeion, the basic components of Hellenistic higher education. The Antiochene youths eagerly adopted the Greek broad-brimmed hat in devotion to Hermes and entered into the classic Greek educational system, including the athletic contests. Such was their ardor, we are told, that the priests among them were often delinquent in their temple duties, preferring wrestling matches and discus training. Competition was performed in the nude, glorifying the human form, and some athletes, so they might not suffer the ridicule of Jewishness when they competed in the games, employed surgeons to perform an epispasm to undo the circumcision that a provincial custom had forced on them without permission in their infancy.9 The first occasion for the new citizen-athletes to strut their stuff was the quadrennial games held at Tyre. Jason sent his Antiochene envoys to the city with a monetary offering for the sacrifice to Heracles (Hercules), who along with Hermes was a tutelary god of the gymnasium. The men delivering the offering, however, lost their nerve and asked that the monetary gift of 300 drachmas be devoted to some secular matter. City officials allocated the gift to building Tyrian navy vessels.10 Three years into the Hellenistic modernization of Jerusalem, Antiochus paid the city a visit, and this may have served as the official founding of the Jerusalem polis. The visit was something of a side event, however, because Antiochus was in Joppa to assess his southern frontier. After Ptolemy VI Philometor came of age and celebrated his coronation, he expressed renewed hostility toward the Seleucid kingdom. In the meanwhile, Jerusalem saw another change in its leadership. Jason sent a certain Menelaus, brother of Simon the Benjaminite, to Antioch with tribute money. Menelaus used the occasion to offer the king an additional 300 talents of tribute for the office of high priest, and Antiochus granted it. Menelaus represents the first break in the dynastic succession of high priests since Jeshua revived the office after the Babylonian exile. When news of the change reached Jason, he fled to the land of Ammon. The most turbulent decade of Jewish history had begun, and the first act would be the murder of Onias III, a milestone in the apocalypse of Daniel: After the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing, and the troops of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed. (Dan 9:26)

Soon into his tenure, Menelaus failed to deliver all the money promised, and both he and the commander of the Syrian garrison were summoned to Antioch. Before the matter could be addressed, Antiochus departed to suppress a rebellion in the north and left Andronichus as his deputy. Menelaus ingratiated himself with Andronichus by giving him some gold vessels from the temple. When Onias, who still lived in exile near Antioch, learned of this, he took the unusual step of seeking sanctuary in the temple of Apollo at Daphne, and from there he exposed

104   Vines Intertwined

Menelaus’s sacrilege of temple property. On the advice of Menelaus, Andronichus went to Onias and after promising him upon oath safe passage, killed him as soon as he came out of the sanctuary. This act of treachery shocked the Jewish nation and their neighbors alike. Even Antiochus is reported to have wept when he learned of it from Jews in Cilicia. Then, inflamed with anger, he stripped Andronichus of his rank and had him executed on the very spot he had committed the murder.11 Menelaus and another brother, Lysimachus, continued to pilfer golden vessels from the temple, and word of this stirred up massive resistance by the common people in Judaea. An attempt to put down the resistance by Lysimachus with 3000 armed men resulted in a city-wide backlash. The armed men took flight, and a mob tore Lysimachus limb from limb. Charges were also brought against Menelaus. The Jerusalem senate sent three delegates to complain to the king, but once again, Menelaus managed to bribe a court official and escape judgment. Instead, the three senate delegates were executed.12 About this time, in the spring of 169, Antiochus invaded Egypt in what is called the Sixth Syrian War.13 At this point our sources, 1 and 2 Maccabees and Josephus, as well as the Roman historians, offer partial, conflicting, or garbled accounts of events (the only eyewitness is the apocalyptic Dan 11), and they diverge to such an extent that all attempts to reconstruct events—and there have been many—are admittedly tentative, but the end result in 167 is solid enough. During the 2-year war (169–168), Antiochus IV twice invaded Egypt. In the summer of 169, he took the Nile delta, pillaged temples, and became the “Protector” of his nephew Ptolemy VI Philometor. But the Alexandrians rebelled against this Seleucid interference and made Ptolemy VIII Physcon the king. Antiochus withdrew and let the two Ptolemies fight it out. On his return Antiochus may have entered Jerusalem, and with the help of Menelaus, removed some monies and treasures from the temple.14 This action did not cause an uprising but would have caused animosity among most Jews. The following year, 168, Antiochus again conquered Egypt, but this time the senate of Rome ordered him to withdraw. The clash between Roman interests and the ambitions of Antiochus IV reached the turning point in the famous Day of Eleusis. In July, Popillius Laenas, the head of the Roman embassy, met up with Antiochus in the suburb of Eleusis outside of Alexandria. He handed the message to Antiochus and silently awaited the response. Antiochus asked for time, to which the Roman drew a circle in the sand around the king and demanded an answer before he stepped out. Antiochus swallowed his pride and agreed to leave Egypt. This humiliating event may provide a key to the subsequent madness Antiochus showed in his response to the quarreling Jews. Antiochus was already known to be eccentric. According to Polybius, Antiochus often went in disguise to mingle with the common people, as if applying for a political office and seeking votes, giving extravagant gifts to strangers, and so on. The wits of Antioch called him Epimanes (“manic” or “maniac”) as a pun on the Epiphanes (“manifest”) from his coinage epithet Theos Epiphanes (“God manifest”).15 While Antiochus had campaigned in Egypt, Jason heard a rumor that the king had died and quickly raised a small force of a thousand men to attack Jerusalem.



The Maccabean Revolt   105

The attack only caused more bloodshed in the city, and when Jason learned that Antiochus was alive and advancing on Jerusalem, he fled back to Ammon. News of the conflict in Jerusalem was taken to be a general revolt, and Antiochus, fresh from his humiliation, marched on Jerusalem in a beastly rage. He stormed the city and ordered his soldiers to slaughter and plunder at will.16 The king, guided by Menelaus, entered the temple and stripped it of all its gold, from the overlay on decorations to the golden vessels, candelabra, and altar of incense, altogether valued at 1800 talents. He then returned to Antioch, leaving Menelaus and two overseers in charge of the devastated city. During the next year there must have been continued unrest in Jerusalem, and it is possible that Onias IV took over the main opposition to Menelaus, with support from Ptolemy. All Jews who were against Antiochus and his manipulation of the high priests would have been pro-Ptolemy and now became pro-Roman. In 167, Antiochus sent another commander, Apollonius, with an army of 22,000 to quell the unrest. Apollonius took a page from the military tactics of Ptolemy I and gained entrance to Jerusalem on the sabbath. He put to death more thousands, and the rest fled into the wilderness. The daily (Tamid) offering ceased. Apollonius had the city walls torn down but strengthened the ancient City of David into a fortification called the Akra and stationed there a garrison of foreign mercenaries, people of an alien god (Dan 11:39). Jerusalem had been reduced to a military cleruchy, a special colony status in which the residents kept their original citizenship and did not form a polis independent from the surrounding countryside.17 The next step by Antiochus is not easily explained and may have required the rationale of a royal Epimanes mind, but it appears to have been an effort to unify his frontier against Egypt and Rome under a consistent ruler cult, in keeping with the new title displayed on his coins in the hundred and forty-third year of the Seleucid calendar (169/168): “God Manifest Victory Bearer.” Then the king wrote to his whole kingdom that all should be one people, and that all should give up their particular customs. All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the towns of Judah; he directed them to follow customs strange to the land, to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and festivals, to defile the sanctuary and the priests, to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and other unclean animals, and to leave their sons uncircumcised. They were to make themselves abominable by everything unclean and profane, so that they would forget the law and change all the ordinances. He added, “And whoever does not obey the command of the king shall die.”18

This decree, such as it may have been, is here worded in the memories of the martyrs. There is no evidence that the Jews of Babylon or Asia Minor, or even in Antioch itself, were under any pressure to abandon their Judaism. That some Jews throughout the Seleucid Empire easily rejected their customs is believable, for we have internal Diaspora evidence that many Jews desired to do so. To be cosmopolitan was the goal of the truly emancipated Hellenistic Jew. Given some benefit of the

106   Vines Intertwined

doubt to the mostly silent voice of the Hellenistic Jews, they might have justified the new religious orientation by citing the words of their coreligionist in Alexandria, Aristeas: “God, the overseer and creator of all things, is He whom all men worship,” and while Jews use one name, “others address Him differently, as Zeus and Jove.” Or they might have long appreciated the poem by Aratus of Soli, Phaemonenon, as did their fellow Jew Aristobulus of Alexandria, who quoted approvingly the poem, only substituting the generic “God” for “Zeus”: Never O men, let us leave him unmentioned, all ways are full of Zeus and all meeting-places of men; the sea and the harbors are full of him. In every direction we all have to do with Zeus; for we are also his offspring.19

Behind the practical desire of Antiochus for empire-wide unity, there was a genuine, if naive, desire on the part of many Jews for a unifying religion that would permit them to enter into the Hellenistic culture as equals. If they joined in the new cultic festivities, that too would be explained as a convention of their culture, not a conversion to polytheism. Benefit of the doubt aside, there will have been other Jews, like those who removed the marks of circumcision, who wished to obliterate the heritage of Jewishness that appeared to their Hellenistic neighbors as peculiar at best and barbarous at worst. They will have admired Joseph the Tobiad, who dined with kings and proved himself a sinner no better than any other aristocrat. And the author of 1 Maccabees will be justified in calling them lawless and godless. It appears to have been these Jews who pressed their case in the decision of Antiochus to ban all the embarrassing and exclusively Jewish rituals for citizens of the Jerusalem polis, as well as the books from which the laws derived. This was an attack on Jewish separatism, aimed at Jerusalem and its environs, in which, if we can believe the testimony of our sources, there was a good deal of bitter disdain in the minds of Hellenistic Jews who supported Antiochus. What began as a century-long culture war with religious undertones was now embroiled in imperial politics and no small amount of vengeance. But after the decree and vicious policy of Antiochus, it became a civil war, and then a war for liberation. The man behind the attack on Judaism was Menelaus.20 It has been suggested that when he took over the priesthood, he had already transformed the temple ritual into a more generic Phoenician cult that facilitated the Syrian garrison and other Gentiles dwelling in the area. This would explain his willingness to dispense with the temple vessels, and it would help explain the pointed banishment of the essential ordinances of Judaism. Whether or not he had gone that far, he implemented the decree of Antiochus with alacrity. Torah scrolls were burned. Overseers spread out across Judaea looking for circumcised infants. When they were found, the mother was paraded through the city with the baby hung around her neck, and finally they were hurled to death from the walls. Other Jews found celebrating the sabbath in caves were killed, an easy task against those who would not raise a hand in their own defense. Every



The Maccabean Revolt   107

village in Judaea was required to make a sacrifice to foreign gods, or perhaps to the king, and burn incense at the doors of the homes. On the festival of Dionysus, the men and women of Jerusalem, willingly or not, walked through the streets in bacchanalian procession, heads crowned with ivy. In December of 167, a Hellenic altar was built atop the great stone altar of the temple, and ten days later on Kislev 25, the first sacrifice was made, probably of a swine. Menelaus remained the high priest of the temple, and the new cult was transformed into a universal one for Zeus Olympus. Greek festivals replaced Jewish holy days, and an Athenian senator arrived to take charge of the Greek festivities. The Syrian soldiers of the garrison, and other Gentiles in the area, and very likely the most ardent Hellenistic Jews, reveled in the new cult. After the initial shock of the campaign against Judaism, the traditionalists developed a passive resistance, and many fled to the wilderness or into the surrounding territories. It was a time of self-definition for Jews, of action and reaction, persecution and martyrdom. One anonymous Jew produced, under the nom de plume Daniel, a collection of stories from the olden days to remind the traditionalists of the courage and fidelity of their ancestors in Babylon and a series of visions that foresaw the victory of God. Like an elixir of confidence it must have spread among the faithful thousands.

6.4 Maccabean Revolt One day in the village of Modein, 20 miles northwest of Jerusalem, a royal official assembled the villagers and ordered the customary Hellenic sacrifice. Among the villagers was an old priest named Mattathias. He had fled Jerusalem with his five sons, John, Simon, Judas, Eleazar, and Jonathan. The royal officer asked Mattathias, as a priest, to make the sacrifice. Tradition tells us the old priest replied, “Even if all the nations that live under the rule of the king obey him and have chosen to obey his commandments, every one of them abandoning the religion of their ancestors, I and my sons and my brothers will continue to live by the covenant of our ancestors.” When another villager stepped forward to perform the sacrifice, Mattathias “burned with zeal.” He rushed forward and killed his fellow Jew upon the altar, slew the stunned officer, and demolished the altar. He cried out, “Let everyone who is zealous for the law and supports the covenant come out with me!” (1 Macc 2:19–20). Mattathias and his sons fled to the hills. News of the resistance spread, and many who wished to remain faithful to their laws also fled to the wilderness. The Syrian garrison hunted them down and isolated one group in a cave. The soldiers waited until the sabbath and gave the refugees an ultimatum to come out and obey the king or die. They chose death. The soldiers entered and massacred them all, men, women, and children, numbered at a thousand. When Mattathias learned of this, he decreed that all Jews should hereafter defend themselves on the sabbath. And thereafter they did. Mattathias then found himself surrounded by many faithful called Hasideans, derived from the Hebrew hasid, or saint; each prepared to die for the law.

108   Vines Intertwined

Mattathias organized the men into an army. The revolt had begun. They engaged in systematic raids to cleanse the land, killing the apostate Jews, tearing down Hellenic altars, and circumcising all the uncircumcised boys they found. The Hellenistic Jews, and even the less ideological peasants who simply wished to survive, now fled to their Gentile neighbors. The intense regime of the resistance soon wore out old Mattathias. When it came time to die, he rallied his forces with a stirring speech, “Remember the deeds of the fathers, which they did in their generations.” Among the heroes he named was Phineas, grandson of Aaron, who slew an apostate Israelite in the sight of Moses and all the camp of Israel, and for his zeal, won the covenant of everlasting priesthood. Phineas now became the archetype father of the zealot Jew, and Mattathias the founder of the zealot cause—the right to abide by the faith of their ancestors. Before he died, Mattathias made his son Judas, surnamed Maccabeus, the leader. The name Maccabeus may have been a childhood nickname for a physical distinction, like a hammer-shaped head, but in the popular etymology it came to mean his military prowess, the “Hammerer” or the “Hammer of God.”21 Judas Maccabeus proved himself an able tactician, and bolstered by the religious purity of the Hasideans, he led the rebels in a succession of victories against the astonished and ill-prepared Seleucid forces. Apollonius, who had brought the great devastation on Jerusalem, gathered a large force of Gentiles and Samaritans into Judaea. They were quickly defeated, and Apollonius was killed. Judas took the sword of Apollonius and used it as his own. A second, more powerful Seleucid force led by Seron, the commander of the Syrian army, approached Jerusalem from Beth-Horon, 12 miles to the northwest. Judas rallied his men and fell upon the advancing force. Again the zeal of men willing to die for their cause proved too much for the mercenaries. Judas and his men crushed the enemy and pursued them to the sea-coast, killing about 800. At this point Antiochus Epiphanes realized he had a full-scale rebellion in Judaea, but his coffers were dangerously low. While he campaigned against the Parthians, he left half his forces with general Lycias, vice-regent over his son Antiochus V, with orders to destroy Judaea. Lysias dispatched an army of 47,000 under three generals, Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias. When the army encamped in the plain of Emmaus, traders hurried in from the coast with silver coin and iron chains to purchase the slaves that would soon be auctioned off. Judas, however, organized his men and appointed commanders over thousands, hundreds, and tens. They prepared themselves by prayer and fasting. On the eve of the battle, while Gorgias took a force of 6000 for a surprise night attack on the camp of the Jews, Judas, who had better intelligence, took his 3000-strong army and destroyed the main camp of the Syrians. Meanwhile, Gorgias, thinking the Jews had fled, returned to find his own camp in flames and the remaining soldiers dead or dispersed. His army lost courage and fled into the southern plains. While slave merchants returned home disappointed, Judas and his men gathered up a great booty, gold, silver, and purple cloth. Judas soon had a force of some 10,000. Lysias then took matters into his own hands and marched his army of 60,000 down the coast around Judaea and then advanced on Jerusalem from the south



The Maccabean Revolt   109

along the road from Hebron. He besieged the fortress of Beth-zur, 5 miles south of Jerusalem. Judas Maccabeus and his men met Lysias near Beth-zur and once more defeated a vastly larger force. Lysias had to retreat back north to Antioch with losses of 12,000. The war was not going well for the Seluecid king, and Lysias decided to propose peace terms. He told Judas Maccabeus of his intentions and asked for a statement of loyalty to the crown. Meanwhile, he sent Menelaus, as the still-legitimate representative of the Jews, to Antiochus in Babylon with his peace proposal. The king replied by a letter to the council, early in 164. He offered amnesty to all the rebels who wished to return to their homes, and they were free to worship according to their own laws as had been guaranteed by Antiochus III. The letter made no mention of the Akra fortress or the high priest, so it appears Menelaus remained in office, and the king had surrendered no authority. But Judas and his men had won the cause for which they fought, freedom to follow their own way of life. It was a good beginning, but only a beginning. As they saw it, God was on their side. The goal was no longer religious freedom but a kingdom under God.22 Judas marched his army into Jerusalem in the fall of 164 and took charge of the temple, rendering the high priesthood of Menelaus irrelevant. They found the sanctuary desolate, the gates burned and the altar defiled. Weeds and bushes grew from the cracks of in the stone courtyard, and the priestly chambers were in ruins. In their grief, they tore their cloaks, sprinkled ashes on their heads, wailed, and blew trumpets. Judas posted guards around the Akra to prevent the Syrian garrison from aiding the Hellenist Jews who still opposed them, and they set about to restore and purify the sanctuary. After removing the Hellenic altar, uncertain what to do with the profaned altar of burnt offering on which it had sat, they decided to tear it down and store the stones in a safe place until a prophet should arise to declare what to do with them. Then, using stones untouched by iron as the law required, they built a new altar. New vessels were made, a new altar of incense, and a new menorah, the seven-branch candelabra. Early in the morning on Kislev 25 (December 164), they offered sacrifice on the new altar and rededicated the temple. For eight days they celebrated the dedication, in a manner similar to the Feast of Tabernacles. Judas ordered that the celebration become an annual event, the Feast of Dedication, known today as Hanukkah. By the first century c.e. the celebration involved the lighting of many lights in homes, and according to Josephus, was known popularly as the Festival of Lights, but in the Gospel of John it is called the Feast of Dedication.23 The legend of the lamp oil—that they had only enough oil to burn for one day, but that it miraculously lasted the full eight days—would attach itself to the festival centuries later.24 Antiochus IV died while on campaign in Parthia. His minister Philip was returning with the king’s signet ring to replace Lysias as vice-regent and protector of the young Antiochus V. Judas used the uncertainty in Antioch to resume his consolidation of territory and engaged in a number of skirmishes with local Gentile populations, ostensibly to cleanse the land of Hellenic altars. The many Gentiles in Palestine were alarmed by the victories of Judas, and the conflict was turning into a mélange of Hellenistic Jews versus Maccabeans versus Gentiles. Judas rescued Jewish communities from Gilead and the Galilee, destroyed Hebron and its surrounding

110   Vines Intertwined

villages in the south, and then marched through “the land of the Philistines,” plundering and destroying their graven images and altars.25 Judas had become a war lord, and in the view of their Syrian masters, as well as in the view of the Gentiles living throughout the land, a unifying foe. Judas laid siege to the Akra, the base of Seleucid power in the land and protector of Menelaus, the high priest. Menelaus escaped with some of the garrison and appealed to Lysias, who attacked Judas with a large army, including elephants. Eleazar, the brother of Judas, charged under an elephant he thought carried the general, stabbed it in the heart with his spear and died as the elephant collapsed on him. Despite Eleazar’s courage, Lysias was not on the elephant, and at the end of the day, gave Judas his first defeat. After destroying Beth-zur, Lysias laid siege to Jerusalem. Because it was a Sabbatical Year and provisions in the city were scarce, they appeared vanquished, but Lysias had to return to Antioch to preserve his power against his rival Philip, and he offered the Maccabeans a renewal of peace with the admonition that Judas should let the land live in peace. Back in Antioch, Lysias decided that Menelaus was the cause of all the troubles and executed him, naming in his place a genuine Aaronite priest called Alcimus. Although the Hasideans recognized the legitimacy of Alcimus, Judas did not. He resumed the siege of the Akra and prevented Alcimus from entering the temple. At this time a new claimant to the Seleucid throne arrived from Rome. Demetrius, the son of Seleucus IV and nephew of Antiochus IV, had been held hostage as part of the senate’s control of Seleucid kingship, but he escaped, and upon entering Antioch, he was hailed by the people as the legitimate king, and the army accepted him. Antiochus V Eupator and Lysias were soon executed. Alcimus led a delegation of Hellenists to Demetrius and appealed for protection against the attacks of Judas. Demetrius confirmed Alcimus as high priest and sent his general Bacchides to establish Alcimus in his office. A number of the Hasideans came to ask just terms for a peaceful transition, that is, assurance that Alcimus would perform his duties according to their views of the law. Alcimus swore an oath that their lives would be protected, but when they came before him, he executed 60 of them. Bacchides also found and killed many of the supporters of Judas and then returned to Antioch. With such treachery from the start under Demetrius and Alcimus, no hope remained for reconciliation between the Hellenists and the Maccabeans. Unabashed war followed. Another Syrian general, Nicanor, came with a new army. The Maccabeans joined battle with the new army, and Nicanor was among the first to fall and his army was destroyed. The soldiers of Judas seized the spoils of war and displayed the head and right hand of Nicanor outside the walls of Jerusalem. The narrator of 1 Maccabees concluded, “So the land of Judah had rest for a few days” (7:50). At this point Judas felt strong enough to seek complete independence. To do so, he knew he must pay court to the king makers of the world, the Roman senate. He sent two distinguished envoys, one of whom was the historian Eupolemus son of John, to Rome with a request to the senate that Judas and his people “be enrolled as allies and friends.” The senate approved the treaty of friendship, by which Rome recognized Judas as the independent ruler of Judaea. Naturally, there is some doubt



The Maccabean Revolt   111

about the legitimacy of this document preserved only in 1 Maccabees, but in reality, Rome customarily made such gestures and grants of recognition. It cost them nothing, as Judas and his followers learned soon enough. The senate may even have sent a message to Demetrius, warning that he should no longer interfere with Jewish affairs. But Demetrius, with his own Roman connections, would have known of the senate affairs, and he acted swiftly. He sent Bacchides, his most able general, back to Jerusalem with an army of 24,000. The army of Judas had fallen to 3000 men, and when they saw Bacchides, their courage failed them. All but 800 slipped away in the night. The next day, Judas was dispirited, and his men pleaded with him to save his life and flee. Judas refused. Perhaps he felt his time had come. He fought bravely and died. His brothers Jonathan and Simon buried him in the family tomb near Modein, and all Israel mourned: “How is the mighty fallen, the savior of Israel!”26

Chapter 7

Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom (161–67 b.c.e.)

7.1 Mediterranean World The decadent and decaying Ptolemaic joint rule of the brothers Ptolemy VI Philometor and Ptolemy VIII Physcon (“potbelly”) in Egypt remained awkward and unsettling both for Alexandria and for Rome. Palace intrigue fostered insurrection by the native Egyptians, and both Ptolemies appealed for support from Rome; then both chose to skirt the senatorial decisions. But by 154, Philometor seems to have secured his rule in Alexandria, with Physcon isolated as ruler of Cyrene (163–145) and his son Ptolemy Eupator the governor of Cyprus. Upon the death of Philometor in 145, the young Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator succeded his father, only to be assassinated by Physcon, who then returned to rule in Alexandria (145–116). Before Physcon died, he impregnated his niece in her pubescence, and with his niece-wife Cleopatra III Euergetis (116–101), produced a son, Ptolemy IX Lathyrus (“chickpea,” 116–107; 87–81), and another, Alexander. When Ptolemy Physcon died in 116, he left the kingdom to Cleopatra III and her choice of male heir among her two sons, Ptolemy Lathyrus or Alexander. Although she preferred Alexander, the people desired Lathyrus, and Cleopatra recalled him from his office as governor of Cyprus for joint rule. Alexander replaced him in Cyprus. That lasted until 107. Cleopatra then accused Lathyrus of plotting to murder her, and the Alexandrians rioted against him, forcing him back to Cyprus. Alexander returned to rule with Cleopatra while Ptolemy Lathyrus raised an army to wage against his mother. Elsewhere in the Mediterranean, Rome was occupied in 154 by a major rebellion in Spain by two groups, the Celtiberians in the northeast and the Lusitanians in the west. The Celtiberians made peace by 151, but the Lusitanians withstood Roman control until 139. And Carthage would soon complete its 50 years of payments since its surrender to Rome after the battle of Zama, so both sides were preparing for the third and final Punic war (149–146 b.c.e.), also called the Carthaginian War. By the end of the war the city of Carthage, which at one time may have sustained a population of 250,000, had only 50,000 left to surrender. Rome sold the survivors into slavery, razed the city, and the territory became the Roman province of Africa. The year 141 marked a transition in Persian politics that set in motion a clash of Titans between East and West that would ebb and flow for almost 800 years until



Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom   113

the coming of Islam. The Parthians were the rising power in the East; Rome the rising power in the West. The decline of the Seleucid Empire left the lands of Asia Minor once again open for the taking, and both empires would find it necessary to control them for national security. The Parthian people were originally nomads, known as the Parni, who settled in the northeast of the ancient Persian Empire. They traced their kingship to a certain Arsaces I, a governor under the Bactrian king Diodotus, who revolted around 247 and established his own kingdom in the former Persian, now Seleucid, satrapy of Parthia, along the southern shore of the Caspian Sea. Over the next few generations they emerged under the name of their territory as Parthians with their ruling dynasty the Arsacid. Each of the Parthian kings expanded his independent rule as the Seleucid kingdom dissolved, until Mithridates I (171–139) advanced on Babylon in 141 and occupied Seleucia-on-the-Tigris, a city of some 600,000 people comprised of Macedonians and Greeks along with healthy minorities of Jews and Syrians. Although for the next 20 years the land would be fought over, lost, and retaken, it came permanently into Parthian control under Mithridates II by 122. The Parthians, who remained a largely pastoral people governed by aristocratic families, had no interest in transforming the existing Hellenistic culture or religions of the cities, and they left the various cultural groups, including the Jews, undisturbed, so that the gradual transformation from Seleucid to Parthian hegemony passed smoothly.

7.2 Jewish Diaspora We have little information on the Jewish population of Mesopotamia at this time, except that they had lived there for more than four centuries and were now spread out across the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. Pliny the Elder (23–79 c.e.) mentions a certain Zachalias of Babylon, a Hellenistic Jewish name, who dedicated a book to King Mithridates in which he “attributes man’s destiny to the influence of precious stones.”27 We should also bear in mind the natural increase of exiled Jews as well as descendants of the exiled ten tribes of Israel into the northern regions of Mesopotamia, especially around the city of Nisibis (modern Nusaybin, in southern Turkey), many of whom will come to light in the first century c.e. Given the silence of our sources, it appears the Jews of Babylonia remained aloof from the Maccabean revolt. The communities cooperated with the imperial authorities for their security and social advancement. Whatever they thought of the revolt in Judaea, it left no scar on their collective memory. The Jews of Egypt went through their own political trauma upon the death of Ptolemy VI Philometor in 146. His widow, Cleopatra II, proclaimed their 16-yearold son, Ptolemy VII Neos Philopator, as the new ruler under her regency. This did not sit well with Physcon, the younger brother of Ptolemy VI, who had once been co-ruler but was confined to ruler of Cyrene since 163. He induced riots in Alexandria with a mob calling for his return to kingship. Cleopatra’s support appears to have been limited to the elite intellectuals and Jews, led by two Jewish generals Onias and Dositheus, whom she made commanders of her entire army. When

114   Vines Intertwined

Physcon arrived in Egypt, he proposed a return to joint rule and then had the young Ptolemy Neos assassinated during his wedding, reducing the joint rule to himself and Cleopatra II. Physcon crowned himself Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, and soon after he avenged himself on those who had opposed his kingship, the intellectuals and the Jews. Josephus claims Physcon rounded up the Jews of Alexandria, men, women, and children, and exposed them naked in the hippodrome where they were to be trampled to death by elephants, which had been rendered intoxicated just for the task. The elephants, however, being driven under the influence, were uncontrollable and ended up stampeding Physcon’s friends who had gathered to watch the spectacle. The memory of this incident gave rise to an annual celebration among the Jewish community of Alexandria similar to Purim in memory of Esther, and whatever the actual historical circumstances, it was expanded into the historical romance known as 3 Maccabees. The incident demonstrated the confidence of Jews to be engaged in the politics of their land and their loyalty to the Ptolemaic dynasty, siding with Cleopatra as the more legitimate ruler. Again in 107 the Jews of Alexandria come briefly into the picture. After Cleopatra III accused her son Ptolemy IX Lathyrus of treason, many of the Jews in Alexandria and on Cyprus sided with Lathyrus, but the Jews in Heliopolis remained faithful to Cleopatra. She appointed two sons of Onias IV, Chelkias (Hilkiah) and Ananias (Hananiah), commanders of her army, and they became powerful advisors for her foreign policy, which in due course would affect Judaea. According to the later testimony of Valerius Maximus, Jews had already immigrated to Republican Rome in the second century b.c.e., perhaps in the wake of the embassy sent by Judas Maccabeus, if not earlier. Among them, Jewish missionaries had achieved some success in teaching their monotheism to people in Rome, so that in 139 b.c.e. Cornelius Hispalus, the magistrate responsible for foreign residents “banished the Jews from Rome because they attempted to transmit their sacred rites to the Romans, and he cast down their private altars from public places.” It has been suggested that the private altars were those of the Roman “converts” to the Jewish cult, rather than private altars of the Jews themselves, although in this syncretistic age, with a temple to Yahweh established in Egypt, either view is possible. Or the term altar may simply mean a shrine or early synagogue. In a second reference, the cult is directed to Jupiter Sabazius, which was probably a Latin way of referring to the Jewish God of the Sabbath, though it might involve a fair amount of syncretism. At the very least, the evidence testifies of a Jewish mission on behalf of DeuteroIsaiah to take the sovereignty of God to the Gentiles.28

7.3 Hasmonean Dynasty After the defeat and death of Judas Maccabeus in 161 b.c.e., the high priest Alcimus took control of the temple and immediately offended the nationalists by tearing down the wall separating the holy and profane areas that had previously kept Gentiles out. But Alcimus died within a year; struck down by God, they said. The new king of Syria, Demetrius I (162–150), refused to appoint a new high priest,



Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom   115 B Sidon

l

Joppa

Lydda (Lod)

Jamnia (Jabneh)

Anthedon

6

st i

c

It

P

tis lani Gau

uk R .

d Jericho Michmash Jerusalem

Adullam Beth-zur

Hebron (Kiriath-arba)

ea

Beer-sheba

Gerasa(Jerash)

Ammon

4

Philadelphia (Amman)

Ain Feshkha (Khirbet Qumran)

The Dead Sea

Medeba

Machaerus

Arnon R.

5

6

k

N e g e b

©2003 CHK America www.mapsusa.com

A

3

Gedor (Gadara)

Z e re d B roo T h e

Arbela

Jab b o k R.

Modein

(Judah)

ili

J o r dan Ri ver

a

M

k

ri

Shechem

Judea

Marisa (Maresha)

rm

Shiloh

Idum Bro o

Raphia

Sama

Beth-horon Gazara Emmaus (Gezer)

sor Be

5

Gaza

Ph

Ascalon (Ashkelon)

Scythopolis (Beth-shan)

Mt. Ebal Mt. Gerazim

a

Azotus (Ashdod)

2

o

Th

4

R k on . Yar

Seleucia

Beth-saida

Sepphoris Mt. Tabor

Samaria Tirzah

Apollonia

1

Mt. Moreh

t ta

Strato’s Tower (Caesarea)

ba

Dor

Ar

e M edi ter ran ean Sea

3

l

e e

a

Mt. Carmel

i

r R. r pa

Aba na

a N a b a b t e a n

20 Kilometers

ha

G i l e a

20 Miles

G

10

Hazor

Ptolemais (Akko)

Conquests of Simon 0

u

i

Conquests of Aristobulus I

Se G a a of Ya lilee

Conquests of Jonathan

10

Kedesh

P h o

Conquests of Alexander Janneus

Mt. Hermon

Panias

e

Judea at the beginning of the Maccabean revolt

R.

n

Tyre

Conquests of Hyrcanus I

0

L i t ani

Damascus

a re

i

City Arbatta Region The Negeb Geographic feature

2

a

D

R.

T HE L AND OF I SRAEL/ P A L E STI N E U N D E R TH E H ASMON EANS 1

C

s

A

B

C

D

116   Vines Intertwined

hoping no doubt that the absence of this most contentious figurehead would dispel the conflict among the Jews. There was a legitimate high priest, Onias IV, son of Onias III whose removal had been the start of the all the conflict and who might have been acceptable to all sides. But upon the appointment of Alcimus, Onias IV went to Egypt, and with the permission of Ptolemy VI, he built a rival temple for the Jewish community in Heliopolis, where he acted as high priest in exile. He died in Egypt, but the temple he built outlasted the one in Jerusalem. In Judaea, the high priesthood remained vacant for 7 years (159–152), a remarkable sabbath rest. The complete absence of a functioning high priest presents problems that are not answered in our sources, such as the rituals for Yom Kippur, which required the high priest. One solution could have been a substitute deputy high priest. Or, under emergency, a non-official high priest might have been put forward by one or more groups, such as the Hasideans to observe the rituals of the feast. This possibility may have been attempted, and the priest may have been remembered as the Teacher of Righteousness by the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who became avowedly anti-Maccabean. It is conceivable that the pro-Maccabean source of 1 Maccabees simply omits a known figure who served in the capacity of high priest. For lack of evidence, however, the proposed solutions remain conjectures, and we are left with the 7 years known as the intersacerdotium. The Maccabean supporters, who may be called traditionalists or even nationalists, also appear to have rested and recovered much of their strength and spirit, for when we see them again, their forces are sufficient to govern the land, and Israel appears nearly united. Bacchides remained in Judaea after the death of Judas long enough to fortify strategic towns that would help keep the land secured under Seleucid control. Leadership of the traditionalists passed to Jonathan, and with his two remaining brothers John and Simon, they removed themselves into the wilderness beyond the reach of Demetrius or the Hellenists. They sustained themselves as brigands in support of the Jews of the land and gained a wide following among the Jewish peasants. John and a number of supporters attempted to safeguard the Maccabean arms and wealth in Nabataea, but certain sons of Jambri from Medeba attacked his caravan, killed him and stole the baggage. Jonathan and Simon later took revenge by ravaging the caravan of a wedding party for one of the sons of Jambri.29 While the Hellenistic Council officiated in Jerusalem, Jonathan set up a shadow government. The rest of the acts of the Hasmonean brothers must be seen within the light of a broader political arena. The name Hasmonean, or Asmonean, appears to have been an ancestral name and became the dynastic title of the descendants of Mattathias.30 Judaea was a small, if strategic, stretch of land on the maps of the greater kingdoms of Rome, Parthia, Syria, and Egypt. The Hasmoneans now played the game of kings, and they had only to learn the art of the wager—to back the right horse in the contest over the disintegration of the Seleucid Empire. At this point in his history of the Jewish people, Josephus introduces the famous Jewish groups, Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes, in the guise of three philosophical schools.31 The Essenes declare Fate (Providence) determines all things; the



Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom   117

Sadducees declare Fate a figment of human imagination and people are responsible for their own affairs; while the Pharisees, like the literary figure Tevye of a later age, say “on the one hand there is Fate, and on the other there is free will.” Josephus presents the Jewish groups to a Greco-Roman audience as philosophical schools so that the Gentiles may appreciate the high culture of the Jews, as well as a basis for explaining the internal strife his readers may have heard of. His description, however, is too benign at this point, and a political origin of the later schools of thought, one worthy of the turmoil of this generation, lies hidden beneath the dust.32 The most fertile ground for the emergence of the parties was the 7-year intersacerdotium, or shortly thereafter, yet even then the parties did not spring rootless from the soil. The Hasideans represented a long lineage of those Judaeans who clung to the worship of Yahweh as codified in the laws of Moses and would no doubt number Nehemiah, Ezra, and Jeremiah among their ancestors. Likewise, Mattathias and his sons were but one family of many thousands who rejected the syncretism of the more radical Hellenistic Jews. The fundamental ideological division lay between those descendants of Abraham who felt obligated to retain the Jewish distinction from the Gentiles and those who wished to “be like the other nations.” Within either camp, more refined views created additional differences, which in due course give rise to different groups. This social phenomenon, hardly distinctive of Jews, will play itself out during the rest of our history, as indeed it continues through the religious denominations of modern times. The standard reconstruction of the political origins of the schools of thought lies in the search for new leadership of an independent Israel. The high priest had been, or was thought to have been, a descendant of the priest Zadok, the first high priest of the first temple, anointed along with Solomon. Since the high priesthood was by definition dynastic, going back to Aaron through his grandson Phineas, the Zadokite lineage was deemed the only legitimate one for high priests. When this lineage ended with Onias III (Onias IV had died in Egypt) and the Hellenistic usurpers had all been dispatched, the Hasmonean brothers, Jonathan and Simon, with the consent of a portion of the people, placed the high-priestly miter on their own heads. This break from the Zadokite line was rejected by others, most forcefully by the group that eventually occupied the site of Qumran near the Dead Sea. Slightly less dedicated opponents of the Hasmoneans may have banded together to become the Essenes. For both, the covenant with God meant a covenant of the sons of Zadok.33 According to the internal history of the community of the Dead Sea Scrolls, their origins began during the “age of wrath” 390 years after the destruction of the temple in 587, hence around 177. At that time, they emerge like a “root sprung from Aaron and Israel,” but they “groped for the way for twenty years, until God sent them a leader,” the Teacher of Righteousness (or Righteous Teacher). Not everyone of their group recognized the Righteous Teacher, and some of their number, led by the Liar (or Scoffer) turned against him. In the struggle that followed, the Righteous Teacher and his followers withdrew into exile in the “land of Damascus” and established their “new covenant.”34 Other Qumran sources describe the opponent of the Righteous Teacher as the Wicked Priest, who persecuted the Teacher and

118   Vines Intertwined

the elect, even on their Day of Atonement.35 Eventually the Righteous Teacher died, and his followers remained excluded from the majority in Israel. The “wicked priest” (ha-cohen ha-rasha) may be a pun on “high priest” (ha-cohen ha-roash), and if so, he must have been one of the Maccabees, probably Jonathan. Some scholars argue the Wicked Priest and the Liar are one person; others distinguish between them. In the end, however, we have a basic understanding that the community who later set up camp at the site of Qumran near the Dead Sea traced their origins to the days of the Hasmonean brothers and what they considered the illegitimate leadership. Some priests who could derive their lineage from Zadok but who nevertheless supported the Hasmoneans may have called themselves the Zadokites. Even though one of their own did not occupy the office of high priest, by lending their legitimacy to the popular rulers they retained their base of power among the priestly aristocracy, at least over Jerusalem. In due course, the priests who supported the Hasmoneans, whether descendants of Zadok or not, formed the Zadokite party known to Josephus as the Sadducees. Another possible etymology of Sadducee is the Hebrew tsaddik (“righteous”), and while Zadokite is the more likely, the association with righteousness would not have been discouraged by the Sadducees. The Pharisees are the most obscure, but given the nature of our source in 1 Maccabees, they are generally thought to have also arisen out of the Hasideans, possibly those who were scribes and, therefore, experts in the law.36 If so, they formed their own pietistic movement, one not as prone to separate themselves from the common people, or even from the ruling power, as were the Essenes. In short, while they probably opposed the non-Zadokite high priests, they preferred to influence the rulers of Israel as loyal partisans. They developed into something of a scholarly class that took in members from among both the priests and the laity and specialized in a general interpretation of Torah applicable to a “kingdom of priests.” What they called themselves at this stage we do not know, but at some point the name Pharisee, probably derived from the Hebrew perushim (“separatists”), was affixed to their movement.

7.3.1 Jonathan the Hasmonean The sullen and despotic Demetirus I had lost much of his popular support in Antioch and was making enemies among the princes of Syria. Attalus II, king of Pergamum, began pressing for greater control of Asia Minor and supported a new contender for the Seleucid throne in the person of Alexander Balas, who claimed to be the son of Antiochus IV. Balas received the endorsement of Rome at the request of Attalus, and then with the backing of the king, as well as Ptolemy VI, he landed at Ptolemais-Aker (modern Acco). Suddenly, in 152, Jonathan the Hasmonean, the only true power in Judaea, found himself courted by both sides. Demetrius offered Jonathan complete military command of Judaea, with the right to raise an army in his support, while Balas added the office of high priest. Jonathan sided with Balas in the war for the throne, raised an army, and became the high priest. In a desperate bid for the support of Jonathan, Demetrius offered him the districts of Samaria,



Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom   119

to endow the temple with rich gifts, and give over the Akra fortress. Jonathan wisely judged the promises too liberal to be genuine and kept faith with Balas. The following year Balas defeated Demetrius and became the Seleucid king. Ptolemy Philometor offered his daughter Cleopatra Thea to Alexander Balas; the marriage once again aligned the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms (150/49). The wedding was held in Ptolemais-Akko, where Jonathan as well as emissaries from the Judaean Hellenists were present. Balas, knowing quite well where power lay, ignored the Hellenists while he honored Jonathan with a robe of purple and confirmed all the political authority he already retained by strength.37 Within 3 years the Seleucid throne was again contested. The sons of Demetrius I had fled after the death of their father, but the heir, Demetrius II, soon returned to Syria with a force of mercenaries, intending to take back the throne. Ptolemy immediately marched north in a land grab under the cover of rescuing his sonin-law, and Jonathan also took the occasion to occupy the port cities of Joppa and Ascalon, by which he added to his coffers and controlled the Gaza strip. Cleopatra Thea escaped Antioch, declaring the marriage void, and the people of Antioch also embraced Demetrius II. Ptolemy promptly offered Cleopatra Thea to Demetrius II, and they wed in 145. Alexander Balas fled to Arabia, where a chieftain assassinated him, but Ptolemy was also wounded in the battle and died shortly after. Because Jonathan had initially sided with Balas, he had become the enemy of the new king Demetrius II, but he felt strong enough to break away ever more from Seleucid authority. He again laid siege to the Akra in Jerusalem, and again the Hellenists accused him of insurrection and appealed to Demetrius II. The new king summoned Jonathan, who appeared with gifts and new demands. Much to the dismay of the Jerusalem opposition, the king granted Jonathan the provinces of Samaria promised by Demetrius I and exemption from tribute for the entire region under his control. Jonathan scarcely had time to enjoy his spoils when opportunity for further expansion presented itself. A former general under Balas, called Diodotus Tryphon, appeared in Antioch with yet a new rival to the throne, another Antiochus the son of Balas. Jonathan offered Demetrius II some initial support, but when he and Simon determined who the next king would be, they went over to the young Antiochus, pledging their support. For the next few years, Jonathan used the ongoing conflict over the Seleucid throne to strengthen his control in Jerusalem and its environs, always under the guise of helping Antiochus. Simon installed a Jewish garrison in Joppa and fortified the Judaean lowlands. Jonathan sent envoys to Rome to renew the treaty of friendship made initially by Judas. Jewish envoys also established friendly relations with Sparta and other areas.38 But the stronger Jonathan became as head of the Jews, the greater the threat of independence from Syria he posed. Tryphon marched an army down to Scythopolis (Beth-Shean), where he met with Jonathan. The Syrian general showered Jonathan with honors and promised to hand over the city of Ptolemais. At Tryphon’s suggestion, Jonathan dismissed all but 1000 of his troops and accompanied Tryphon to Ptolemais. When he arrived, Jonathan was taken into custody and his men slaughtered. The alarmed Jews quickly responded to the treachery. The last Maccabean brother, Simon, assumed leadership and fortified the land. He expelled the Gentiles from Joppa and annexed

120   Vines Intertwined

the city. Tryphon offered to release Jonathan in exchange for unpaid tribute and Jonathan’s sons as hostage. Simon sent all he asked, upon which, Tryphon executed Jonathan and returned to Syria.

7.3.2 Simon the Hasmonean In 143, Simon sent a delegation to Demetrius with a gold crown and palm branch, tokens of alliance, and asked in return for complete exemption from tribute for Judaea. Demetrius, wisely conceding what he could not control, canceled all tribute and awarded Simon the newly won territory, including the fortified cities. In essence, Demetrius granted the Jews independence, or as the Maccabean historian recorded: The yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel, and the people began to write in their documents and contracts, “In the first year of Simon the great high priest and commander and leader of the Jews.”39

Simon built a monument of polished stone over the tomb of his father and brothers near the town of Modein as a national memorial. He also erected seven pyramids nearby, for his father, mother, and four brothers, and adorned them with armor and carved ships, and all of this under great columns that could be seen from ships at sea.40 The powerful Tryphon, in 142, executed his protégée, Antiochus VI, and claimed the throne himself. The turmoil in Antioch left Judaea in relative peace. Simon captured the strategic Gentile city of Gazara that stood at the foothills of the Judaean highlands and controlled the route from the coast to Jerusalem. He expelled the Gentiles and settled it with “men who observed the law.”41 Shortly after, he starved the garrison in Jerusalem into submission, and by 141, all Jerusalem fell under his control. In the year following the liberation of Jerusalem, the Jews came together in the ancient tradition of a general assembly to legitimate the rule of Simon, whose authority had so far relied on Gentile proclamation. Those must have been heady days. After a civil war over religious expression that lasted two decades, and a growing sense of nationalism, the Jews gained independence from Gentile rule. In the third year of Simon’s tenure as high priest (140), the people and their priests acclaimed Simon as their ruler. And the Jews and their priests decided that Simon should be their leader and high priest for ever, until a trustworthy prophet should arise, and that he should be governor over them and that he should take charge of the sanctuary and appoint men over its tasks and over the country and the weapons and the strongholds, and that he should take charge of the sanctuary, and that he should be obeyed by all, and that all contracts in the country should be written in his name, and that he should be clothed in purple and wear gold.42

Just as when they had destroyed the great altar and set the stones aside until a prophet should arise with further instructions, so too, this declaration was carefully phrased to permit divine rule over the public decision. The formula probably



Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom   121

represents a compromise between the supporters of the Hasmonean family and other groups now forming. The authority behind the proclamation drew on the biblical precedent in establishing David as king over Judah and Israel.43 The Mosaic law on kingship outlined in Deut 17:14–20 gave the people a right to place a king over them, one which God had chosen, and in that sense, as with David, successful leadership was a sign of divine approval. Up until this point, the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kings, as successors to Alexander the Great, who himself replaced the Persian kings, held the office of legitimate kingship. Even the office of high priest, which carried its own legitimacy from antiquity as a descendant of Aaron and the Deuteronomic constitution, was dependent on the approval of the king, and the people accepted the appointments of Seleucid kings. Even Jonathan had become high priest on the authority of Alexander Balas. Now the authority of foreign kings had faded since the “the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel,” and the authority for a new king and high priest reverted to the people, with the proviso that a prophet could arise to speak for God and tell them otherwise. Kingship, however, was perhaps too bold a move at this point. Although the people gave Simon leave to wear the trappings of kingship, “the purple and the gold,” they did not designate him as “king,” nor did he assume that title. “So Simon accepted and agreed to be high priest, to be commander and ethnarch of the Jews and priests, and to be protector of them all.”44 The title of ethnarch meant specifically “ruler of the people.” The full decree was engraved on tablets of bronze and set prominently in the temple, as a declaration of independence and constitutional authority. Simon had also taken the initiative with Rome to renew the treaty of friendship under his rule, as well as with Sparta. The Jewish delegation brought to Rome a large gold shield as a gift to the Roman people, and the senate issued a decree confirming Simon as high priest of the Jews and the territory they had gained. The senate also instructed other kingdoms and provinces to show the same recognition. Simon ruled the Jews for another 6 years, and they were remembered as good years by his supporters: “He established peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy. Each man sat under his vine and his fig tree, and there was none to make them afraid.”45 He made his son John Hyrcanus commander of the Jewish army and heir apparent. In the year that Simon became the ruler of the Jews, Demetrius II campaigned against Parthian unrest east of the Euphrates and left Tryphon to his own devices. Demetrius, however, was captured by Mithridates of Parthia and kept imprisoned under palace arrest, as a pawn of Parthia. In his stead, Antiochus Sidetes, brother of Demetrius, emerged from Rhodes and declared himself Antiochus VII Euergetes (138–129). Antiochus VII took Cleoptra Thea as his queen, and then he hunted down Tryphon and forced him to commit suicide. The new king confirmed all the privileges on Simon that his brother had given but then reneged on his promises and sent a general to retrieve the cities Simon and Jonathan had annexed, Gazara and Joppa, as well as the fortress in Jerusalem, or to exact payment for them. Simon refused to return them and offered a paltry 100 talents in payment. Antiochus sent an army against the Jews, but it was defeated, and Judaea had little trouble from Antiochus from then on.

122   Vines Intertwined

Simon might have died in peace, but for the continual quest for power even within his own household. A certain Ptolemy, the son-in-law of Simon and governor of Jericho, sought the throne of Judaea, such as it was. We know little of this man, except he was a Jew, probably from Alexandria. While Simon toured the land with two of his sons, Mattathias and Judas, Ptolemy gave a banquet for them in the fortress of Dok, near Jericho. While they feasted and became drunk, Ptolemy and his assassins killed them. Ptolemy further attempted to kill John Hyrcanus, the last son of Simon, and to take Jerusalem, but in each case, Hyrcanus thwarted him. Ptolemy returned to the fortress of Dok near Jericho, where Hyrcanus besieged him. But Ptolemy had captured the mother of Hyrcanus and threatened to kill her if the fortress were taken. When the sabbatical year began, the siege was abandoned. Ptolemy then killed the mother of Hyrcanus and fled the land.

7.3.3 John Hyrcanus After the death of his father, John Hyrcanus had soon to deal with the Syrian king Antiochus VII Euergetes. The king took advantage of the Jewish Sabbatical Year (October 135–October 134) and besieged Jerusalem. The city slowly starved into submission, and Hyrcanus attempted to send out all the noncombatants so they could survive, but the Syrians would not let them pass. The ejected people wandered outside the walls, starving, and Hyrcanus had to take them in again at the Feast of Tabernacles. Hyrcanus asked for a truce, and Antiochus granted it, and even sent sacrifices to the Jews for their festival. Soon after, Hyrcanus sued for peace. He gave Antiochus back tribute, the taxes owed for Joppa and other cities outside the recognized territory of Judaea, and hostages. When he was freed of the war, Josephus tells us, Hyrcanus took a new and provocative measure. He raided the tomb of David, removing 3000 talents of silver, and used it to enlist foreign mercenaries.46 Neither of these acts can have endeared him to the traditionalists. Around this time, Hyrcanus renewed the treaty of friendship with Rome. The renewed treaty, as always, offered Rome’s sanction, and perhaps blessing, but little else. Hyrcanus was still obligated to Syria, such that around 130 b.c.e. he led a military detachment in support of Antiochus’s campaign against the Mithridates II of the Parthians.47 During this war Antiochus VII died, and thereafter, the continual struggle for the Seleucid throne left John Hyrcanus free to establish and extend his rule. Hyrcanus halted tribute to Syria and “furnished them no aid either as a subject or as a friend.” He exploited the power vacuum as rivals fought for the throne and embarked on his own conquests of expansion, by which he amassed considerable wealth.48 To the east, across the Jordan, he conquered the Nabataean cities of Madabe and Samaga. To the north, he took Mount Gerizim and destroyed the Samaritan temple built 200 years earlier during the conquest of Alexander the Great. Why Hyrcanus should have destroyed the Samaritan temple is not clear, since they too worshiped the God of Israel and revered the laws of Moses. But the animosity between Samaritans and Jews went back to the Persian era, and the rival temple may have simply continued as an offense to the Jews, or it may have been a rival temple,



Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom   123

attracting Jews who lived in the north. The destruction marks the permanent split between the Samaritans and the Jews. Shechem also fell to Hyrcanus and was destroyed. To the south, Hyrcanus conquered the two major Idumaean cities of Adora and Marisa, west of Hebron. (The land of Idumaea lay at the southern border of Judaea, comprising the Negev, and populated by Edomites, Arabs, Jews, Sidonians, and others.) Hyrcanus required the non-Jewish male residents to undergo circumcision if they wished to remain in the land. It appears that most of the Idumaean men, out of attachment to their land, performed the rite and agreed to abide by the customs of the Jews. In due course, Hasmoneans annexed the entire territory.49 Toward the end of his reign, Hyrcanus sent two sons, Antigonus and Aristobulus, to besiege the city of Samaria ostensibly because the people in the city had mistreated the Jewish colonists placed in the territory after he conquered Shechem.50 The Samaritans appealed to the current Syrian king, Antiochus IX Cyzicenus, for help. His army was defeated by the sons of Hyrcanus. Antiochus then asked Ptolemy IX Lathyrus to aid the Samaritans, which he did, against the wishes of the co-regent and Queen Mother Cleopatra III, who was partial to the Jews. This army also failed, and after a year the city of Samaria fell and was razed to the ground, or rather, below ground, for the Jews dug tunnels under the city and rain torrents caused the foundations to collapse. During the siege, the nearby city of Scythopolis (Beth Shean) was delivered over by Egyptian treachery to Hyrcanus—an act of betrayal the Gentile population would not soon forget.51 Josephus recounts a miraculous incident that occurred during the siege of Samaria. While John Hyrcanus performed his priestly duty of burning incense in the temple, he heard the voice of God telling him that his sons had just defeated Antiochus. Hyrcanus is supposed to have announced it to the people, which occurred on the very day his sons were victorious. By this means, Josephus claimed that John Hyrcanus was the only man to exercise all three divinely ordained offices of king, high priest, and prophet.52 Hyrcanus retained the favor of Rome and obtained two or three decrees from the Roman senate granting him recognition to cities and lands within his expanding jurisdiction. His domestic rule, however, was less unified. It is under Hyrcanus that divisions first surface among the lay leaders of the land in opposition to the ruling dynasty. Hyrcanus had favored the Pharisee party, whose influence among the people was strong, but one day, during a banquet, Hyrcanus asked his Pharisee councilors if they had observed any action of his that would detract from his righteousness, so that he might correct it. His advisors commended his virtue uniformly, except one, Eleazar, who replied, “Since you have asked to be told the truth, if you wish to be righteous, give up the high-priesthood and be content with governing the people.”53 When Hyrcanus asked why he should give up the high priesthood, Eleazar replied that they heard from their elders that the mother of Hyrcanus was a captive during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. If so, according to the law (Lev 21:14), Hyrcanus could not be high priest. Hyrcanus was rightly indignant, and when advised by a Sadducee to test their loyalty, he asked the Pharisees what punishment should be given to the slanderer. The Pharisees suggested flagellation, not the death penalty, and Hyrcanus took this to mean they agreed with the slander.

124   Vines Intertwined

From that day on, Hyrcanus deserted the Pharisees, abrogated the laws they had established, and even punished those who followed them. Rabbinic tradition preserves some changes made by John Hyrcanus. He overturned the Pharisee ruling that people could do normal work during the middle days of a seven-day festival and did away with the Levite task of stunning the animals before they were slaughtered. The opponents of this humane interpretation, probably the Sadducees, felt the blow might cause a blood clot. Out of this, says Josephus, grew the hatred of the masses for Hyrcanus and his sons.54 The second generation of the philosophical schools intensified the party division in Israel. The Pharisees not only sought to separate the high priest from the kingship but also to regulate the interpretation of Jewish law for all the people. The Pharisees taught many traditions not written down in the Torah of Moses, that is, oral traditions and customary ways of interpreting the laws of Moses. The Sadducees, on the contrary, limited the law to what was written. In other words, if it was not in the Torah of Moses, it was a matter of individual choice. This approach to Scripture will in due course be extended to other matters of theology, but it is here that the Hasmoneans find a new source of opposition among their own people. The Sadducees, descendants of their philhellene ancestors, now gained the advantage with the aging Hyrcanus and gradually regained the power base around the temple. The Essenes not only opposed the Hasmonean diarchy but also objected to the legal interpretations of the Pharisees and the lunar calendar. There seems to have been an ancient dispute among Jews over whether the set holy days should follow a solar or lunar calendar, and the Essenes followed a solar year, while the majority had accepted a lunar year. If, as seems likely, the Essenes described by Josephus and Philo are to be associated with the community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls, then it is during the later years of John Hyrcanus that they removed themselves from the general population to a more secluded and pure life in the wilderness. Internal documents suggest the group broke away from a larger group in the early days of the Hasmonean rule over a dispute concerning certain matters of the law. And you know that we have separated from the mass of people, and from mingling with them in these matters. . . . We have also written to you [singular] concerning some of the observances of the Law, which we think are beneficial to you and your people. For we have noticed that prudence and knowledge of the Law are with you.”55

It is possible, and some say likely, the early Essenes suffered their own split and one group became the minority Essene sect who removed themselves to Khirbet Qumran near the Dead Sea. John Hyrcanus ruled the land of Judaea for 30 years. Independence required the economic and military infrastructure of a kingdom, even if the office of kingship went under the title of ethnarch. He minted coins with the inscription “John the High Priest and the Congregation of the Jews.”56 By the inscription it appears Hyrcanus saw himself first as high priest and then as ethnarch, alongside the ruling congregation (or council) of the Jews. His position was probably designed to extend his ethnic and religious authority in some manner over the Jewish Diaspora, where Jews lived under other kings.



Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom   125

7.3.4 Aristobulus I Hyrcanus was survived by his wife and five sons, three of whom are named by Josephus: Judas Aristobulus, Antigonus, and Alexander Jannaeus. Hyrcanus had named his wife regent, and Aristobulus, his eldest son, was to succeed him as high priest. Aristobulus, however, took power and let his mother starve to death in prison.57 He also imprisoned three brothers and kept only Antigonus by his side. Josephus claims that Aristobulus was “the first to put a diadem on his head,” that is, to take the title of king, but there is no support for this from the few coins during his reign. It is more likely, as Strabo says, that it was Aristobulus’s successor, Alexander Jannaeus, who first called himself king.58 Aristobulus ruled but for a single year. During that time, he extended the northern boundary of Judaea by conquering the Ituraeans, an Arab tribe from north Transjordan who had recently settled in the Biqâ Valley (Lebanon), north of the Galilee.59 As his father had done, Aristobulus required the men to be circumcised and live according to Jewish law if they wished to remain in their land. Since Hyrcanus had only taken Samaria and the city of Scythopolis, south of Lake Kinnert (Sea of Galilee), this was probably the beginning of Jewish control of the Galilee region.60 Through continual palace intrigue, Aristobulus was tricked into killing Antigonus, the brother he loved. He lived out the remaining months of his life in great remorse and sickness. Josephus says that a certain Judas the Essene predicted the assassination, which suggests Essene involvement in the affairs of state, and probably Essene residence in Jerusalem.61 Greek historians gave Aristobulus warm praise as a ruler, and Josephus quotes them approvingly. “This man was a kindly person and very serviceable to the Jews, for he acquired additional territory for them, and brought over to them a portion of the Ituraean nation, whom he joined to them by the bond of circumcision.”62

7.3.5 Alexander Jannaeus Upon the death of Aristobulus, his strong-willed queen, Salome Alexandra, released his brothers from prison and married Alexander Jannaeus, making him the new ruler.63 Alexander took the titles of king and high priest, as shown on his coins: “Jonathan the High Priest and the Congregation of the Jews,” and the bilingual coins “Jonathan the King” (Hebrew)—“King Alexander” (Greek). The name Jannaeus is the Greek form of Yanni, which is a shortened version of Yonathan, or Yehonatan, that is, Jonathan. By now the practice of two names, in Greek and Hebrew, was common. Very early in his reign, Alexander Jannaeus attempted to add the coastal city of Ptolemais (Akko) to his realm. The Seleucid rivals for the throne of Syria were unable to prevent the Jewish expansion, but the besieged city appealed to Ptolemy IX Lathyrus, who currently ruled Cyprus, having been ousted by his mother, Cleopatra III. Ptolemy engaged Jannaeus in battle at the Jordan River, and though Jannaeus

126   Vines Intertwined

had a slightly larger force of more than 50,000, he lost the battle. Ptolemy’s army pursued and slaughtered the Jews “until their swords became blunted with killing, and their hands were utterly tired.”64 We are told 30,000 were slain. Ptolemy now had control of the entire land of Judaea, and he wished to press his advantage by taking Egypt from his mother. In the end, Alexander Jannaeus was saved only by an Egyptian army sent by Cleopatra III. After she had driven Ptolemy back to Cyprus, some advisors suggested that she annex all of Judaea, but her Jewish general, Ananias, persuaded her to form an alliance with Jannaeus, arguing that all her loyal Jewish subjects would turn against her if she took away the independence of Judaea.65 Following his advice, she made an alliance with Alexander Jannaeus, in the city of Scythopolis. Freed from the threat of Ptolemy, Jannaeus resumed his conquests. In the Trans­jordan, despite suffering one defeat with a loss of 10,000 soldiers, he extended his control in the south to Raphia and laid siege to Gaza. The siege lasted a year, and the city was taken only when a traitor from the inside opened the gates to Jannaeus. He let his army pillage the city, out of vengeance for their losses, and even slaughtered 500 councilmen who took refuge in the temple of Apollo. The opposition of the Pharisees to the Hasmoneans continued to grow, and their influence with the majority of the Jews eventually led to a civil war. The conflict began with an incident during Sukkot around 96. During the sacrifices, the people carried palm branches and a citron. When Jannaeus, serving as high priest, stood to make the sacrifice, the people pelted him with their citrons and added insult to injury by shouting that he had no right to serve as high priest because he was descended from captives. Enraged, Jannaeus unleashed his mercenaries, who killed some 6000 of his subjects. Soon after, his opponents organized and the war began. It dragged on for 6 years (ca. 94–88) and cost 50,000 lives. When Jannaeus tried to come to terms with his opposition, he asked what they wanted of him, and they all cried out “to die.” The opposition appealed to Demetrius III Eukairos, king of Syria, to remove Jannaeus from his throne. Demetriius came with a large army and was joined by the Jews who opposed their king. At the same time, Jannaeus had his loyal Jews and his Gentile mercenaries. Before the battle, the Greeks of the Syrian army appealed to the Greeks of Jannaeus’s army to desert and come over. Simultaneously, the Jews of Jannaeus’s army called on the Jews with Demetrius to come over to them. Neither side persuaded the other, and they met in battle outside Shechem. Demetrius was victorious, and Jannaeus fled to the hills. Then, apparently out of ethnic pride, 6000 Jews who fought with Demetrius did go over to support Jannaeus, and an alarmed Demetrius withdrew to Syria. Jannaeus resumed his war against the opposition Jews and finally trapped the remaining rebels in the city of Bemelchis, in lower Galilee. When he had taken the city, he brought back the prisoners to Jerusalem and entertained a spectacle the likes of which had never been seen in Israel. While he feasted with his concubines in the sight of all, he ordered 800 of his opponents, many of whom were Pharisees, to be crucified, and while they hung on the crosses, he had their wives and children slaughtered before their eyes. This barbarous act earned him the epithet of “Thracian” (something like “Cossack”), according to Josephus, and “Lion of Wrath”



Rise and Fall of the Hasmonean Kingdom   127

in the Dead Sea Scrolls.66 The remaining 8000 opponents fled to the wilderness and remained in exile while Jannaeus lived. It is possible, perhaps even likely, that among these refugees we should number Essenes and the community behind the Dead Sea Scrolls who withdrew more radically from the congregation of Israel. In the last decade of his rule, Alexander Jannaeus suffered minor defeats in battles with his neighbors, but he also managed to extend his dominion to the greatest extent Judaea had ever known. Josephus lists the major cities and territories under his rule and concludes that the people of each city were required to adopt Jewish national customs. Pella, a city southeast from Scytholpolis on the other side of the Jordan, was destroyed because the people refused to submit to Jewish laws.67 The reign of Jannaeus coincided with the rise of the kingdom of Armenia under Tigranes II (95–55). Armenian traditions recall that Tigranes II, during his invasions of Syria, exiled many Jews from Syria into the hinterland of Armenia.68 These Jews added their numbers to the Jewish population, some of whom, we continue to note, were descended from the northern ten tribes of Israel, and therefore they were not lost. Around 85, a Parthian embassy came to Jerusalem, probably to establish an alliance with Jannaeus against Tigranes II of Armenia. Rabbinic tradition preserves an incident about Simeon ben Shetah, who sided with the Pharisees. He clashed with King Jannaeus on several occasions, one of which involved money, and he fled to Babylonia, where he impressed the Jewish community with his learning before returning to Palestine. The Parthian embassy that came to Jerusalem mentioned to Jannaeus a certain sage they had learned from in Babylon and asked the king in passing if he would bring forth this sage, who was most likely Simeon ben Shetah, to teach them again. Such a delegation that knew of a Jewish sage and wanted to hear him must have been comprised of Jews. The tradition is significant, for it reveals diplomatic relations with Parthia at a time when Rome was extending its hegemony in the East, and the involvement of Babylonian Jews in the politics of Judaea.69 Toward the end of his life, Alexander Jannaeus fell ill from heavy drinking. He knew he was leaving his family in the precarious position of ruling over a nation divided, and because he did not trust his sons to heal the wounds, he designated Salome as supreme ruler. On his death bed in 76, Jannaeus advised his queen to make peace with the Pharisees, a task he had found impossible. He even suggested she turn over his corpse to the leading partisans for abuse if they so desired, and by this means she might make peace with them. All this she did, and offered them power if they would honor the dead king. For their part, Josephus assures us, leading Pharisees made such grand eulogies about the king they had lost that the people mourned and provided a more grand burial than that given to any of his ancestors. And upon this display of political acumen, the Pharisees came again into power.

7.3.6 Salome Alexandra As much as Alexander Jannaeus was hated by his subjects, Queen Salome (Hebrew Shlomzion) was loved.70 Upon attaining the throne, she formed her council from the Pharisees, and following the advice of her husband, she did nothing

128   Vines Intertwined

without consulting them. She designated the eldest son, Hyrcanus II, as high priest, and the younger, more energetic son, Aristobulus II, was given command of the army. Under her rule, the two offices of prince and high priest were again separated, and this will have appealed to many of her subjects, including the Pharisees. As naturally as the rainfall, the Pharisees and Sadducees took an heir apparent into their confidence, preparing for when the beloved queen would die. The Pharisees supported Hyrcanus II; the Sadducees sided with Aristobulus II. The Pharisees strengthened their power by recalling the exiles and then began taking vengeance on the Sadducees who had urged Alexander Jannaeus to execute the 800 rebels. The Sadducean nobility sent a delegation, headed by Aristobulus, demanding the queen put a stop to the Pharisee executions, and thus threatened by another civil war, she reined in the Pharisees on this count. But apart from that, the Pharisees were the new power behind the throne, which they proved by restoring all their legal decisions set aside under John Hyrcanus. The rest of her 9-year-reign was peaceful at the borders. A threat of invasion by the Armenian king Tigranes never materialized, partly because she forestalled it with gifts, and Rome already encroached on the Armenian territory. The Seleucid Empire came to an end in 69. In 67 Salome fell gravely ill. The eldest son, Hyrcanus II, was expected to take the throne and probably give the priesthood to Aristobulus. But the younger and more energetic Aristobulus, with the support of the Sadducean nobility, began raising an army to seize power. Within fifteen days he captured twenty-two fortresses around the land. Hyrcanus and the Pharisees urged Salome to take steps against him, and she gave them the authority over her army and the treasuries, but she died before the measures could be carried out. They did, however, place the wife and children of Aristobulus as hostages in the citadel. Josephus honored her memory with the words: “She was a woman who showed none of the weakness of her sex.”71

Chapter 8

The Coming of Rome (67–27 b.c.e.)

8.1 Mediterranean World The Roman Republic was crumbling. While Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43), like a biblical prophet of old, decried the loss of the res publica, its powerful men acted on their own initiative and competed among themselves for leverage to uproot its aged foundations, and in imitation of Alexander the Great, extend their authority to the distant frontiers. The Seleucid Empire had already collapsed, and the Ptolemaic Empire would soon follow. Parthia pressed its claims to any disputed territory in Asia Minor, an inherent threat to Rome that it could not allow. Given the generation of chaos that lay ahead, Judaea would have ended up as a client kingdom of Rome under any circumstance. The Jews were entering a new imperial hegemony, another of the apocalyptic beasts from the sea, and they had but to negotiate the passage. A Hasmonean might have remained on the client throne, but their recent history did not inspire confidence. Hyrcanus II, who had been content to retire, was kept as high priest by Rome, while Aristobulus II and his two sons, Alexander and Antigonus, felt cheated of a rule rightfully theirs. Each had powerful friends and large numbers of partisans among the Jewish population. Each became a pawn of the major players in the Roman civil war.

8.2 End of the Hasmoneans When Queen Alexandra Salome died, Hyrcanus II controlled Jerusalem and assumed the throne. Aristobulus immediately declared war, and they did battle near Jericho.72 Many of the forces loyal to Salome went over to Aristobulus, and Hyrcanus II, the peaceful one who had neither the ambition for kingship nor the stomach for war, fled to Jerusalem, where he surrendered both his titles of king and high priest and was content to retire on the royal revenues. But Hyrcanus II was too valuable to be left to pasture. A wealthy Idumaean named Antipater, the son of the governor of Idumaea and father of Herod, the future king of Judaea, convinced Hyrcanus and others that Aristobulus had taken the throne illegally and that he ought to be removed. Antipater arranged a place of refuge in Petra, with the support of Aretas III, king of Nabataea, and persuaded

130   Vines Intertwined

Hyrcanus to flee from Jerusalem. Hyrcanus then promised Aretas to return twelve cities taken from him if he helped him regain the throne of Judaea. Aretas marched against Aristobulus, and after defeating him in battle, forced him to flee to the temple mount, where Aretas erected a siege. The civil war now came to the attention of Rome. Pompey, after ridding the Mediterranean of Cilician pirates, had been commissioned by the Roman senate to deal with Parthian threat and the crumbling Seleucid Empire. While Pompey finished up the campaign against Tigranes of Armenia, he heard of the conflict between brothers in Judaea and he sent his envoy to Jerusalem to receive bids for power. Aristobulus won his favor with a gift of 400 talents, and Aretas was forced to withdraw, taking Hyrcanus with him. After the Romans had departed, Aristobulus pursued Aretas with his army and inflicted heavy casualties, among them Antipater’s brother. Aristobulus attempted to retain the favor of Pompey by sending him a golden grape vine worth 500 talents. The following year, 64, Pompey put an end to the Seleucid kingdom and subjugated the lesser dynasts in Syria and Lebanon. In the spring of 63 he received three Jewish delegations at Damascus. Hyrcanus, represented by his Idumaean handler Antipater, claimed his legal right to the throne, while Aristobulus argued his case by pointing out the incompetence of his brother. The third delegation, sent by the Jewish people, asked that neither Hasmonean be given authority, since the people were against them both. They preferred to have no king at all, and according to Josephus, made the following argument: “It was the custom of their country to obey the priests of the God who was venerated by them, but that these two, who were descended from the priests, were seeking to change their form of government in order that they might become a nation of slaves.”73 Although the speech is a composition of Josephus, himself a priest, and reflects his priestly views from a post-70 c.e. stance, the thrust of the petition may reflect the historical situation, and indeed, the views of the dominant party of Pharisees. The title of king, introduced by Alexander Jannaeus, if not by Aristobulus I, was the problem. Their ancestors had declared Simon to be ethnarch and high priest forever, not king. Some Jews of Judaea, like their brethren in the Diaspora, had grown accustomed to life within an empire, and the hopeless conflict of the Hasmoneans reminded them of the advantages of a distant and dispassionate foreign monarch keeping the land free from war while allowing the Jews to live according to their customs. It is doubtful, however, that the Sadducees or Pharisees wished to give up power to priests whom they did not control, nor would such a complaint have been made under Queen Salome. But the present strife had produced a sizable group of Jews prepared to wash their hands of the Hasmoneans and take their chances with Rome. Pompey deferred his decision, requesting that they keep a peaceful status quo until he had assessed the greater region, specifically Nabataea, and he would then return to render judgment. Aristobulus feared the loss of his throne to Hyrcanus and prepared for war, which came soon enough. Pompey learned of the decisions of Aristobulus and returned from Nabataea to march on Jerusalem. After some hesitation, Aristobulus meekly submitted. He brought gifts to Pompey in his camp



The Coming of Rome   131

and promised to open the city and give additional tribute. Pompey accepted the submission and sent his general Gabinius to take control of Jerusalem. But many of the partisans of Aristobulus in Jerusalem would not surrender the city, and Gabinius returned empty-handed. The partisans took control of the temple mount and continued preparations for war. Enraged, Pompey advanced on Jerusalem, and Hyrcanus let him into the city. Pompey raised a siege against the temple mount, building it each sabbath when no Jew would try to prevent it. After 3 months, by midsummer, on a sabbath, the Romans breached the temple walls and entered. Josephus, citing other historians who chronicled the exploits of Pompey, extols the fortitude of the priests who continued to offer the sacrifices while the soldiers killed those Jews who resisted, and Jews of opposing factions slaughtered each other. Many ended their own lives by jumping from the walls or setting fires and perishing in the flames. Again, according to Josephus, most of the 12,000 deaths on that day were the result of Jews killing Jews, presumably those supporting Hyrcanus against those supporting Aristobulus.74 When the carnage had ended, Pompey and his staff desecrated the Holy of Holies by entering it. Despite the sacrilege, Pompey left all the temple utensils and the treasury untouched, not, as Cicero is at pains to remind us, because he respected the religion of the Jews but rather out of his own sense of Roman honor.75 On the following day, he ordered the priests to cleanse the temple, gave Hyrcanus the high priesthood, and insured the resumption of temple worship. Essentially, he gave the people’s delegation what they wanted: Roman jurisdiction for the peace, and freedom to follow their national customs. He beheaded all those responsible for the war and placed the entire land under tribute. The cities of Greater Syria were liberated to their own inhabitants, repaired, and placed under the Roman governor of the new Roman province of Coele-Syria. The coastal cities of Straton’s Tower, Dora, Joppa, and Gaza were also liberated and annexed to Syria. Slightly more than a century since Judas Maccabeus rededicated the temple and inaugurated the Feast of Dedication, the Hasmonean legacy came to an end, with but a few death throes remaining. During the three generations of Hasmonean rule, more Jews died at the hands of their brethren than had perished under foreign overlords since King Cyrus of Persia had sent them back to the land of their ancestors. The descendants of the Maccabees had squandered their liberty and ventured away their autonomy. Aristobulus and his sons would make four attempts at regaining control of Judaea. In 57, Alexander, the eldest son of Aristobulus II, escaped from Roman custody, raised an army, and attempted to take back Jerusalem. He was thwarted by Gabinius, the governor of Syria, and allowed his freedom only after surrendering three fortresses that he held. Gabinius then divided the truncated Hasmonean territory into five districts, each governed locally by an aristocratic council: Sepphoris (Galilee); Ammathus (Peraea); Jericho; Jerusalem; Adora (Eastern Idumaea). His redistricting was designed to weaken the political power of the Jews and facilitate taxation. Judaea was just another cow to milk or sheep to fleece. In so doing, Gabinius reduced the authority of the Roman publicani, tax gatherers, for which Cicero took occasion to condemn corruption of the Roman administration of Syria.76

132   Vines Intertwined A

B

C

N O R IC

1

Genua

Tib

Perusia

I TA L I A

Solonae

Sirmium Singidunum Viminacium

U TI M A)

Da n be R u

A

MOESIA

S

O ED

NIA

TH R AC E ti

AC

TH

EP

M

ES

A I C A F R

A

S

IR

3

Istros Tomi

.

Oescus Naissis Novae DR Rome Odessus I Ostia A Three Taverns TIC Sardica Forum of Appius Mesembria Antium Debeltum Scodra Scupi Capua EA Tarracina Philippopolis Beneventum A p pian Canusium Puteoli Dyrrhachium Wa Bospho Pompeii Amphipolis Philippi Neapolis y Apollonia Paestum T HE H Byzantium Thessalonica E gna Carales y Brundisium Tarentum a n Wa Propontis Chalc T YRRHENIAN N Beroea Apollonia Sardinia Cyzicus Sybaris S EA N Hellespont Prusa Troas MYSIA Croton (Alexandria) Assos A Larissa U AL Adramyttium S S Panormus Y I Nicopolis T H E Mitylene Pergamum Messana Actium A E G EA N Lesbos LY Thyatira Rhegium Delphi Utica DIA S IC I LIA PHRYGIA S EA Chios Smyrna Carthage Thebes Philadelphia Catana Sardis Same Agrigentum Corinth Athens Hierapo Ephesus Cenchreae Laodicea Syracuse Madaurus A I Samos Olympia PI Colossae A Piraeus H Miletus Hadrumetum C Atta Patmos Sparta Melita Thapsus LYC I A Cnidus (Lacedaemon) (Malta) Patara M Rhodos

E

2

Ancona

TH

e r R.

Corsica

C RI LY A IL LM A (D

Ariminum

Luca Florentia Arretium

E

D A C I A

Siscia

Pola Ravenna

Portus Veneris

UM

D

PA N N O N I A

4

Sabratha

S

Y

T R I PO

R T

Oea

L I T Lepcis Magna AN IA

T HE

Phoenix

M EDIT

I

Cauda

Crete

Salmone

Lasea Fair Havens

ERRANEAN

Rhodos

S EA

Cyrene

S

CYRENAICA

5

Alexandria

Naucra Me

T H E R OM A N E MPI R E THRACE

6

City

Oxyrhynch

Roman province Boundary of Roman Empire 65 C.E.

0 0

A

Roman road

100

100

200 Miles

200 Kilometers

B

©2003 CHK America www.mapsusa.com

C

D

E



The Coming of Rome   133

F

G

H

I

J

SA R

M

A

B OSPORUS

TI

1 A

AS

Chersonesus

CO

A

G

A

GIA

LY

Antioch CAO in Pisidia N

A

Tarsus

Issus

CILICIA

Seleucia

Tripolis

Sidon Tyre Ptolemais

.

sR

I

A

E

M

is P

I

R

E

E

Damascus

S

O

Seleucia

P

O

JUDEA Jordan R. Jerusalem

T

Petra Aila (Aelana)

N

ELAM

Ctesiphon

A

M

I A

Dumah

A

R

A

B

I

N i l e R. F

G

5

A

Tema

T HE R ED S EA

4

Babylon

Dead Sea

NA B KIN ATEAN GDOM

E GYPT

chus

H

E

Heliopolis Babylon

T

T H SIAN R P E S EA

Memphis

Pelusium

R

Caesarea Philipi

Gaza

Sais

ratis

Palmyra

3

M E D I A

Arbela

A Dura-Europos

E EN

AD I A B E N E

Tiberias Scythopolis

Caesarea Sebaste Joppa Canopus

Emesa

P

M

Berytus

Ninus

R.

S Y R I A

Salamis

Paphos

Europus (Carchemish) N E Antioch a Euphr tes R. Seleucia Pieria Apamea Epiphania

Nisibis

MEDIA ATROPATEN E

r Tig

CYPRUS

Edessa Carrhae (Harran)

Ar axe

Lake Urmia

GO RD YE N

2

S EA

E

Myra

AGENE MM CO Zeugma

Derbe

OE

A

Lystra

PAMPH Perga YLIA

Samsat

C ASPIAN

.

K I N G D O M Lake Seyan O F Artaxata

Tigranocerta

OSR

alia

THE

us R

Lake Van

aly

CAPP Caesarea (Mazaca) ADOCIA Malatya Archelais

Iconium

ISIDIA

H

yr

A R M E N I A

Tavium

Lake Tuz

I

ia polis

Comana

IA

L

I

T

A

Ancyra Dorylaeum Gordium Pessinus

Trapezus

Side

Amasea

sR .

Gangra

Amisus

S

ABOI ENIC L IA

TH

A & PONTU YNI

PH

BI

Heraclea cedon Nicomedia Nicaea

Sinope

Ionopolis

CA

C

horus

S HI

Amastris

TI

LC

T HE B LACK S EA

IA

6 H

I

J

134   Vines Intertwined

The following year, Aristobulus and his son Antigonus likewise escaped from Roman custody, where they clearly had friends, and made a second attempt to gain power. Some Jews, says Josephus, recalling the former glory of Judaea, flocked to their side. This attempt fared no better than the first, and thousands more were slain. Aristobulus was again sent to Rome, where he was kept in chains, but the senate released his children, and they returned to Judaea.77 In 55, Gabinius, at the prompting of Pompey but without support of the senate, went to Egypt to reinstate Ptolemy XII Auletes (“fluteplayer”) as king. Antipater supported Gabinius and persuaded the Jews near Pelusium to act as guards to the entrance of Egypt. On his return, Gabinius found Alexander, elder son of Aristobulus, leading 30,000 Jews in another insurrection, killing Romans where he could find them. Gabinius met him in battle near Mount Tabor and put an end to it. Gabinius handed over the province of Coele-Syria to the new proconsul Licinius Crassus in 54. While Gabinius had been content to milk the land through taxation, Crassus had no time for mere extortion. Before waging a new war against Parthia, he came straight to Jerusalem and robbed the temple of the 2000 talents in the treasury and all the gold furnishings. One priest who knew of a hidden bar of pure gold attempted to ransom the temple vessels with it. Crassus gave an oath that he would accept the ransom and leave the vessels, but when the gold bar was produced, he took it and the vessels. Justice, however, was not blind. The following year, Crassus campaigned against Parthia, and he was defeated in battle at Carrhae. While on his way to negotiate a truce, the Parthians assassinated Crassus and brought his head like a hunting trophy to King Orodes, who was attending the theater, and threw it down amid the audience to much applause.78 The Judaeans nodded approvingly, and in a burst of pro-Parthian sentiment many aligned themselves with the Jewish community of Babylon, which remained altogether on the side of Parthia. Cassius Longinus replaced Crassus as governor of Coele-Syria from 53 to 51. During this time he had to put down one lingering insurrection, led by the obscure Pitholaus, a partisan of Aristobulus. Encouraged by Antipater, Cassius intervened, killed Pitholaus, and made slaves of his 30,000 Jewish followers.79 Although Josephus does not say what happened to them, they were probably sold as slaves and in due course gained their freedom and were reabsorbed into Jewish communities around Asia Minor. The Roman world was about to change. With the immortal words “Let the die be cast,” Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon in 49 and the civil war began.80 Pompey and the senate fled Rome. Caesar released Aristobulus and gave him two legions to engage Pompey in Syria, but Pompey loyalists poisoned Aristobulus before he could take up Caesar’s commission. Pompey also had Aristobulus’s son, Alexander, beheaded in Antioch. The two contestants for supreme power, Caesar and Pompey, met at the battle of Pharsalus on August 9, 48. Pompey was defeated and fled to Egypt, where the royal regents, eager to curry favor with the new leader, assassinated him. They pickled Pompey’s head, and when Caesar landed in Alexandria, presented it to him. Whatever reward they expected, Caesar dutifully wept at the sight and had the assassins executed.81



The Coming of Rome   135

Then Caesar, as all the world knows—because men do not tire to tell of it—fell before the mystique of Cleopatra VII, the future nonpareil of the femme fatal. Upon the death of her father, Ptolemy XII Aueletes, in 51, Cleopatra VII Thea Philopator (“goddess loving her father”) assumed the throne at age 18, along with the obligatory male consort, her younger brother Ptolemy XIII, then about 12. She was to be the last Ptolemaic sovereign, and perhaps the most diplomatically gifted since the dynasty’s foundations. “It was a pleasure,” Plutarch informs us, “merely to hear the sound of her voice, with which, like an instrument of many strings, she could pass from one language to another.” She spoke, besides Greek, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Aramaic, Hebrew, Arabic, Syrian, Median, Parthian, and the obscure Troglodyte.82 Descriptions of her beauty, always qualified by the plainness of her face, included a sensitive mouth and exceptional nose. It was rather the impossible-to-describe feminine charm that brought conquerors to their knees. Plutarch did his best: “Plato admits four sorts of flattery, but she had a thousand.”83 Cleopatra began the tryst by cleverly having a Syrian carpetmonger smuggle her into Caesar’s dwelling inside a carpet, where she was unrolled “behind the enemy lines” and became his mistress that very night. Soon after, in the attempt to make Cleopatra the sole ruler, Caesar went to war with Ptolemy XIII, or rather, with the regents, who pinned down Caesar and his small force in Alexandria and brought him into the greatest peril of his military career. Mithridates of Pergamum came to Caesar’s rescue with a small auxiliary force, but he was not able to penetrate the Egyptian forces at Pelusium, and he camped, helplessly, in Ascalon. In Judaea, Antipater and Hyrcanus were no less eager to demonstrate their loyalty to Julius Caesar. Antipater, with the support of Hyrcanus, mustered 3000 heavily armed Jewish soldiers and helped Mithridates invade Egypt. When they reached the district of Onias, the Jews loyal to Ptolemy would not let them pass, but Antipater appealed to their common Jewish ethnicity, and no doubt their commonsense concerning Rome. He also produced a letter signed by their high priest, Hyrcanus, and persuaded them to let the Jewish troops pass. Not only did the Jews of Egypt change sides, but many joined the army of Antipater, and according to Josephus, Antipater and the Jews saved the neck of Mithridates, and thus the Alexandrian war for Caesar.84 Although the Jewish aid was real, Josephus may have fortified the numbers, for in a later decree of Caesar expressing his gratitude, the number of Jewish troops is 1500. When the victorious Caesar returned through Syria, he honored those who had come to his aid, Antipater and Hyrcanus among them. Caesar gave Antipater Roman citizenship and exemption from taxation, and made him procurator of Judaea, with fiscal and military responsibilities. Likewise, Caesar confirmed Hyrcanus as high priest in perpetuity but added to this the title of ethnarch, “ruler of the people,” and gave him permission to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, which had lain in ruins since the attack by Pompey. In due course, the city of Joppa with its harbor was returned to Hyrcanus, along with the royal estates in the Plain of Esdraelon (Jezreel), and exemption of the national tribute every seventh year.85 Caesar also affirmed various rights and privileges for Jews to live according to their customs in Egypt and Asia Minor. The senate of Rome ratified the decisions of Caesar, so that

136   Vines Intertwined

even after his assassination, Hyrcanus and Antipater were as secure in their positions as Roman recognition could make them. Even the senate of Rome, however, could offer no protection from assassins or war. Antipater appointed his son Phasael governor of Jerusalem, and his son Herod governor of Galilee in 47. Herod, about 25 at the time, took up his commission with an alacrity that would garner him, in due course, the kingship of Judaea. He made his presence known immediately by hunting down a Galilean robber baron named Hezekiah, who ravaged the lower Syrian hills with his men but who were probably more than simple thieves. They may have been anti-Roman insurgents or merely rejected the authority of the “half-Jew” Antipater, a mere second-generation “convert” from his Idumaean (Edomite) origins. Herod captured Hezekiah and executed him along with a number of his men. The Syrians sang Herod’s praise, but the mothers of those slain appealed to Jerusalem, and the Jewish council of Jerusalem accused Herod of not abiding by the laws, which require a trial before execution. The council pressed Hyrcanus to summon Herod to trial, but the Roman governor of Syria ordered Hyrcanus to acquit Herod. When Herod did come before the council, he came robed in purple and with an impressive bodyguard. The council members sat mute with fear, and only one, Samaias, spoke out. He accused the council of weakness and predicted Herod would rule harshly over them one day if they did not bring him to justice now. He apparently convinced them, for Hyrcanus advised Herod to flee to Damascus so that Hyrcanus would not be in the difficult position of offending either the council or the governor of Syria. The civil war between supporters of Pompey and Caesar continued in Syria, and Antipater sent Jewish troops in support of Caesar’s generals, while Caesar campaigned in Africa. Then came the Ides of March 44. With the assassination of Julius Caesar, the Jews lost their most powerful advocate. It is said that the Jews of Rome lingered for several successive nights intoning their ancient prayers beside the ashes of Caesar’s funeral pyre.86 Mark Antony, Caesar’s co-consul, took up the avenging sword of Caesar, but his efforts at gaining power through a diplomatic and peaceful transition were thwarted by the appearance of Caesar’s adopted son Caius Octavian, who, with the help of Cicero, accused Antony of excusing the assassins Brutus and Cassius. Octavian raised an army from Caesar’s veterans and forced Antony to share power. The result was the Second Triumvirate, of Antony, Octavian, and another general of Caesar, Ameilius Lepidus. The triumvirs initiated a proscription against their wealthy enemies, and during a brief reign of terror, 300 senators, including Cicero, and some 2000 equestrians were murdered and their wealth confiscated. Antony, delighted to have rid himself of Cicero, nailed his head and hands, by which he wrote, over the rostra in Rome, where orators spoke.87 The next 3 years were filled with political intrigue and wars, during which the Jews along with the rest of the Mediterranean world sought their advantage. Out of necessity, Antipater and his sons had to deal with one of Caesar’s assassins, Cassius Longinus, who had been granted power in Syria but who then became the enemy of the Triumvirs. Cassius raised the Republican army, financed by a demand for 10 years’ taxes paid in advance from the eastern provinces. Judaea was required



The Coming of Rome   137

to deliver 700 talents. Antipater gave the responsibility of raising the funds to his sons and one nobleman. Herod was the first to contribute his share of 100 talents from Galilee, and made a friend in Cassius. Cassius made Herod the governor of Syria, head of a significant army, and promised to make him king of Judaea after the Roman war. Four cities that did not meet their expectations, Gophna, Emmaus (Emmaus-Nicopolis), Lydda, and Thammna, were reduced to slavery.88 The rising power of Antipater and his sons alarmed other members of the aristocracy, and one, by the name of Malichus, succeeded in poisoning Antipater. Josephus eulogized Antipater as a “man distinguished for piety, justice, and devotion to his country,” though at the time, many Jews would hardly have agreed.89 Cassius authorized Herod to avenge the death of his father, but Herod, on the advice of his brother Phasael, waited until an opportune time to exact vengeance. Within the year, Malichus was slain by Roman soldiers near Tyre. When Cassius left Syria in 42 to confront the Triumvirs, chaos descended on Judaea and the entire region. Antigonus, the last surviving son of the Hasmonean Aristobulus, attempted to seize control of Judaea. Herod, with accomplishment and good fortune, repelled him but was unable to keep Marion, the tyrant of Tyre, from seizing parts of Galilee. Brutus and Cassius clashed with Antony and Octavian at Philippi in September of 42 and were defeated. Brutus, Cassius, and other members of the old aristocracy committed suicide. The Triumvirs split up the empire: Octavian got the West, Lepidus received Africa, and Antony took Egypt, Greece, and the East. Antony bequeathed an amnesty on all the eastern rulers who had supported his enemies on the condition that they give him 10 years’ tribute up front. He spent some time settling matters in Asia Minor. Herod, who had supported Cassius, now had a new problem, one that a delegation from Judaea exacerbated by appearing before Antony in Bithynia accusing Herod of seizing the authority that belonged to Hyrcanus, in other words, acting as if he were the ruler of the people. Herod hurried to defend himself, in which he was successful, and Hyrcanus sent a letter asking Antony to undo all the injustices Cassius had committed on Judaea, such as the enslavement of citizens. Antony did all that Hyrcanus asked and returned the territory of Galilee as well. Antony also recalled the time when he had served under Gabinius in Judaea and became friends with Antipater, and now, as a result of that friendship, he nominated Herod and Phasael as tetrarchs of the Jewish lands. The Parthian king, Pacorus, determined the time had come to invade Asia Minor and take it back from Rome. In this major invasion, Antigonus promised a large gift of gold to Pacorus and promised to give him the wives of his enemies if they would place him on the throne of Judaea. Pacorus, in his gullibility, invaded Judaea and set Antigonus on the throne. Phasael was treacherously slain during peace negotiations with Antigonus, but Herod managed to place his family in the safety of the fortress on Masada before escaping to Rome. In Jerusalem, Antigonus mutilated his uncle Hyrcanus by cutting off his ears, rendering him unfit to be high priest, since the Torah prohibits any blemish to the man serving as high priest. The Parthians took Hyrcanus away as a prisoner after Antigonus was installed as king and high priest.90

138   Vines Intertwined

Antigonus (40–37) enjoyed a glorious reign of 3 years. In good Hasmonean fashion, he minted coins inscribed in Greek on the reverse “King Antigonus” and in Hebrew on the obverse “Mattathias the High Priest.” Because Antigonus was irrelevant to history, Josephus tells us little about his brief reign. Meanwhile, the Roman senate appointed Herod king of Judaea on the nomination of Antony, with the approval of Octavian. Herod was left to assume his appointment by force of arms, the task of which he was eager to attain. While the Romans and Parthians clashed in Asia Minor, Herod landed at Ptolemais in the spring of 39. He was able to regain control of much of Galilee and rescue his family from Masada, but he did not receive the needed help from the Roman governor Sosius and so delayed his attack on Jerusalem. While he waited, he consummated a second marriage to Miriamme, the Hasmonean granddaughter of Hyrcanus, as part of his bid for royal legitimacy. King Pacorus died in 38, and his successor Phraates IV wisely withdrew Parthian hegemony to its side of the Euphrates. The following year Roman military help finally arrived, and Herod laid siege to Jerusalem. During the siege, two leading Pharisees, Pollion and his disciple Samaias, who may be Abtalion and Shemaiah of rabbinic tradition, urged the city to admit Herod, and although they were not persuasive, they did obtain the favor of Herod when he took Jerusalem.91 After the city fell, Antigonus prostrated himself before the Roman general Sosius, who in turn laughed and clapped him in chains. Herod found that he had to bribe the plundering Romans to leave him a kingdom to be king of, which he did, and Sosius departed. Antigonus remained a captive in Antioch, but Herod feared that he might plead his cause to Rome and bribed Antony to order the execution of Antigonus. Antony apparently thought it a proper move because while Antigonus lived, some Jews would work against Herod in the hopes of returning a Hasmonean to the throne. Sosius beheaded Antigonus and brought an end to the Hasmonean line. Strabo says this was the first time Rome had executed a king in this manner.92

8.3 Rise of Herod The Second Triumvirate of Octavian, Antony, and Lepidus, formed by the senate in 43 as an emergency concentration of power over elections, legislation, and the military, was with difficulty renewed in 37, but as Lepidus was forcibly retired the following year, military power soon settled in the hands of Antony and Octavian, and all of Rome knew it must end in the hands of one, as it had been under Caesar. Antony had married Octavian’s sister Octavia in 40, as part of the Brusindium agreement and a means by which Antony might gain some prestige among the gens. Shortly thereafter, while Octavia was pregnant, Cleopatra gave birth to Antony’s twins, a boy and a girl. At this time, Virgil wrote his ambiguous Fourth Eclogue announcing the birth of a child by whom would come a golden age; its purpose perhaps in anticipation of the “son” of Antony and Octavia, who turned out to be a daughter, or perhaps written in allegory as the dawn of hope for a new age. The influence of Jewish messianic hope, or even a Greek version of Isa 9:6 (“For unto us a child is born”), while not evident, is not impossible, but the Fourth Eclogue



The Coming of Rome   139

itself would one day serve, like magi from the East, as a Gentile prophecy for the birth of Jesus Christ.93 The 5 years of the renewal of the Second Triumvirate witnessed the gradual alienation of the two men, as military victory shifted from Antony to Octavian. Antony’s invasion of Parthia in 36 resulted in a humiliating defeat and loss of more than 20,000 men during his retreat through Armenia. Thereafter, he deserted Octavia, an affront to Octavian, and sought the wealth and companionship of Cleopatra. That same year, Octavian, through the brilliant leadership of Vipsanius Agrippa, defeated Sextus Pompey, the last holdout against the Caesarians. Although the eastern provinces remained loyal to Antony, he continued to act independently of the Roman senate and in isolation. Once Herod had taken the throne of Judaea, he engaged various opponents, and all this under the shadow of the conflict between Antony and Octavian. Herod’s opponents came from the remaining members of the Hasmoneans, particularly his mother-in-law, Alexandra. But Herod also faced a general unrest among the people, including some Pharisees, other members of the Jewish aristocracy, and externally, the seductress par excellence, Cleopatra. Herod subdued the unrest, in imitation of the proscriptions of the Second Triumvirate, by executing 45 leading men in the Antigonus party and confiscating their property. He stationed guards at the gates of Jerusalem so that none of their wealth could be smuggled out in the coffins.94 He used this wealth to settle debts and to placate other Jews. He attempted to win over the Pharisees, and through them, the hoi polloi who looked to Pharisees for guidance. Among those Pharisees he honored were Pollion and his disciple Samaias, for they had counseled the city to admit Herod as king while he besieged Jerusalem. Herod depended entirely on the good will and patronage of Rome, whose authority in the region presently lay with Mark Antony. Shortly after Herod secured his throne, Antony gave Cleopatra parts of the seacoast of Coele-Syria and Nabataea, and Herod could only congratulate her with a smile on his face. Later, Antony gave Cleopatra the magnificent and highly lucrative balsam and date palm groves around Jericho. Again, Herod dared not demur but graciously offered to rent the groves from Cleopatra. Josephus also tells us, with some prurient delight, that when Cleopatra returned from escorting Antony to Syria, she attempted to seduce Herod, hoping then to accuse him before Antony. Josephus assures us that Herod would hardly indulge such folly, but the entire incident is questionable and may be no more than the sort of rumor that clung to the legend of Cleopatra.95 Besides his power base in Judaea, Herod sought to court the Babylonian Jews while not appearing to undermine the Roman power behind his throne. A loyal Babylonian Jewish community would enhance the position of Herod as a broker between the two empires. The true goal of a man with so healthy an ambition as Herod was to extend his influence to all of Syria by means of the numerous Jewish communities and let Rome reward him with new territory. And toward that end, he was remarkably successful. Herod sent an embassy to Parthia, brought back Hyrcanus II from his captivity, and held him in esteem, much to the satisfaction of the Pharisees and other supporters of Hyrcanus. Because the physical mutilation of Hyrcanus prevented him from holding the office of high priest (Antigonus had

140   Vines Intertwined

cut off his ear), Herod appointed an unknown Babylonian Jew, Hananel, perhaps a Zadokite, as high priest. This may have been another bid to gain support among the Jewish community of Babylon, but also to remove the contention over the office among the Jewish factions in Judaea. Whatever his reason, the move was rejected by his mother-in-law Alexandra and all supporters of the Hasmoneans. After all, a legitimate nominee was available in Aristobulus III, Miriamme’s brother. The following year, 35, Herod appointed Aristobulus III, age 17, as the high priest. A Hasmonean high priest, however, proved more dangerous to Herod’s control of power than beneficial, and after Sukkot, Herod invited Aristobulus to his palace at Jericho and had him drowned. The guise for the murder was to have young companions playfully dunking Aristobulus in the pool, then holding him down until he drowned. Herod publically wept bitter tears at the unfortunate accident and convinced no one, least of all Alexandra. The dame of the Hasmonean dynasty found common cause with Cleopatra, who coveted all Herod’s kingdom as part of her rightful Ptolemaic realm, and they conspired to have Herod summoned before Antony over the death of Aristobulus. While Antony paused in Laodicea (coast of Syria), on his way to campaign in Armenia, Herod appeared before him, uncertain of the outcome but with gifts and good arguments of realpolitik. Herod no doubt had begun to see that Antony was under the spell of Cleopatra and would do what he must to placate her desires but not to the sacrifice of his power. Antony released Herod. Herod was himself under the spell of a woman, the beautiful Hasmonean princess Miriamme, and the temper of Herod’s reign soon became apparent. Before he departed to meet with Antony, he entrusted Miriamme into the care of his sister Salome’s husband, Joseph, with orders that if he did not return, Joseph should kill Miriamme, for he could not bear the thought that she might become the wife of another. Upon his return, his sister Salome accused her own husband of having an affair with Miriamme. Herod dismissed the slander, but when he learned that Joseph had admitted the plan to Miriamme, which Joseph claimed to have done to demonstrate Herod’s love for her, Herod flew into one of his rages, believed the accusation of infidelity, and executed Joseph without a legal inquiry.96 Antony annexed Armenia in 34 and then held a victory parade in Alexandria as the new Dionysus. He began dispensing various territories to Cleopatra’s children and declared the youth Caesarion to be Julius Caesar’s son, hinting at a royal dynasty. Together Antony and Cleopatra appeared to be building a new Greco-Roman empire, a rival to Rome. Octavian used all these affronts to Rome to alienate Antony further and fan the flames of anti-Egyptian fervor in Italy. When the Triumvirate expired in 32, it was not renewed. Octavian required an oath of allegiance to himself as military leader from the cities of Italy. Antony divorced Octavia, forcing Rome to acknowledge his marriage to Cleopatra. Octavian responded by obtaining from the senate the annulment of Antony’s powers, and he then forcibly removed Antony’s will from its custody with the Vestal Virgins and published damaging portions. With public sentiment behind him, Octavian was elected consul and in September of 32 declared war on Cleopatra, and by extension, on her consort. Herod rallied to the side of his patron and offered troops to Antony, but Cleopatra intervened and persuaded Antony to order Herod to make war on Malichus,



The Coming of Rome   141

king of Nabataea. According to Josephus, Cleopatra foolishly thought to destroy one of those kings by the other and expand her territory in Coele-Syria, for if Herod defeated the Nabataeans, she might become mistress of Arabia, or, if Herod lost, she might gain Judaea. While the forces of Octavian and Antony skirmished in Greece, Herod campaigned against Nabataea. Herod met with some success, but Cleopatra sent one of her generals to aid Malichus, and Herod suffered a serious defeat in early 31. Just then, a great earthquake ravaged Judaea such as the land had never known. Estimates of the dead ranged between 10,000 and 30,000, with many more livestock in the rubble.97 While the Jews buried their fallen, all seemed lost to Herod, and a lesser man might have fled. But in this tragedy, he found an advantage, the element of surprise, and rallying his troops around him he dealt a severe blow to Malichus, who anticipated, no doubt, an easy victory. Herod had fulfilled his duty to Antony but suddenly found himself on the losing side of the Roman war. After a year of skirmishes, the forces of Antony and Octavian met in the naval battle of Actium off the western coast of Greece. Vipsanius Agrippa again demonstrated his naval prowess, and the ships of Antony were blockaded and defeated on September 2, 31. Antony managed to escape his command ship by rowboat and reach the waiting vessel of Cleopatra, on which they fled to Egypt. With his patron defeated, Herod shifted his loyalty and prepared himself for the difficult transition. The enemies of Herod in Judaea anticipated his downfall, the just punishment for having chosen the wrong side, and many conspired to bring it about. Herod, however, was not easily brought low. He executed the aged Hyrcanus, possibly on a genuine charge of treason, but in any case, to remove the last legitimate rival to his throne. He also got an early chance to demonstrate his new loyalty. A troop of gladiators in Cyzicus training for Antony’s victory games attempted to join Antony in Egypt and come to his aid, but the governor of Syria would not let them pass, and Herod took the opportunity to send troops to help contain them.98 Octavian spent some months stabilizing the east before he advanced on Egypt. Herod found Octavian in Rhodes, and given an audience, he boldly extolled his loyalty to Antony, but only to remind his new lord that the fealty of Herod was true, and now transferred to Octavian, he would be a trustworthy vassal. Moreover, he had not fought against Octavian—a gift of Cleopatra. It must have been Herod’s finest moment when he laid his sword at the feet of his conqueror and received not only absolution but friendship too. With his kingship restored, Herod returned to Judaea. Soon after, as Octavian marched along the Phoenician coast toward Egypt, Herod met him at Ptolemais, spent lavishly on his retinue, and saw that his men lacked neither water nor wine on their march to Egypt. A parting gift of 800 talents confirmed Herod’s devotion to Octavian.99 Cleopatra’s forces put up a brief attempt at resistance to Octavian, but Antony, knowing he had lost everything, committed suicide. And Cleopatra, as she refused to be paraded in chains in Octavian’s triumph, had an asp smuggled to her in a basket of figs, and pressing it to her breast, she died and became immortal. Octavian, at least, granted her last request and buried her alongside Antony in a single sepulcher.100 While Octavian remained in Egypt preparing the land to become a Roman province, Herod went to pay his respects and to request that Octavian undo what

142   Vines Intertwined

Antony, at Cleopatra’s urging, had done to him. Octavian responded favorably. He gave Herod all the lands Cleopatra had taken from him, added more territories including Samaria, coastal cities, and gave him Cleopatra’s bodyguard of 400 Gauls. Herod returned to Judaea more powerful and secure than before. Toward the end of the year, when Octavian left Egypt, Herod accompanied him through Phoenicia and Syria as far as Antioch, a lengthy demonstration of his new status as friend of Rome. If Herod had made a friend of Octavian, he kept few among his subjects and even fewer in his own household. During his travels he had again become suspicious of his favorite wife, Miriamme, whom he loved passionately, though she openly despised him. In the perpetual intrigues of palace life, Herod’s mother and others who took offense at the haughtiness of the Hasmoneans convinced Herod that Miriamme had been unfaithful and had tried to poison him. Though all of it was probably false, Herod could not abide the thought of Miriamme’s unfaithfulness, and in a fit of rage, he executed her. The blood was spillled and could not be unspilled, but the grief of his rash action drove him into a deep depression. More executions followed, including Miriamme’s mother Alexandra, and two distant Hasmonean offspring, the sons of Babas, whom Herod had long sought, and Costobar, the man who hid them. All that remained of the Hasmoneans were Herod’s own two sons by Miramme, Alexander and Aristobulus, who joined the previous ranks of Alexanders and Aristobuluses. The Roman Republic was dead, even though the senate and res publica were soon restored in name. Octavian reduced the legions from 60 to 29 and settled many veterans in newly established colonies. Rome gave him a three-day triumph in the summer of 29. The doors to the temple of Janus, kept open during time of war, were closed. The provinces were divided into senatorial and imperial provinces, the former requiring few troops and governed by an appointment of the senatorial class, the latter requiring many troops, governed by a legate who answered to Augustus. Egypt and Syria were imperial provinces, and between them lay several small vassal kingdoms, including Judaea. In 27 Octavian gave up many of his powers, although he kept command of the legions, and chose the title of Augustus, which the senate happily voted on him. Virgil’s Golden Age had arrived, the Pax Augusta, and Herod meant to reap its bounty and leave his mark.

Chapter 9

Pax Augusta and Herod the Great (27 b.c.e.–14 c.e.)

9.1 Mediterranean World: Pax Augusta The Augustan peace was not without its wars. Augustus spent his early years (26–25) subduing northwest Spain, to bring the last remnants of the peninsula under his control. In 20 Augustus settled accounts with the Parthians, who had gloated over their defeats of Crassus and Mark Antony and kept the military standards and Roman prisoners. King Phraates IV seems to have known he was no longer dealing with mere generals and triumvirs but a true emperor. Phraates returned the standards and the prisoners to Augustus in exchange for a beautiful slave girl with whom he had fallen in love. The Parthian king also sent his four sons to Rome to be educated in Latin ways. Augustus reserved his most intensive campaigns in Macedonia, the interior of the Balkans up to the Danube, which he secured in 9 c.e. Three new military provinces were created: Illyricum, Pannonia, and Moesia. War along the Rhine continued intermittently and became his greatest loss. The golden age of Augustus is undoubtedly more lustrous through the hazy lens of history than it appeared at the time, but the widespread peace around the Mediterranean Sea, or the Mare Nostrum (“our sea”), as Romans were wont to call it, did allow for an era of exceptional growth. It began with the wealth Augustus brought to Rome from Egypt, which caused interest rates to plunge from 12 to 4 percent, and the value of real estate inflated accordingly. Augustus undertook a massive refurbishing of the city of Rome. He built a new forum and temples to Mars and Jupiter and to Apollo in the Palatine. Augustus restored most of the decaying edifices of other buildings, so that he justly quipped that “where he found Rome built of brick, he left it all of marble.”101 His friend and prominent general, Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, contributed the Pantheon with its great dome, Corinthian columns, and bronze double doors. Across the empire, other patrons employed architects and builders to erect suitable monuments to the new age, not the least of which was Herod, king of Judaea.

9.2 Herod: Expansion and Grandeur Herod began his building program with a theater and gymnasium in Jerusalem and an amphitheater for athletic contests, including gladiators, outside the city

144   Vines Intertwined

walls. He instituted athletic games every fifth year in honor of Caesar Augustus, thereby demonstrating that he was a true vassal king of the Roman Empire. By such building enterprises, says Josephus, Herod offended many, “departing from the native customs, and through foreign practices he gradually corrupted the ancient way of life.”102 This common lament found throughout history, that the old ways are being corrupted, was not shared by all, for the Jews remained divided on how offensive Hellenistic culture ought to be. Some Jews of Judaea, like many Jews in the Diaspora, joined in the games and artistic competitions, and Gentiles of Palestine enthusiastically supported the culture. The one line that most Jews would not permit Herod, or anyone, to cross was that of idolatry and any art that smacked of it within the walls of Jerusalem. Herod was careful not to cross the line, as the “trophies incident” proved. In the Jerusalem theater, Herod placed tributary inscriptions of Caesar’s military victories, with trophies in pure gold and silver of the nations he had won in war. The entire enterprise offended traditional custom, and while the Gentiles stood amazed at the decorations, the Jews, or at least a majority led by the Pharisees, found them idolatrous because the images were of the sort that Gentiles worshiped. In short, the traditionalists said that while they might endure a great many minor conflicts with tradition, they would not endure the existence of images of worship in Jerusalem. Herod invited their leaders to come and give their verdict. They came and with one voice cried out “images of men,” therefore idolatrous. Herod did not quibble but had the offensive images removed. The peoiple rewarded Herod with a running joke that his ornaments were empty boxes.103 Herod then launched ambitious building projects within his own domain and in numerous cities of the empire. In this, he joined the empire-wide competition to erect temples, or even cities, in honor of Augustus Caesar. The annual revenue Herod received from his kingdom amounted to some 1050 talents, drawn from a taxation system already in place under Rome, which taxed agricultural produce, commerce, and transportation customs.104 Herod also inherited vast tracts of the most fertile lands with a substantial income from his father and the Hasmonean dynasty. These he supplemented by confiscation of the estates of his enemies, and after Augustus restored the balsam groves of Jericho and En Gedi that he had rented from Cleopatra at 200 talents a year, he added this considerable income to his coffers, along with other sources of revenue at various points in his reign, such as the Augustan gift in 24 of half the revenue of the copper mines of Cyprus.105 There is no evidence that Herod or the Jews paid tribute to Rome. His domains served as a buffer kingdom against Parthia, and leaving it in the control of a local king was deemed the best for the desired stability. Herod was a rex socius et amicus populi Romani, and it was his genius, both inherited and learned, that he knew how to maneuver within the Roman Empire. The city of Samaria was rebuilt and named Sebaste (Augustus in Greek). Its centerpiece was a temple to Augustus. When Sebaste was completed in 23/22, Herod sent his two sons by Miriamme, Alexander and Aristobulus, to Rome for their education and presentation to Caesar Augustus, who then granted Herod authority to choose whichever he willed as successor. Augustus at this time expanded Herod’s kingdom with the districts of Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Auranitis.106



Pax Augusta and Herod the Great   145 A

B

C

D

Women’s Tower l Wal

1 B

e

16th-century Ottoman walls

City walls under Herod Agrippa I Roman wall of Aelia Capitolina

w

L

o

e d u c t

u

Wall

of Olives Moun t

5 Siloam Pool

Tekoa Gate

0

A

A L L E Y

Gihon Spring

Solomon’s Pool?

6

©2003 CHK America www.mapsusa.com

4

R

Valley Gate

Absalom’s Pillar Benei Hezir Tomb Tombs of St. James & Zechariah Pinnacle of the Temple

Palace of the Kings of Adiabene

e

p Praetorium e r ( Z C i o i t n )

p

U

Triple (Huldah) Gate Double (Huldah) Gate

et

O

A L L E Y

First

Royal Portico gate

st epped stre

N I N

om ls f fr o h o ct pout d u n ’s s o e m ue o d h a q l o ma t e t h l e S o l o c Be

V

hus’s

(Mount Moriah)

3

Beautiful Gate

Solomon’s Portico

Barclay’s Gate Robinson’s Arch

Shushan Gate

O N

t

gate

a q Jose p

Gethsemane

T EMPLE

y

Essene Gate

M

Outer Court

ee str

Gennath Gate

House of High Priest Caiaphas Cenacle (traditional site of Last Supper)

Serpent’s Pool

Israel Pool

M OUNT

Herod’s Palace

H

5

towers

pool

4

Antonia Fortress

of Court of Court of Court Women Priests Israel Warren’s Gate Temple Wilson’s Arch e g Court of brid gate Gentiles

Hippicus Tower Towers’ Pool

gate

2

Sheep’s Pools/ Pools of Bethesda

Struthion Pool Ecce Homo Arch

Golgotha Hill

Phasael Tower Mariamme Tower

Fuller’s Tower?

i an

Psephinus’ Tower?

a

rod

3

Jewish tombs

h

He

KIDRON Geographic feature VALLEY

Josephus’s Second Wall

Intermittent stream

t

underground quarries Damascus Gate

Josephus’s Third wall Aqueduct/conduit

e

The Royal Cave

City walls under Herod the Great

2

z

Garden Tomb (Gordon’s Golgotha)

V

J E R U SA L E M I N TH E S E CO N D T E M P L E P E R IOD

I D

p

Jose

hird

K

’s T hus

r C i t O EO P O N R (CHEE TY y SEMA KER d ra i n S) V age c AL LEY a na l un d e r s tre et

1

1/10

2/10 Mile

0 1/10 2/10 Kilometers Contour interval: 5 meters

B

C

D

6

146   Vines Intertwined

Herod’s most ambitious project and enduring monument was the magnificent port city named Caesarea Maritima, in honor of his patron. He chose the existing site of the old Phoenician harbor town of Strato’s Tower, so named for the lighthouse tower built in the fourth century by Strato, king of Sidon. In 22 Herod laid the foundation of a new city along the standard plan of a Roman provincial capital, with parallel streets running along a north-south and east-west grid. A semicircular wall surrounded the city on the east while the west edge lay open to the sea and its vast harbor. Herod used the best engineering techniques of his day to extend two moles of huge granite blocks into the sea, a shorter 250 foot wall from the north, and a longer 600 foot wall from the south that curved north, forming a protected harbor. Ships entered by a 60-foot passage to the northwest, with each side flanked by towers. The public buildings were of marble and included palaces, storehouses, a 4000-seat theater, and amphitheater. Caesarea had a hippodrome, but this may have been built only later in the second century c.e. The centerpiece of the city was a temple to Augustus, set upon an artificial mound and visible far out to sea. Two aqueducts brought water from the north, while the city also contained extensive subterranean sewer passages that were flushed by the sea. Herod populated his masterpiece with 6000 Gentile citizens who might appreciate its grandeur. When Herod dedicated the city 12 years later as the gateway to his kingdom, it rivaled Piraeus, the port city of Athens, as a major trade center of the Mediterranean Sea. The largesse of Herod extended to other parts of the Roman Empire. To Rhodes, where his kingdom had been restored by Octavian and where he had received help from friends when he fled from Antigonus, Herod often gave money for ship building, and when their Pythian temple (dedicated to Apollo) burned down, he rebuilt it on a grander scale at his own expense. He provided gymnasia for several cities, Tripolis, Damascus and Ptolemais, and public baths for Ascalon, aqueducts for Laodicea on the Sea, and gardens, fountains, and other gifts for cities such as Athens, Nicopolis, and Pergamum. There was a street in Antioch, Josephus tells us, that people shunned because of its muddiness, and Herod paved it with marble to the distance of 20 furlongs, over 2 Roman miles. Later, Tiberius would shelter the avenue with a roofed colonnade.107 All the cities, especially Antioch, had Jewish communities, and Herod likely hoped to enhance his reputation among the vast Diaspora, as well as contribute to their welfare, but he seems to have done so only in way that expressed his devotion to Hellenism and the empire, for we have no record of his contributing to synagogues or the Jewish communities directly. He did, however, exploit his place in the patronage pyramid to help Diaspora Jews. While Herod and Agrippa toured Asia Minor in 14, the large Jewish community of Ionia appealed to Agrippa for redress on several injustices done to them by their Greek neighbors. Herod lent them his master diplomat, Nicolaus of Damascus, to make their appeal, and Agrippa responded favorably, “because of Herod’s goodwill and friendship for him,” and, of course, the justice of their cause.108 His foremost goal was to be recognized as a true member of the philhellene ruling class, and this is best attested in his love of athletic contests, which experienced a revival under Augustus. Herod instituted quadrennial games in Caesarea and Jerusalem. He endowed the Olympic Games and served as its president for 1 year.



Pax Augusta and Herod the Great   147

Herod’s contribution to the empire did not go unnoticed or unrewarded. Augustus expanded Herod’s dominion in stages. Within his realm Herod founded or refurnished other cities. At the southern edge of the Plain of Sharon, he built a city named for his father, Antipatris, and in the Jordan valley, north of Jericho, another city named for his brother Phasaelis. He rebuilt the ancient city of Anthedon on the sea below Ascalon and named it Agrippium in honor of Agrippa. Ever wary of insurrections, Herod refurbished a number of fortresses: the Hasmonean fortresses of Alexandrium in eastern Samaria, the Hyrcania in the Judaean desert, and Machaerus on the far side of the Dead Sea, which according to Pliny the Elder was the most important fortification after Jerusalem, and according to Josephus was the site of John the Baptist’s imprisonment and execution.109 Herod built a fortress named for his mother, Cypros, just south of Jericho, and two fortresses called Herodion in his own honor, one south of Jerusalem, the other on the edge of Arabia. The most famous of the Hasmonean fortresses rebuilt by Herod was Masada, in the southern Judaean desert, with its panoramic view of the Dead Sea. Herod had placed his family in Masada for safety when he fled Antigonus in 40. The chief weakness of Masada was its lack of water storage, a deficiency Herod repaired by carving out twelve large cisterns in the cliffs that could be fed by the occasional flash floods from the north wadi. Herod embellished the fortress with two palaces and a bathhouse with a frigidarium that served as a ritual immersion pool. Augustus visited Syria in 20, and Herod went to pay his respects. Augustus rewarded Herod’s ability to govern by placing the territories of northern Galilee (Panias) under his care and at the same time instructing the governors in Syria to consult Herod in all their decisions. Herod had reached the height of his impressive rise to power and prestige. Josephus passes along a saying to the effect that Caesar esteemed Herod most, after Agrippa, and Agrippa esteemed Herod most, after Caesar.110 Herod requested a tetrarchy for his brother Pheroras and was granted the long tract of territory on the east bank of the Jordan and Lake Asphaltitus (Dead Sea) called Peraea. Herod returned to his expanded kingdom and commissioned the building of a beautiful white temple to Augustus at Panias, where a nearby spring gave source to the Jordan River.111 The city would later pass to Herod’s son Phillip and be refurbished and renamed Caesarea Phillipi. At this time Herod made an attempt to stabilize his rule and thereby demonstrate that the confidence of Augustus and Agrippa was not misplaced. Chiefly he sought to regain the trust of those who felt he had abandoned his loyalty to Jewish customs and their ancient way of life. He employed a carrot-and-stick approach. He began by remitting a third of their taxes, to show his benevolence, and then demanded an oath of loyalty from all his subjects. Among the Gentiles, and perhaps even the Idumaeans, of his kingdom, the nascent emperor cult was a sufficient means for demonstrating loyalty to Rome, but among the Jews, different means were required. The majority complied, but neither the Essenes nor the Pharisees would make the oath. Some claimed the oath infringed on loyalty to God, but such oaths of loyalty to king and emperor had always been made, from Nebuchadrezzar, through Darius, to Alexander and the Diadochi, and a suitable expression of loyalty

148   Vines Intertwined

was expected and received of all Jews in the empire. The Essenes and Pharisees may have objected to using the name of God in an oath. Whatever their reasons, it was a battle Herod wished to avoid, and he exempted both Jewish associations.112 Herod’s third approach at courting his Jewish subjects was also his most famous building project, the temple and temple mount. He brought the leaders of his Jewish subjects together and announced his plan. The speech was either recorded and available to Josephus or invented by him. The justification for his project, Herod said, was that the temple built by Zerubbabel after the exile was only the half of what Solomon had initially built, and now that God had given the kingdom to him, and protected him, and brought peace, it was his humble privilege to restore the temple to its Solomonic greatness and in this way compensate the Jews for the fact that he had brought them under the rule of Rome.113 The applause, we are led to believe, was not deafening. The leaders were torn between incredulity that Herod would undertake such a great project and fear that he would tear down the existing temple, and having started the new one, for lack of funds never finish it. Herod set aside their fears by promising to make all the preparations of materials, workmen, and transportation before the building began. This included the stones quarried and shaped, 1000 wagons, 10,000 workers, and 1000 priests trained in masonry and carpentry to work in the sacred area where none but priests might go. The main challenge for Herod was to make this temple worthy of his ambition and abilities among the temples of the empire, sufficient to raise Jerusalem from its lowly status among the cities of the empire and to receive the myriads of Jewish pilgrims from the Diaspora, while at the same time limiting the size of the temple to the biblically mandated measurements given for Solomon’s temple. Herod solved the dilemma by setting a beautifully ornate, if small, sanctuary onto a sufficiently massive and grand esplanade to rival any temple on earth. Solomon, for all his glory, was not Herod. Once the building of the new temple began, it was completed in 18 months, while the temple mount required an additional 8 years.114 It was acclaimed as a restoration of Solomon’s temple but was in fact a new and slightly larger structure. The returning exiles under Zerubbabel essentially erected their temple on the rebuilt Solomonic platform of 500 cubits square.115 The Hasmoneans had extended the platform to the south, building over the hated Akra fortress built by the Seleucids in 186. Herod extended the mount on three sides, south, west, and north. Only the eastern wall remained along the lines of Solomon’s temple mount. Because the new retainer wall went further down into the southeastern valley, when built to the level of the temple plateau, it rose about 130 feet, and in order to contain the vast amount of fill, the wall was about 16 feet thick and resting on exceptionally large foundation stones, 45 feet in length and weighing 120 tons, and in one case approaching 600 tons. Most of the stones, however, were between 5 to 14 feet long and 3 to 6 feet high.116 Stone blocks for the walls, called ashlars, were quarried from the limestone hills near Jerusalem and were easily transported to the site. Stonecutters first fashioned a long step in the side of the hill, smooth on top and the outer side and at one end. Then they fashioned the ashlars by cutting channels on the back side for width and the other end for length. They packed dry wood beams



Pax Augusta and Herod the Great   149

into the channels, poured water over the beams, and the wood eventually swelled with sufficient pressure to break the block from its floor. Masons chiseled the rough ashlars to their required dimensions, leaving two stone projections, one on either side, by which each block would be lifted by ropes and pulleys and placed on rolling logs. Oxen drew the ashlars over the logs to the construction site, where they were maneuvered into place. After every new layer of stone was laid, the hillside was filled with earth to the level of the wall, and the next layer begun. The stones were cut to such precision that mortar was unnecessary.117 Herod doubled the area of the temple mount from the Hasmonean dimensions to about 35 acres, roughly 1600 feet on the west side, 1000 to the north, 1500 to the east, 900 to the south, forming a slightly skewed rectangle, and within the Mediterranean world, Egypt alone could boast of larger temple esplanades.118 The perimeter of the temple mount was surrounded by a portico or stoa comprised of pillars in the inside facing the temple but enclosed by a wall on the exterior. Along the central section of the eastern side was an older stoa, built perhaps by the Hasmoneans but called Solomon’s Portico.119 On the southern side, however, Herod built the Royal Stoa, a basilica, the largest structure on the temple mount; indeed, the largest basilica in the ancient world. In the words of Josephus, “It was a structure more noteworthy than any under the sun.”120 It spanned 600 feet of the length of the southern edge of the temple mount and comprised four rows of Corinthian pillars forming three aisles, the typical Roman basilica. The two side aisles were 30 (Greco-Roman) feet wide, and the central aisle was 45 feet wide. The pillars, including base and capital, were 50 feet high, each with a girth requiring three men, arms outstretched, to surround. The middle aisle had a second course of pillars set upon an architrave that rose up another 50 feet and supported a ceiling of carved wood figures. It was to the basilica that all the world might come and stand in awe. By comparison, the dimensions of the Attalos stoa in Athens were 382 feet long, 41 feet wide, 39 feet high, and two aisles, while the Royal Stoa of Herod was 600 feet long, 108 feet wide, 105 feet high, and three aisles.121 Anyone who climbed to the roof of the basilica and looked down the entire distance of the southeastern wall into the valley, says Josephus, “would become dizzy and his vision would be unable to reach the end of so measureless a depth.” Aside from pilgrims and tourists, the Royal Stoa provided the epicenter of Herod’s Greco-Roman Jerusalem: a forum with few rivals, where men could exchange ideas, philosophize, deliberate, dispute, and on occasion, riot. The temple mount welcomed all humanity into its porticoes and open esplanade, but not anyone could go anywhere. The area was delimited into more elevated and more restricted courts of sacred space. The first, or outer court, known as the Court of the Gentiles, included all of the perimeter porticoes and the Royal Stoa. The temple complex was sequestered within the outer court by a carved stone balustrade through which only Jews, including proselytes, might enter. The entrances through the chest-high barrier posted warnings in Latin and Greek: “No foreigner is to enter within the forecourt and the balustrade around the sanctuary. Whoever is caught will have himself to blame for his death which follows.”122 The restriction of Gentiles was probably based on their association with idolatry, not some Gentile impurity per se.

150   Vines Intertwined

Beyond the balustrade, a Jewish worshiper would mount fourteen steps to a higher pavement of elevated sanctity, the second, or middle, court, and proceed across a terrace to another raised platform of five steps on which stood a high wall surrounding the inner courts and the temple sanctuary. The eastern end of the sanctuary was a separate area called the Court of Women, so named because this was where women did most of their cultic and purity rituals, although on certain occasions when they offered sacrifices, such as after childbirth, they may have entered the next court, called the Court of the Israelites.123 The Court of Women was designated for most nonsacrificial rituals, in which men were also present. The origins of a Court of Women are not clear, and unknown prior to Herod’s temple, but if the concept and sacred space preceded Herod’s time, it might have originated with Queen Salome.124 Men probably entered the temple complex through the eastern gate to the Court of Women, passed through the court and came to the next elevation of the Temple Court, which was approached by fifteen broad and shallow semicircular steps. Within the temple area Jewish men were restricted to the Court of the Israelites, a narrow perimeter surrounding the Court of the Priests, according to Josephus, or a single rectangular court, 135 by 11 cubits (ca. 197 x 7 ft) at the east entrance to the sanctuary, according to the Mishnah. Beyond this, and elevated another cubit’s height, lay the Court of the Priests, where stood the great altar and where priests went barefoot on holy ground in performance of their sacred duties. But even the Court of Priests was opened to the people during the Feast of Tabernacles when they marched in procession around the altar waving their palm branches.125 The Court of Priests was largely filled on the south (left of the entrance) by the altar, 30 cubits square and 15 cubits high, but the Mishnah dimensions do not include the horns of the altar (the upraised corners). The altar was mounted on the south side by a ramp of 30 by 16 cubits, on which salt was spread to prevent slipping.126 To the north side stood pillars with hooks where the sacrificial animals were flayed and portions dedicated. In popular parlance, the sanctuary was shaped like a lion, broad in the front, narrow in the back, recalling the verse “Ho, Ariel, Ariel, the city where David encamped.”127 The front, or façade, measured 100 cubits square, and 20 cubits deep, which comprised the porch (portico). Behind it lay the sanctuary proper, a chamber 100 cubits long, 70 wide, and 100 high, which was divided into the Holy and the Adytum, called Holy of Holies, or the Debir (“hind part”). Above the open entrance to the porch, Herod made the controversial move of placing a golden eagle. On the one hand, it was the symbol of Roman authority that encroached on the authority of God. On the other hand, it symbolized Roman involvement in the daily sacrifices that were performed on behalf of the emperor, as an act of obeisance to the god of the Jews, and a reciprocal act of loyalty to Rome by the Jews as they prayed for the welfare of the empire. The main chamber of the sanctuary contained the Table of Showbread (the bread of Presence, lehem panim), the menorah, a seven-branch candelabrum, and the Altar of Incense, all overlaid with gold.128 The Altar of Incense stood in front of the curtains shielding the Holy of Holies; the Table of Showbread stood on the



Pax Augusta and Herod the Great   151

right (north) and the Menorah on the left (south). There, a priest might enter once in his life to burn incense on the golden altar of incense or place the twelve loaves of bread on the golden table or trim the wicks of the golden menorah. The height of the menorah, according a later Talmudic tradition, was 18 handbreadths or about 5 feet, and judging from the picture of the soldiers carrying it on the Titus Arch, this seems about right.129 A stone with three steps carved into it lay at the base of the menorah, on which a priest would mount to trim the wick and pour the oil. Beyond the double veil, into the Holy of Holies, only the high priest entered, and only once a year, on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. The Holy of Holies had once sheltered the Ark of the Covenant, but in the postexilic temple and again in Herod’s, the chamber lay empty. All that remained from the time of the first temple was a stone called Shetiyah (“foundation”).130 The stone was either a slab about three fingerbreadths high, or some argue it was the outcrop of bedrock, today still seen in the Dome of the Rock. On this stone, the high priest would place the incense fire pan, and there he would sprinkle the blood on Yom Kippur. The apocryphal legend that when the high priest entered the Holy of Holies on the Day of Atonement, a rope was tied to his ankle so that if he died in the presence of God, priests could pull him out, may be traced to the fourteenth-century Kabbalistic work, the Zohar. As with many elements in the Zohar, it is not clear whether the reputed author, Moses de Leon, drew on earlier tradition or fabricated the idea, but no mention of it appears in Josephus, himself a priest, or any Jewish literature up through the rabbinic era.131

9.3 Babylonians Zamaris and Hillel Two men immigrated to Palestine from Babylonia during the reign of Herod, reminding us of the Jewish communities in Mesopotamia. Zamaris, the wealthy head of a clan, came accompanied by a military escort of 500 horsemen, mounted archers trained in Parthian military tactics. This otherwise unknown Jew seems to have born a high rank in the Parthian feudal system or was perhaps a desert sheik. Zamaris and his people were given land in Syria near Antioch by Saturninus, the governor of Syria (9–6). When Herod learned of them, he invited Zamaris to dwell in the toparchy called Batanaea, the newly bequeathed northeastern lands added to Herod bordering Trachonitis. The Jews were to defend the land and live in it tax–free. Zamaris built a fortress and village, which he named Bathyra, and this became a guarded wayside point for Babylonian Jews coming up to Jerusalem for the feasts. Once established, Jews migrated to the territory from all around, and this enhanced Herod’s prestige in the eyes of Babylonian Jews as well as his reputation with Augustus Caesar.132 A second Jew from Babylonia, known simply as Hillel, came already educated in the Torah of Moses and acquainted with some oral traditions of the Pharisees.133 Hillel rose to fame by offering a solution to the question of whether the Passover requirements override the sabbath prohibitions against work.134 There is scant information on his life before he arrived in Judaea, but his education suggests there

152   Vines Intertwined

were Torah schools among the Babylonian Jews, and some exchange of thought with the Pharisees in Judaea is entirely plausible. Rabbinic tradition sings his praises by many legends, but they are of meager historical value. It may be said, however, that his guiding hand probably helped the Pharisees negotiate the rule of Herod and withdraw from their former political activism under the Hasmoneans.

9.4 Herod’s Finale The kingdom of Herod included Jews, Samaritans, Jewish Idumaeans, and a variety of Greco-Roman humanity. He chose wives from among his subjects according to the requirements of his rule. His first wife, Doris, was Idumaean, and by her came his eldest son, Antipater III. Miriamme, the Hasmonean, gave Herod some legitimacy from the old royal family, and by her issued two sons, Alexander and Aristobulus. A third wife, also named Miriamme of Alexandria, daughter of Simon the high priest, gave him one son, Herod Philip. A Samaritan wife, Malthace, bore him Archelaus and Herod Antipas and a daughter, Olympias. A fifth wife, Cleopatra of Jerusalem, bore one son, Philip. Josephus mentions three other wives of Herod named Pallas, Phaedra, and Elpis, and two unnamed wives.135 His domestic kingdom with multiple wives and potential heirs was artfully designed for strife in his old age. The sons of Miriamme could not hide the disdain inherited from their mother for their commoner father, nor did they forgive Herod for her death, nor could they wait patiently for him to die. When Herod brought Alexander and Aristobulus back from Rome around 18/17 after 6 years of Roman education, their royal airs gave a fresh infusion of discord into a house already dominated by strife and intrigue. In 13 Herod balanced their aspirations by presenting Antipater III to Augustus in Rome. When Antipater returned the following year, the political intrigue and conspiracies multiplied. The alienation between Herod and his Hasmonean sons intensified, and despite several attempts at reconciliation with them, including the good offices of Augustus himself, Herod finally received permission from Augustus to put Alexander and Aristobulus on trial subject to the judgment of a council of Roman officials in the year 7. The council condemned the two heirs, and they were executed by strangulation in Sebaste. Antipater then became the leading candidate for succession, and Herod made out his will so nominating Antipater. The final 2 years of Herod’s life were marked by additional conspiracy, the changing of his will, and illness that took a variety of forms. Antipater seems to have grown impatient at his father’s longevity and schemed too much with others both in Judaea and in Rome, including Pheroras, Herod’s brother and tetrarch of Peraea, so that he aroused the suspicion of Herod. When Pheroras died of poison, whether guilty or not, Antipater was accused of attempting to poison Herod. The king imprisoned him and sought permission from Augustus to proceed with a trial and execution if guilty. Herod then made a second will nominating Herod Antipas his successor. Toward the end of 5, Herod fell into a fatal illness. The land came alive with anticipation of his death, and it was generally agreed divine justice was finally falling on Herod. Two doctors of the law in Jerusalem, presumably Pharisees, encourage



Pax Augusta and Herod the Great   153

their disciples to avenge God’s honor and remove the golden eagle from the temple. In broad daylight, the two youths let themselves down by ropes from the temple roof and hacked down the eagle before the guards could prevent them. When Herod learned of the insult, he summoned sufficient strength from his rage to bring the young fanatics and 40 of their companions to trial. The youths and their masters he had burned alive; the others he simply executed. The disease in Herod’s body left his skin itching, tumors on his feet, trouble breathing, worms, and gangrene in his privy parts. He spent time in the baths of Callirrhoe near Lake Asphaltitis (Dead Sea) seeking relief but finding none. In his splenetic condition, and as a final act of despotism, he summoned the leading nobles of his kingdom and had them imprisoned in the hippodrome at Jericho. He instructed his sister Salome that upon his death, but before it was publicized, she should have his soldiers slaughter all the nobles so that the land would be in genuine mourning when they learned of his death. She promised to do so. Finally a letter came from Augustus with permission to execute Antipater, which revived the spirits of Herod. He altered his will once again, nominating Archelaus, the elder son of Malthace, as king, and his brother Antipas tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, with his son Philip, son of Cleopatra of Jerusalem, tetrarch of the northeastern provinces of Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Panias. An eclipse of the moon occurred on 12/13 of March, and soon after Antipater was tried and executed. Five days later, in early April 4 b.c.e., Herod surrendered his breath. Before the news was widely known, his sister Salome released the imprisoned nobility from the hippodrome, and so, as Herod had feared, few mourned his passing. Archelaus gave him, nevertheless, a lavish funeral procession from Jerusalem to his mausoleum in the Herodion. The troops that marched in the procession bespoke the nature of his rule: first came his bodyguards, then the Thracians, Germans, Gauls, followed by the entire army.136 The Jewish memory of Herod the Great offers a mixed review. Josephus praises him and condemns him and calls him “Herod the Great” only when necessary to distinguish the patriarch from the several offspring also called Herod.137 The epithet magnus was picked up by Christian historians but not used by other Jewish sources in antiquity. The son of a Jewish Idumaean father and an Arabian mother, Herod had been keenly aware of his dubious ancestry for legitimacy to the title king of the Jews. Josephus tells us that Herod’s court historian, Nicolaus of Damascus, claimed that Herod’s grandfather, Antipater, “was of the family of the principal Jews who came out of Babylon into Judaea; but that assertion of his was to gratify Herod.”138 Herod was a vassal king and could do nothing without the approval of Rome, usually in the person of Caesar Augustus. Herod was given additional territories to govern because of his abilities to keep the peace, and Josephus records a saying that both Augustus and Agrippa often remarked that “the extent of Herod’s realm was not equal to his magnanimity, for he deserved to be king of all Syria and of Egypt.”139 But Herod was never given leave to mint coins other than the lowest denominations in copper or bronze. Concerning his family life, Augustus, after giving Herod permission to slay his three sons, is said to have quipped, “It were better to be Herod’s swine than his son.”140

154   Vines Intertwined

9.5 Aftermath of Herod The death of Herod the Great was likely mourned more in the Roman corridors of imperial rule than in the streets of Jerusalem. The final flurry of wills left by Herod presented Augustus and Rome a glimpse at the domestic basket of worms in the royal household of Judaea and the despair Herod must have felt when he realized he had no offspring who could rule his vassal kingdom. The final will came accompanied by a series of delegations and legal consultations. Uncertainty and discontent radiated throughout the kingdom, as it usually did after the death of a long reign by a powerful monarch. Archelaus gave his father the required week of mourning. Then he set up his golden throne in the Royal Stoa on the temple mount and received blessings of the people. At first they praised him, then they presented their requests, and these turned to demands—a release of prisoners and lower taxes. Archelaus attempted to placate them with promises of a better rule and reminded them that he would not be king until confirmed by Augustus, but this only encouraged the more outraged of the population to demand vengeance. When the Passover feast came around a few weeks after Herod’s death, a large group of opposition leaders and those still lamenting the deaths of the youths and scribes who had cut down the golden eagle gathered on the temple mount. They demanded the deposition of the high priest and the punishment of Herod’s cronies. Archelaus feared an open rebellion in Jerusalem and sent a cohort to suppress them. The crowd stoned the soldiers, killing most of them, and then returned to the sacrifices. Archelaus unleashed his army on the Passover pilgrims, killing about 3000. Archelaus ended the Passover feast and sailed for Rome to secure his kingship against the claims of his brother Herod Antipas and others seeking a share in the bequest of Herod. Augustus read the official claims and listened to the appointed orators but delayed his decision. While the family of Herod waited in Rome with their advocates, thousands of Jewish pilgrims who had come up for Shavuot rioted against the Roman presence and set the temple porticoes on fire. Many died in the flames. Then riots broke out all across Judaea and the Galilee in what is best seen as a rural uprising against the Hellenistic cities. Among the leaders of the uprising was Judas, the son of the robber baron Hezekias whom Herod had killed while governor of the Galilee. Judas and his men stormed the royal armory in Sepphoris and began plundering the estates of the wealthy. Other groups with their own royal pretenders sprang into action in Peraea, Idumaea, and the Judaean countryside, capturing arms and booty from the various royal residences. Josephus names two men, Simon, a former slave of Herod, and Athronges, a shepherd, who gathered their men and claimed the title of king. Varus, the legate of Syria, hurried to Judaea, where he systematically suppressed the rebellions and crucified 2000 of the most guilty. Having put an end to the anarchy, Varus also permitted a delegation of 50 Jewish nobility to sail to Rome with its own request on behalf of the Jewish people. The Judaean delegation was joined by more than 8000 Jews living in Rome in their appeal that Augustus abolish Herod’s kingdom and let them live autonomously



Pax Augusta and Herod the Great   155

under Roman jurisdiction. This was the same request their ancestors had made to Ptolemy during the civil war between the Hasmonean claimants, and their petition effectively requested that Judaea and Galilee be given the status of a Diaspora province in which the Jews lived by their own customs while enjoying the protection of Rome. The Jews of Rome no doubt lent considerable weight to such a request, thinking their own lot better than that of their brethren in Judaea. Augustus convened his council in the temple of Apollo and listened to all sides, including the venerable Nicolaus of Damascus, who appealed on behalf of Archelaus. Despite the many claims and requests, and probably with a good deal of reluctance, since Rome’s sole interest was the stability of the eastern edge of the empire, Augustus implemented the partition of the kingdom of Herod. Herod’s will was followed, except that Archelaus was made not king but ethnarch of Judaea, Samaria, and Idumaea, including the cities of Jerusalem, Caesarea, Sebaste, and Joppa, with the potential to become king when he had proved himself capable. According to the will, Antipas was made tetrarch over Galilee and Peraea, while Philip, also named a tetrarch, was given Gaulanitis, Trachonitis, Batanaea, and Panias. Of the three sons of Herod, Philip ruled best, Antipas ruled longest, and Archelaus ruled as a tyrant, briefly. Philip (4 b.c.e.–34 c.e.) ruled a tetrarchy mostly carved from territory added to Herod’s domain, with an annual revenue of 100 talents. He enlarged and renamed two cities: Panias as the source of the Jordan, which he called Caesarea Philippi (Philip’s Caesarea), and Bethsaida, where the Jordan flows into Lake Gennesaret (Sea of Galilee), which he renamed Julias, honoring the daughter of Augustus. Because the population of his tetrarchy was mostly Syrians and Greeks, with but a few Jews, his coins bore the images of Augustus, Tiberius, and himself.141 He later married the daughter of Herodias, Salome II, but only after she had danced for the head of John the Baptist. Herod Antipas (4 b.c.e–39 c.e.) received a small tetrarchy, but the most fertile, with a revenue of 200 talents. Antipas also refurbished cities and in due course founded one on the southeastern shore of Lake Gennesaret. He rebuilt the gutted Sepphoris in Galilee, making it a provincial capital, and fortified Petharamphtha in Peraea, renaming it Livias in honor of the wife of Augustus. In order to enhance his defense against the Nabataean kingdom of Aretas IV, Antipas married his daughter. Archelaus (4 b.c.e–6 c.e.) was ill-equipped to be even an ethnarch, let alone a king, and his reign lasted but 9 years. Josephus gives him a paragraph in history. He replaced the high priest, and then replaced him as well; lavished time and money on the royal residence at Jericho; founded one city in the Jordan valley highlands between Jericho and Scythopolis, and named it Archelais in his own honor. He caused a scandal when he divorced his wife Miriamme and married a Gentile daughter of the Cappadocian king, Glaphyra. This woman had been the wife of Alexander, the half-brother of Archelaus, until his strangulation by Herod, and then she had been the wife of Juba, king of Mauretania, until the marriage dissolved. Perhaps his greatest accomplishment was making bedfellows of the long-estranged Samaritans and Jews. In the tenth year of his reign, a Judaean and Samaritan delegation

156   Vines Intertwined

arrived in Rome to appeal for the removal of Archelaus and the installation of direct Roman rule. This time Augustus granted their request. Archelaus was banished to Vienne, in Gaul, in 6 c.e., and Judaea and Samaria were annexed to Syria. Caesarea became the district capital, where a Roman governor of the equestrian order took up residence.

9.6 Roman Rule of Judaea Augustus dispatched Sulpicius Quirinius, the imperial legate of Syria, to Judaea with orders to liquidate the estates of Archelaus and make an assessment of all private property in the new territory. The equestrian Coponius accompanied the legate as the first Roman governor to administer Judaea and Samaria with full authority over life and death. The imperial assessment required a census upon which taxation was based, and although the census was surely anticipated by the delegation who sought to bring Judaea and Samaria into the administration of Rome, it awakened the ire of many Jews. The registration of persons and property by the government of Rome served as a sharp reminder of who their new sovereign was and may have brought to mind the great sin of King David when he numbered Israel without authority from God. The high priest Joazar son of Boethus persuaded the majority of Jews to comply with the census, but yet another Galilean named Judas arose to confront the ruling power. He is called Judas the Gaulanite, that is, from the town of Gamala in the district of Gaulanitis, but he was also known as Judas the Galilean. This Judas may have been the same Judas of Galilee, son of the robber baron Ezekias (Hezekiah) who had royal pretensions and led one of the several insurrections after the death of Herod, but Josephus does not make the identification explicit.142 What Josephus does say about this Judas is that he was the founder of the Fourth Philosophy, distinguished by its refusal to call any man master, reserving that title for God alone. Judas, himself a man learned in Torah, was accompanied by a Pharisee named Zadok, and together they went around the land urging Jews to resist the census because it bore the status of slavery. The extent of the rebellion is unknown. Judas and Zadok were apparently killed, but in the memories of many, they died a martyr’s death, and the offspring of Judas lived to fight in the next generation. Quirinius then deposed Joazar and replaced him by Ananus b. Sethi, who became the first high priest appointed by Rome, and his family remained influential until the Great War.143 The only other event to mar the three-year administration of Coponius was the Samaritan incident. During the Feast of Passover, the temple gates were opened shortly after midnight to allow the many pilgrims access to the white and gold temple, resplendent by moonlight. On this occasion, a small band of Samaritan pilgrims smuggled in bags of human bones and scattered them in the temple porticoes, defiling the temple mount. From that time onward, the temple remained closed until daylight, and the animosity between Judaeans and Samaritans increased. The basic bone of contention between Samaritans and Jews was the age-old, and soon to be irrelevant, dispute over the proper location of the cultic rituals instituted by



Pax Augusta and Herod the Great   157

Moses. The Samaritans believed it was Mount Gerizim, where Joshua renewed the covenant, while the Jews could point to Jerusalem where God ordained Solomon to build the temple.144 Each generation renewed the battle, usually with annoying but otherwise harmless pranks. On another occasion, according to Samaritan tradition, a Samaritan pretended to bring turtledoves for an offering, but when the priest reached into the pilgrim’s bag, out jumped some frightened mice, and they scampered about the temple courts causing the anticipated chaos amid the sacred precinct.145 Coponius was replaced by Marcus Ambivulus (9–12), and he in turn by Annius Rufus (12–15). During these years, Judaea was at peace, as the Augustan era drew to a close.

9.7 End of the Augustan Age After receiving the grant of proconsular imperium, Augustus had spent much of his time in the provinces, fashioning a true and largely stable empire. His efforts to stabilize the German tribes (Celts) along the Rhine, however, was a failure. Augustus brought in Varus, legate of Syria, to govern the frontier east of the Rhine. At this time, Arminius, leader of the Cherusci tribe and a Roman citizen of the equestrian rank, made a secret alliance with other chieftains. In 9 c.e., Varus was misinformed about the location of an uprising and led his three legions into the Teutoburg Forest, where Arminius and his Germans waited. The Romans never had a chance. They were cut down to a man, and Varus fell on his own sword. When news of the disaster reached Augustus, he is said to have banged his head on the walls, crying, “Varus, Varus, give me back my legions.”146 Like Herod, Augustus found his greatest challenge was to produce an heir. Augustus had been required, under his own law against adultery, to banish his daughter and only child Julia in 2 b.c.e. Within 4 years, his one grandson Lucius died in Spain, and 2 years later (4 c.e.), his second grandson, Gaius, died on a campaign in Lycia, Asia Minor. Without an issue of his own loins, Augustus adopted his stepson Tiberius (from Livia’s first marriage) as his designated heir. Augustus sent Tiberius to recover the territories along the Rhine, and Tiberius succeeded, even capturing the wife of Arminius, though not the chieftain himself. On August 19, the month so named in his honor, in 14 c.e., Augustus Caesar died. All Rome mourned. Looking back, the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, himself born during the reign of Augustus, praised the great ruler who in all the virtues transcended human nature, who on account of the vastness of his imperial sovereignty as well as nobility of character was the first to bear the name of the August or Venerable, a title received not through lineal succession as a portion of its heritage but because he himself became the source of the veneration . . . who reclaimed every state to liberty, who led disorder into order. . . . He was also the first and the greatest and the common benefactor in that he displaced the rule of many and committed the ship of the commonwealth to be steered by a single pilot, that is himself, a marvelous master of the science of government.147

Synthesis of Part Two

Religious Development—Foundations II (201 b.c.e.–14 c.e.)

S2.1 Currents of Judaism The two centuries between the end of Ptolemaic control of Palestine and the end of the Augustan era brought forth a host of new Jewish writings that provide our main evidence for the development of Jewish culture and religious beliefs. The literature begun in the previous centuries continued in the broad currents of wisdom and eschatology, or guidance for the present and visions of the future. But we also have a continuation of histories and novellas. A brief look at some of the key texts will give a sense of the diversity of Jewish thought.

S2.1.1 Wisdom S2.1.1.1 Tobit The story of Tobit is a romance set in the seventh century b.c.e., and like the story of Jonah, prior to the destruction of Nineveh in 621. Tobit, the son of Tobiel, of the tribe of Naphtali, whose ancestors were sent into Assyrian exile, dwells in Nineveh. He is a righteous man, but through a series of misfortunes, Tobit becomes blind and prays that God will take his life. Elsewhere, at Ecbatana in Media, the virgin maiden Sarah, daughter of Raguel and Edna, also prays that God will take her life because though she had been betrothed seven times, the evil angel Asmodeus had slain each of her husbands on the night of the wedding. God hears the prayers of both Tobit and Sarah. Tobit, anticipating death, sends his son Tobias to collect a deposit owed him in a distant city. Tobias chances upon another traveler, Azariah, who agrees to guide him, but Tobias does not realize his companion is the archangel Raphael. On his journey, Tobias and Azariah stay at the house of Raguel, who is a distant relative. Azariah suggests to Tobias that he marry the maiden Sarah. Tobias demurs, because he had heard of her misfortunes, but Azariah reveals a way to protect himself and Sarah by burning the liver and heart of a fish they had caught earlier, and the smoke would drive away the demons. Raguel joyfully agrees to the marriage. On the wedding night, Tobias does as instructed and safely consummates his marriage with Sarah. Tobias then completes his journey to retrieve the money owed his father and brings his bride back to Nineveh. Upon his arrival, Tobias



Religious Development—Foundations II   159

applies the fish gall to his father’s eyes, and Tobit receives back his sight. When Tobias offers Azariah half of the money he brought back, his companion reveals his true identity, Raphael, sent by God to both test and protect him. At the request of Raphael, Tobias writes the story for encouragement to others and adds a hymn of thanksgiving to God, who will surely guard and protect his faithful people until they are restored to Jerusalem. The story of Tobit employs popular motifs from ancient Near Eastern literature but wraps them in a thick cloak of Jewish wisdom and lore. The book includes the importance of magic from the entrails of a fish but also marks significant advances in the involvement of demons and angels (Asmodeus and Raphael appear for the first time). The central wisdom motif is similar to that of Job, that despite the many testings of life, God will reward righteousness. Wisdom is given though the voice of the parents of Tobias and Sarah, who admonish them to be faithful to the customs of their ancestors and to give to the poor. The Golden Rule appears here, perhaps for the first time in Jewish literature: “What you hate, do not do to anyone” (4:5). Because the tale is set among the Israelite exiles in Assyria, the religion of the Jews centers not around the temple (although Tobit had been to Jerusalem as God required) but around the Diaspora values of family and tradition. It describes the numerous Jews across Asia Minor and Mesopotamia, many of whom, once again, descended from the ten tribes of northern Israel. S2.1.1.2 Ben Sira Jesus ben Eleazar ben Sira, who went by the name of his grandfather, was a sage in Jerusalem. Ben Sira led a small school, and toward the end of his life, around 180, he wrote a compendium of wisdom. The work was later translated into Greek by his grandson, who migrated to Egypt around 132. The book often goes by the Latin Vulgate name, Ecclesiasticus, but is better known as the Wisdom of Ben Sira, or simply Sirach following the Greek. The book was treasured in its original Hebrew and in the Greek. Ben Sira begins, “All wisdom is from the Lord, and with him it remains forever” (Sir 1:1). The book, like Proverbs, is mostly a collection of sayings designed to guide the moral behavior of his students. There are a few wisdom poems and a lengthy passage entitled “Hymn in Honor of Our Ancestors,” which begins with the oft-quoted words, “Let us now praise famous men, and our fathers in their generations” (44:1). He often relies on the book of Proverbs, but in his mouth the wisdom is retold for another generation. He also read Greek literature, and scholars have pointed to parallels with Homer and Theognis, though in the mind of Ben Sira, all wisdom necessarily supports the Jewish way of life. Later, Jews will claim the Greeks borrowed heavily from the Jewish sages of antiquity, especially Moses.148 Ben Sira’s faith centers on the temple ritual and the moral life of age-old wisdom. He may be described as the consummate conservative. “All wisdom is the fear of the Lord, and in all wisdom there is the fulfillment of the law” (19:20). The law requires proper worship of the one true God and social justice among God’s people. He praises the first priest Aaron in great detail, whose turban was topped

160   Vines Intertwined

with a gold crown, “inscribed like a signet with ‘Holiness’ ”; his grandson Phineas, the third in glory, who received the high priesthood forever; and the high priest of his own memory, Simon II, who was radiant “like the rainbow gleaming in glorious clouds” (50:7). But the temple pageantry is only half the command, and sacrifices without social justice and charity avails little. “He who returns a kindness offers fine flour, and he who gives alms sacrifices a thank offering” (35:2). His theology, such as it may be found, supports the classical Zadokite stance of free will and human responsibility. God cannot be blamed for human sin (15:11). The original sin, in any case, was a woman’s doing. “From a woman sin had its beginning, and because of her we all die” (25:24). Suffering in this life should be seen as discipline or a testing (2:1–5). At death, all go to Hades (Sheol), where there is neither reward nor punishment (14:16–19); it is as if one never existed (17:28). But one may live on in the memory of others; therefore, a good reputation is immortality. “The days of a good life are numbered, but a good name endures for ever” (41:13). S2.1.1.3 Letter of Aristeas A Hellenistic Jew, probably dwelling in Alexandria Egypt, wrote an amazing treatise in the form of a letter to his brother Philocrates that extols Jewish wisdom and recounts the story of how the “books of the law of the Jews” were translated into Greek for the benefit of humankind. In the letter, the author Aristeas claims to be a Greek official in the court of Ptolemy Philadelphus (285–247). There is no doubt that the letter is a piece of fiction, though perhaps using earlier legend on an official translation effort of the Torah. According to the story, mentioned previously, the royal librarian informs the king that his library lacks the revered law books of the Jews. These books contain a worthy source of philosophy and legislation, flawless as it is divine. The books must first be translated, and the king orders the project carried out. After an exchange of letters with the high priest in Jerusalem, seventy­ two Jewish sages, six from each of the twelve tribes, fluent in Hebrew and Greek, arrive in Alexandria to undertake the translation. When the copy of the Hebrew books written in letters of gold on the finest parchment is unrolled, the king kneels in obeisance seven times and thanks the “God whose words these are” (177). In honor of the event, the king invites the sages to a seven-day banquet, and then he sets them to work in a house by the sea. The sages produce daily drafts, which are then compared and written up. The translation is completed in 72 days, “just as if such a result was achieved by some deliberate design” (307). The legend established the divine inspiration of the Septuagint translation, and after it had been read in the presence of the Jews, they solemnly laid a curse on anyone who would alter it. Although the purpose of the letter is to describe the Septuagint, most of the treatise is devoted to the seven-day banquet, or symposium, during which the seventytwo sages answer questions on how a king should rule. The work may be described, therefore, as a Jewish version of the common Greek treatise “On Kingship.” The wisdom is not noticeably Jewish, except its constant reference to the one true God, whose laws, after all, are the reason for the banquet. Besides demonstrating Jewish



Religious Development—Foundations II   161

piety, it serves as the unifying factor between the Ptolemaic king and his Jewish subjects. In what seems to be a bold move for a Jew (although the author has fictionally identified himself as a Greek), Aristeas equates the Jewish God with Zeus when he says to the king, “God, the overseer and creator of all things, whom [the Jews] worship, is he whom all men worship, and we too, your Majesty, though we address him differently, as Zeus” (16). Upon so monotheistic a foundation Aristeas can establish the rule of God, which favors the Jewish way of life because Jews have his laws. The highest good in life is the realization that God rules over all things. Aristeas is among the first Hellenistic Jews to make the equivalence of Zeus with the Lord God of Israel. We do not know how many held this view, but it represents an effort of the Jews to make worship of their god acceptable in the Hellenistic world. Aristobulus (second century b.c.e.), probably a fellow Jewish Alexandrian, quotes a few lines from a poem of Aratus, Phaenomena, which begins by praising Zeus and simply changes the name Zeus to theos, God. He argues the name change is appropriate because the Greeks are really praising the creator God of the Jews.149 The universalism of wisdom has by now run nearly to its logical conclusion. Since there is only one true God, whenever Gentiles praise God by whatever name, they are bearing witness to the God of the Jews, and Jews may rightly join them in praise.

S2.1.2 Eschatology: Visions for the Future The crisis of the Maccabean revolt generated three major eschatological works: one in the Enochic tradition called Enoch’s “Two Dream Visions” (1 En 83–90), the book of Daniel, and the book of Jubilees. Each work describes the ultimate victory of God over the enemies of Israel during this evil age, and both appear to anticipate the imminent intervention of God into history. At the same time in the Diaspora, a novel form of prophetic visions was born in the Jewish Sibylline Oracles. S2.1.2.1 Enoch’s Dream Visions In the Enochic tradition, Enoch recounts to Methuselah two great dreams he had before his marriage to Edna. In his first vision he saw the impending destruction of the flood, and in response he prayed that his offspring would not be destroyed from the earth. The implication is that his prayers were answered in the salvation of Noah, auguring the truth of the second dream. The second dream vision, known as the Animal Apocalypse, portrays the history of humanity before and after the flood, in which humans are depicted as animals and angels take the form of humans. The antediluvial race are cows that multiply on the face of the earth. Stars fall from heaven and turn into cattle themselves. These bovids extended their sexual organs and mount the cows, which then became pregnant and give birth to elephants, camels, and donkeys. Chaos and terror came upon all the cattle, until four angels, snow-white persons, intervene. The earth is destroyed by a flood, except for one of the snow-white bovids who is taught how to build a boat, in which he and his family survive. The repopulation of the earth, however, yields every manner of animal, from lions, wolves, snakes, hyenas, boars, to eagles, kites, and ravens,

162   Vines Intertwined

among others. The patriarchs Abraham and Isaac and their wives are white bulls and heifers, while Jacob and his descendants are portrayed as sheep. The sheep are continually ravaged and killed by other beasts as the history of Israel is played out, from the exodus, entering Canaan, the time of judges, and the two kingdoms. Because of the sin of King Manasseh, the sheep are handed over to 70 shepherds symbolizing the Gentiles, who rule them during four epochs up to the Seleucid kingdom. But these shepherds kill more of the sheep than they are permitted, so the angel who watches over them intercedes and brings on the end times. While the sheep are being killed by swooping birds, one ram sprouts a great horn and opens the eyes of the other sheep. He leads them in battle against the enemies. Once the battle has begun, the Lord of the sheep comes and takes the rod of his wrath and smites the earth, which opens and swallows the beasts and the birds of heaven that killed the sheep. A great sword is given to the sheep, and they march against the remaining beasts, which all flee. A throne is set up in a pleasant land. The Lord of the sheep sits in judgment, and the books are opened. The 70 shepherds are judged and thrown into the fiery abyss. Finally, a new house is built for the Lord of the sheep, and all the sheep are invited in. A snow-white bull is born, symbolizing the return of Adam, and all the animals are transformed back into white cattle, as it was in the beginning. S2.1.2.2 Daniel 7–12 The book of Daniel is a composite work containing older stories of the hero, Daniel (2–6), and then a series of dream visions that Daniel recounts (7–12). The older stories are in Aramaic, the later dream visions are in Hebrew, but the first story (Dan 1) is in Hebrew and the first dream vision (Dan 7) is in Aramaic. The solution to this curious mixture appears to be that the author of the dream visions took as his ancient sage a certain Daniel who had become the central figure in a collection of court legends set in Babylon that circulated earlier as an Aramaic collection. The author composed an introductory story in Hebrew, chapter 1, and composed his first dream vision in Aramaic, chapter 7, to facilitate the linguistic transition into the new genre. The actual process of formation may have been more complex than that, but the combination of the two genres shows considerable artistry of a single hand. The later Greek translation is expanded with additional stories. The visions of Daniel begin with the divine revelation of human history. Out of the sea, a symbol of primeval chaos, four great beasts emerge. The first is like a lion with eagle’s wings, the second like a bear, the third was a leopard with four wings on its back and four heads. A fourth beast appeared, “terrible and dreadful and exceedingly strong; and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet. It was different from all the beasts that were before it; and it had ten horns” (7:7). As Daniel watched, thrones were placed and one that was ancient of days took his seat; his raiment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like pure wool; his throne was fiery flames, its wheels were burning fire. A stream of fire issued and came forth from before him; a thousand thousands served him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before



Religious Development—Foundations II   163 him; the court sat in judgment, and the books were opened. I looked then because of the sound of the great words which the horn was speaking. And as I looked, the beast was slain, and its body destroyed and given over to be burned with fire. As for the rest of the beasts, their dominion was taken away, but their lives were prolonged for a season and a time. I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man, and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him. And to him was given dominion and glory and kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him; his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom one that shall not be destroyed. (7:9–14)

Daniel is terrified by the visions and approaches an angelic attendant who explains, “These four great beasts are four kings who shall arise out of the earth. But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, for ever and ever.” The four kings, or kingdoms, are the Babylonian, Medes, Persians, and the Greeks (Macedonians). In the remainder of chapter 7, the angel elaborates on the fourth beast, representing Antiochus IV, and his oppression of God’s people. The “one like a son of man” is probably (though certainty eludes us) the archangel Michael, in keeping with the contrast between the animal imagery for the wicked empires and the human image created in the divine image. In essence, the son of man is a divine being acting for God. A second vision (Dan 8), revealed 2 years later, expands on the empire of Alexander the Great culminating in Antiochus IV, his desecration of the temple, and cessation of the daily sacrifices. Daniel is told that after 2300 evenings and mornings (1150 days), the sanctuary will be restored. Some years later (Dan 9), Daniel contemplates the prediction of Jeremiah on the 70 years of exile and enters into prayer for the people of Israel. While Daniel prays, the archangel Gabriel comes and reveals that the 70 years of Jeremiah are 70 weeks of years (= 490 years), at which time the final kingdom will come and the eschatological battle will ensue. In the final three chapters, more details of the end of days are revealed. In Dan 12, the first explicit reference to a great resurrection is given: At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time; but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of the firmament; and those who turn many to righteousness, like the stars for ever and ever. (Dan 12:1–3)

The great resurrection at this early stage speaks of some, not all, who will awake. The resurrection is a necessary event if the justice of God is to be maintained and the blood of the martyrs vindicated. There is no indication of a universal judgment, only for those involved in the final battle. But the great hope has been revealed, and future visionaries will build upon it. Both apocalyptic works draw on a number of motifs from the prophets, Psalms, and symbols from ancient myths that conveyed a powerful impact in their day. Daniel’s visions of the victory of God draw especially on Pss 2 and 110, in which

164   Vines Intertwined

the Lord’s king is given victory over the nations that are in rebellion against God. The visions unmistakably speak to the present distress of God’s people during the revolt of the Maccabees, yet because they are eschatological, hence beyond time, they provide a heavenly perspective on earthly events, valid for all time. S2.1.2.3 Jubilees The book of Jubilees amplifies the book of Genesis through Exod 12, from creation to giving the law at Sinai. Moses is the recipient of this revelation, and he is told to write it down for the benefit of the generations to follow. Jubilees stresses the correct manner in which Jews ought to follow Mosaic law and calls readers back to the original way of righteousness. The book serves as a commentary on the biblical account, often introduced with the formula “For this reason it is written,” explaining difficulties and emphasizing the most important parts with additional revelation. The historical events are dated according to a solar calendar, which follows from the divine order of the universe, “the rule of the sun” (4:21), and therefore, ought to be followed. Contrary to the biblical record, the priestly outlook of the book allows no sacrifices to be made, either by Noah or Abraham, until sacrifices are instituted by Aaron. The eschatology of Jubilees looks to a reversal of the evil world. The myth of the fallen angels (Gen 6) as developed in the Enochic Book of the Watchers, becomes the basis for the demonic infiltration of the earth. The celestial catastrophe introduced demons into the world which continue even after the flood to cause the offspring of Noah to sin (5–7). The central eschatological passage is introduced following the death of Abraham, who despite his great virtue, lived only 175 years (23:16–32). The patriarchs before the flood lived 19 jubilees, but Abraham did not reach 4 jubilees, because of the sinfulness of humanity. In the olden days they lived well for a thousand years, but in our days three score and ten is a long life, and it is filled with trouble. The apocalypse falls into the four traditional stages of redemption: sin, punishment, repentance, deliverance. Because that generation will forsake the covenant and engage in every form of abomination, the earth will fall into chaos and tribulation (16–21). God will give them over to the Gentiles and the sword. They shall cry aloud, but none shall be saved. The babes will have white hair and be like a man of 100 years (22–25). But in those days, the children will turn to study the law and return to the path of righteousness (26). Then the Lord will bring vindication and repair the earth. There will be no Satan or evil, and the length of life will return to nigh a thousand years, and their days will be filled with peace (27–31). S2.1.2.4 Sibylline Oracles The Sibylline Oracles express the same Diaspora universalism found in the Letter of Aristeas.150 Just as all who worship the most high God worship the God of Israel, so all genuine oracles must come from the one true God. This will contribute to a natural theology that is able to hold Gentiles responsible for what divine revelation they have received. The origins of the Sibyl, as well as the etymology of the name, are lost in antiquity. Sibyls were apparently guilds of women who prophesied through mantic



Religious Development—Foundations II   165

inspiration (mania), and their oracles, associated with various shrines, emerged well established from the mists of history. Varro speaks of 10 Sibyls, none of which are Jewish, though one is Persian. The Jewish Sibyl is as mysterious as the others, though at one point she claims to be the daughter-in-law of Noah (3.827). The earliest reference to her is from Pausanias, in the second century c.e.: “After the time of Demo there lived amongst the Hebrews who dwell above Palestine a prophetess of the name of Sabbe: they say that her father was Berosus, and her mother Erymanthe; but some call her a Babylonian, others an Egyptian.”151 Most likely the oracles began in Egypt and were spawned by the Babylonian Sibylline Oracles. The traditional function of the Sibyl to provide a voice for the gods was reason enough for a Jewish community in Egypt to begin its own collection of oracles, both by appropriating existing Hellenic oracles and composing new ones. Whatever the origin, they were preserved in private by Jews in Alexandria, who supplemented them from time to time, and eventually came into the hands of Christians, who both respected the ancient Jewish oracles and added their own. The result is our largest corpus of extant oracles, the Oracula Sibyllina. The oldest oracles date to the second century b.c.e. and are collected in book 3. The formula of a prophetic call appears from time to time. “But why does my heart shake again? And why is my spirit lashed by a whip, compelled from within to proclaim an oracle to all? But I will utter everything again, as much as God bids me say to men” (3.4–8). The first oracle begins with the Tower of Babel, and then, perhaps drawing inspiration from Euhemerus, tells the story of the men and women of ancient times who became the Greek pantheon (3.97–161). The second oracle surveys history from Solomon and the Greek kingdoms and predicts the coming of Rome as “another kingdom, white and many-headed from the western sea.” Rome is condemned for its brutality and homosexuality, and its end is predicted when there comes the seventh king of Egypt, of the Greek race. This points to the reign of Ptolemy VI Philometor (180–145), in anticipation of his son Ptolemy VII Neos Philopater (145–144), who did not fulfill any such prophecy, thereby confirming the authenticity of its early date. The Jewish community rose to the height of its prestige during the reign of Ptolemy Philometor and Cleopatra III, when the leading generals of the army were Jews, and the Jewish community had its own temple at Leontopolis. The Sibyl’s antagonism to Rome probably stems from Roman support for Ptolemy VI’s younger brother, Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II Physcon (170–163), as the rival to the throne. The third oracle reviews Jewish history from Abraham to the exile and restoration and offers a peon to the race of the Jews and their law (196–294). The fourth oracle asks the Greeks why they have abandoned the true God to worship mere idols and invites them to offer sacrifices at the temple of the great God. The oracle predicts a series of eschatological tribulations and finishes with the prediction of an ideal king: “And then God will send a King from the sun who will stop the entire earth from evil war, killing some, imposing oaths of loyalty on others; and he will not do all these things by his private plans but in obedience to the noble teachings of the great God” (652–656). This has been interpreted as messianic but hardly predicts the restoration of the Davidic lineage, and in the context of the rest

166   Vines Intertwined

of the oracles, it seems to look for the ideal king in Egypt, who will nevertheless deliver the Jews. The fifth oracle is entirely eschatological, yet it calls on the Greeks to repent and serve the great God, so they might have a share in the deliverance.

S2.1.3 Messiah The once prevalent assumption that a coherent and widespread expectation of the Messiah permeated Jewish life during most of its postexilic history has been abandoned.152 While expectations of a messiah figure do surface here and there in the postexilic Jewish literature, they are far from coherent. The phrase “the Messiah” (Ha-mashiakh) standing alone is nowhere to be found in the Hebrew canon. In the history of Israel, “a messiah” in the sense of an individual set aside for an office could apply to kings, priests, and prophets. Aaron and Zadok were anointed as priests, Saul, David, and Solomon as kings, and Elisha as prophet. The three offices of God’s rule remain central to Jewish ideology, but it is the royal messiah that became the focus of the later messianic hope. The expectation of a king from the lineage of David comes from the eternal covenant made with the house of David.153 But it was a thin thread that ended in exile, and historically, descendants of David did not have a stellar record. Two visions of a royal messiah emerge over the centuries, one in specific fulfillment to the covenant with David, and the other a vision of an ideal king, often associated with a golden age. The Davidic king is more restricted, since the king must be a descendant of David, but it is also the greater fulfillment of promise. The ideal king is more diffused, like a looming shadow figure who represents the perfect rule of God. The ideal king might be anyone of Israel whom the Lord chooses.154 A messianic prophecy might be drawn from many places in the Hebrew Scriptures, depending on how “messianic” is understood, but it would be a private interpretation, not one universally, or even widely, recognized. Ezekiel speaks of the Davidic kingship: “And I will set up over them one shepherd, my servant David, and he shall feed them: he shall feed them and be their shepherd. And I, the Lord, will be their God, and my servant David shall be prince among them; I, the Lord, have spoken (34:23–24). Deutero-Isaiah applies the titles of shepherd and messiah to Cyrus, king of Persia,155 and never invokes kingship on an Israelite or descendant of David. After the exile, Haggai (2:23) identifies Zerubbabel as the signet ring of the Lord but does not cite a fulfillment of the promise to David. Zechariah (4:14) calls both Zerubbabel and Jeshua the high priest “sons of olive oil,” translated as “the two anointed ones,” but he does not unambiguously declare Zerubbabel the fulfilment of the Davidic dynasty, nor would it have made much practical difference, since Zerubbabel was not a king but a governor of Judah under the thumb of Darius.156 Ezra and Nehemiah, who are loyal and beholden to the Persian king, have no interest in a Davidic ruler. Neither is the Chronicler especially interested in a resumption of the Davidic kingship. Chronicles does repeat the covenant oracle given to David by the prophet Nathan but alters the words “your house and your kingdom” of David’s kingdom to “my house and my kingdom,” God’s kingdom.157 Elsewhere, conditions of obedience are attached to the promise,



Religious Development—Foundations II   167

providing an escape clause to satisfy the historical demise of the Davidic dynasty (2 Chr 6:16). The Chronicler lauds David and Solomon because they sustained the temple priests, and as such serve as the model for any king.158 Ben Sira praised King David, Hezekiah, and Josiah but recognized that because of sin the dynasty had ended and gave no hope for its renewal.159 After nearly four centuries of living under a foreign king, and guided by the priestly hierarchy of Jerusalem, the Zadokite high priest had absorbed dynastic rule in place of the Davidic king. The late-born but timely biblical book of Daniel, besides speaking of the one like a son of man, also speaks of “an anointed one.” While explaining that Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years until God restores his people to the land of Israel must now be understood as 70 weeks of years (490 years), when God will bring an end to sin and produce everlasting righteousness, he states: Know therefore and understand that from the going forth of the word to restore and build Jerusalem to the coming of an anointed one (mashiach), a prince, there shall be seven weeks. Then for sixty-two weeks it shall be built again with squares and moat, but in a troubled time. And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one (mashiach) shall be cut off, and shall have nothing; and the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary.160

The first anointed one, a prince (v. 25), is probably the Davidic dynast Zerubbabel; the second anointed one (v. 26) in the author’s own day is the high priest, Onias III, who was cut off from his legitimate office. The last “anointed one” in the Bible is therefore, a high priest, not a descendant of David. Nevertheless, a messiah has emerged as a figure of divine agency in the providential control of history.161 The Hasmonean rulers changed the nature of the high priesthood and kingship and thereby influenced the messianic hope. Not only did the Zadokite dynasty end, but also a king from the tribe of Levi took the throne. While this caused considerable dissent among some groups, there is little ideological polemic against them in the sources at that time, and nothing that calls for a messiah to overthrow the Hasmoneans. The court historian of 1 Maccabees (ca.100 b.c.e.), composed a dying speech for old Mattathias, in which David, who “inherited the throne of the kingdom for ever” (2:57), is but one in a line of famous men from Abraham to Daniel that provide a noble lineage for the new rulers, his sons. The Hasmoneans and their supporters saw Davidic kingship as merely a prototype that priestly kings should emulate, and presumably reap the blessings of divine promise. It may be seen as the victory of realpolitik over ideology, but at the time, Davidic ideology was largely dormant. Even the Pharisaic challenge to the Hasmonean John Hyrcanus allowed him to keep the office of king, so long as he gave up the office of high priest. It was not until the Hasmonean dynasty had proved itself utterly unworthy to occupy the throne of Israel, and had virtually come to an end, that the great hope for the Messiah, son of David, strode forth. But when he came, he came fully fashioned. S2.1.3.1 Psalms of Solomon An individual, or a community, authored a number of psalms during the generation between Hasmonean and Herodian rule in Judaea (ca. 63–30). Eighteen

168   Vines Intertwined

psalms survive in a collection known as the Psalms of Solomon. The psalms were undoubtedly written in Hebrew, although they survive only in Greek and Syriac. They contain communal praise, laments, prayers of repentance and for deliverance, but also many references to recent events that allow them to be dated with unusual precision. The events encompass the civil war between Aristobulus II and his brother Hyrcanus II after the death of Alexandra Salome, the intervention of Rome through general Pompey, the sack of Jerusalem, and the sacrilege of the temple. None of the figures are named, but the descriptions are plain enough. Pss 2, 8, 17 and 18 are the most relevant to the end of the Hasmoneans, and 17 is the strongest messianic psalm:162 Lord, you are our king forevermore,   for in you, O God, does our soul take pride. How long is the time of a person’s life on the earth?   As is his time, so also is his hope in him. But we hope in God our savior,   for the strength of our God is forever with mercy. And the kingdom of our God is forever over the nations in judgment 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. (1–4)

The psalm then admits that Israel had sinned and God punished them by giving “sinners” rule over Israel, those to whom kingship was not promised (Hasmoneans). “With pomp they set up a monarchy because of their arrogance; and despoiled the throne of David with arrogant shouting” (6). But after a time, God overthrew them by a man “alien to our race” (Pompey). This “lawless one” laid waste to the land and massacred young and old alike. He punished the former sinners, but everyone suffered. The psalm then prays for the restoration of the Davidic dynasty. See, Lord, and raise up for them their king,   the son of David, to rule over your servant Israel   in the time known to you, O God. (21) He will gather a holy people   whom he will lead in righteousness. And he will judge the tribes of the people   that have been made holy by the Lord their God. (26) And he will be a righteous king over them, taught by God. There will be no unrighteousness among them in his days,   for all shall be holy,   and their king shall be the Lord Messiah. (32)163

The Messiah’s rule is God’s rule. The Lord is Messiah’s king, and the king is the Lord’s Messiah. Messiah needs no weapons of war, for he conquers with the word of his mouth (33–35). Messiah is without sin (36). Blessed are those born in those days   to see the good fortune of Israel   which God will bring to pass in the assembly of the tribes.



Religious Development—Foundations II   169 May God dispatch his mercy to Israel;   may he deliver us from the pollution of profane enemies; The Lord Himself is our king forevermore. (44–46)

The congregation that sang the psalms speaks of themselves as the pious ones but are otherwise unidentified. For a long time, scholars assigned this to the Pharisees, and there is nothing that hinders the verdict, but it might equally be from the Essenes or a synagogue congregation that identifies with neither. The psalms as a whole draw extensively on biblical psalms and the prophets. They bring together the themes of the ideal king, the wise “philosopher king,” with the eschatological rule of God’s kingdom, and fulfill the Davidic covenant. Ps 17 relies especially on Isa 11:1–2. There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord.

The breadth and perfection of Messiah’s rule gives it an eschatological aura, similar to the universal peace of Isaiah, when the lion shall eat straw like an ox and the child will play over the hole of the asp. The portrait of the ideal king is for the first time given the title of “Son of David” (21). The Davidic covenant is fulfilled merely by the presence of the Messiah. The ideal kingship of God is fulfilled by the nature of the Messiah. All the earth shall fall under his rule (30). The Gentiles shall come from the ends of the earth to see his glory, bearing their children, who have been excluded from the glory of God, as gifts (31). Notably lacking from this perfect rule is the high priest. Because the Messiah is the perfect rule of God and the people of God are now righteous, there is no need for priest or temple. The title “Lord Messiah” (Christos Kurios), if original, occurs only here (17:32; 18:7) in all known Jewish literature, though it is later appropriated extensively by Christianity. S2.1.3.2 Dead Sea Scrolls The Dead Sea Scrolls eschatology features two messiahs, the “anointed one of Aaron” and the “anointed one of Israel.” The community is to follow the precepts laid down of old “until there shall come the Prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel.”164 In other texts, the anointed priest is first in dignity and authority. When the people shall enter the assembly in the end times, the Priest Messiah enters first at “the head of the whole congregation of Israel,” then the Messiah of Israel. Before the communal meal, the priest extends his hand and blesses the bread and the wine, then the messiah of Israel blesses the bread and the wine.165 It is clear throughout the DSS that the future high priest, the Messiah of Aaron, is the leading anointed one by whom God’s will is mediated. Apart from the two messiahs, however, the Davidic messiah is also mentioned.166 The Davidic messiah is called the Branch of David (tsemakh David) taken primarily from Jer 23:5 and Jer 33:15–17 and surrounded by features from other important texts.167 His primary task is to serve as the leader of the remnant of Israel

170   Vines Intertwined

in the eschatological battle against the Kittim (the Romans), including Herod, the puppet king of the Romans. It is the battle between the Sons of Light and the Sons of Darkness. Upon his victory, the promised Davidic rule is set up over a restored Israel. The Branch of David bears all the marks of royalty, and his rule is universal. But in the exercise of his rule, the Davidic Messiah is again under the authority of the priests, and his commands are according to the instruction of the priests. The Qumran Davidic Messiah, therefore, is a military figure leading God’s final victory, who then serves as the royal guarantor of God’s rule through the priests. This messianic picture accords with the rest of the Qumran literature that subordinates the royal messiah of Israel to the priestly messiah of Aaron. S2.1.3.3 Parables of Enoch The last segment of the Enoch traditions, the so-called Similitudes, or Parables of Enoch (1 En 37–71), are also the most enigmatic.168 They are not found among the Qumran library and are variously dated (ca. 40 b.c.e.–40 c.e.). This would hardly be significant except for the fact that they feature the Son of Man figure, and the question arises how it might be related to the Christian gospels, or even a title used by Jesus himself. The book is comprised of three parables (38–44; 45–57; 58–69), which draw upon themes from the earlier Book of Luminaries and Book of the Watchers. Enoch again ascends to the throne room of God and journeys across the heavens, and secrets are revealed. The four archangels Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Phanuel are present, as well as the great demon Azazel and his minions. The divine drama unfolds in the three parables. Central to the drama, however, is the revelation of God’s supreme agent of salvation, who is identified with Daniel’s one like a son of man (Dan 7:13). The new vision of the Son of Man draws on three additional strands of biblical tradition. From the Deutero-Isaiah traditions is given the titles of Chosen One and Righteous One (46:1–3; 42:1; 49:3–7; 53:11), and he is made the light of the nations (48:4; 49:6). He fulfills the Davidic promise of Ps 2, for he is the Lord’s Anointed One (Messiah), and he will bring justice against the kings of the earth (48:8–10; Ps 2; Isa 11:2). He is pre-existent, named, chosen, and hidden before creation, before the sun, moon, and stars were made, which places him alongside divine Wisdom (48:3–6; Prov 8:22; Sir 24:3–10). This new figure of the Son of Man embodies the Messiah, the Servant of Isaiah, and Wisdom. In the third parable, unlike the son of man figure in Daniel who comes only after judgment is pronounced, the Son of Man is seated on the throne of God and himself judges the wicked and slays his enemies by the word of his mouth (62–63). The Servant traditions of Isaiah are altered in 1 Enoch, for here the Servant does not suffer, but the saints, his chosen ones suffer, while the Servant vindicates them. Finally, in what appears to be a later addition, Enoch is told that he, himself, is the Son of Man (71). S2.1.3.4 Ruling Ideology The Psalms of Solomon and the Qumran literature offer two visions of the Lord’s anointed in fairly stark contrast. In the Psalms, no high priest is needed,



Religious Development—Foundations II   171

for the Lord rules unhindered in his messiah, Son of David. In the Qumran texts, the Davidic messiah, as the messiah of Israel, fills the true purpose of kingship in Israel, namely, to sustain the kingdom of God under the leadership of the priests of God. Both Davidic Messiahs wage war against the enemies of God, but the Qumran Branch of David uses weapons of war and himself kills the king of the Kittim, whereas the Psalms of Solomon messiah conquers by the word of his mouth. Both Davidic messiahs inaugurate the end times, a major upheaval, and the perfect rule of God, but the Qumran vision is more down to earth, with more human involvement. The two messiahs are mere human beings who succeed through divine aid and rule what appears to be an earthly kingdom. What the two visions share is a repugnance of the Hasmonean rule, in which one person held the two anointed offices and ruled wickedly. One solution is to remove the priests from messiah’s rule; the other is to have two distinct messiahs. Neither messianic vision mentions the coming of Elijah, but the Qumran Community Rule does preserve the three offices, that of prophet, along with the anointed of Aaron and Israel. There lingered among Jews the expectation that God would send a prophet, no doubt in fulfillment of the promise of Moses: “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brethren—him you shall heed” (Deut 18:15). But just as there are false prophets, there may be false messiahs. How do people distinguish true from false? The words of a false prophet do not come to pass. The false messiah fails. God’s messiah cannot fail. The enigmatic Son of Man in the Enochic Parables is not the Messiah of later eschatology, yet he comes as the supreme agent of God who is at least the equivalent of the messiah in the final victory of God. Both Enoch and Daniel remind the Jews that God anoints whomever he chooses for his own purpose. If so, any attempt to isolate the messiah and reduce his office to a neat little box is doomed to failure. The belief that Enoch did not die, and may return as the Son of Man, opened the door to Jesus and Christianity.

S2.2 Jews and Jewishness in the Roman Empire S2.2.1 Hellenistic Rome and the Jews Augustus succeeded where his adoptive uncle, Julius Caesar, had failed because Augustus minimized the obvious changes from the republican past to the imperial future. The old institutions were kept in place, alleviating fears among the Roman ruling class. But the senate was aware that the empire had become too vast for a senate to manage and so lent its support to the nascent imperial cult that sprang up around the empire. This cult of personality served as the unifying factor among the diverse peoples. A person entered into membership of the Roman Empire by showing allegiance to Caesar Augustus. Jewish leaders everywhere adapted their expression of Jewish loyalties to the figure of Augustus. Herod the Great was a master of the patronage system and served as an example to Jews everywhere, even if his own Jewishness was highly suspect in the eyes of many Jews, particularly in

172   Vines Intertwined

Palestine. The eagle above the gate of the new temple in Jerusalem served as the great iconic expression of loyalty. Twice daily, priests in the temple offered sacrifices to God on behalf of Caesar. According to Philo, Caesar Augustus “ordered that for all time continuous sacrifices of whole burnt offerings should be carried out every day at his own expense as a tribute to the most high God.”169 By this ritual, Rome contributed to the Jewish supplications for the blessings of God. Such sacrifices were part of the diplomatic protocol and guarantees of political loyalty, and in the case of the Jews, served as their alternative to formal emperor worship. Josephus notes that the sacrifice was “payment of homage of another sort, secondary to that paid to God, to worthy men; such honors we do confer upon the emperors and the people of Rome.”170 Jews of Egypt and Asia found ways to express loyalty to Caesar in their synagogues, but the delicate manner in which Josephus puts it, a “payment of homage of another sort,” reveals the difficulty Jews faced in finding an alternative to emperor worship. As is often the case, the difficulty lay in the meaning of words, and no word is more prone to confusion than the word “religion.” From the Greco-Roman functional point of view, “religion” was cult. A temple or shrine was the focus of the cult, and authorized priests or magistrates performed the rituals with great care and precision. Cicero assures the world that the reason Rome had achieved its present greatness was because of the great care it took in the performance of its cult.171 The purpose of religion was pax deorum, “peace with the gods,” in order to receive divine aid for the people, of which individuals were a part, but only a part. The responsibility of the leaders, be they of city, kingdom, or empire, was to insure the correct actions of the cult in order to insure the continued aid of the gods and the stability of the realm. Piety was a personal responsibility to a social concept of what constituted loyalty. Piety included social mores, how one ought to act in society, and from that flowed morals (Latin) and ethics (Greek). For Jews, piety meant loyalty to God, to the Jewish people (ethnos), and more broadly, to the city, kingdom, or empire of which they were a part. Religion was a communal responsibility; piety was personal responsibility. Rome took great interest in the official cults around the empire, for just as the state religion in Rome was carefully performed, so should every cult be, so that no god would have cause to work against the empire. For this reason Rome supported the Jewish-mandated death penalty for any breach of the sacred space around the temple in Jerusalem. Rome had no particular interest in how people expressed their piety, so long as it contributed to the stability of the empire, and therefore Rome supported the customs of each nation that entered the empire. Private assemblies, guilds, and religions that were devoted to the welfare of the individual were a source of political instability, and Rome kept a watchful eye on them. The religion of the Jews covered both the personal and the corporate worship and had received its privileged status under Julius Caesar. Assemblies in synagogues were protected as essential to Jewish piety. Although the phrase religio licita (legitimate or recognized religion of the empire) first occurs in our extant sources only with Tertullian (ca.160–235 c.e.), his application of it to Judaism identifies the “religion” of the Jews as a distinct and authorized cult, or, rather the Jewish way of making peace with the gods.172



Religious Development—Foundations II   173

The peace and prosperity of the Augustan era allowed Jews to emerge within the cosmopolitan society of empire as a significant presence. The lingua franca of Greek and the common culture of Hellenism provided the Jewish Diaspora a new vehicle for unity in their spread. The name Jew followed a clear linguistic trail: Yehudi (Hebrew), Ioudaios (Greek), Iudaeus (Latin), from which we get Judaean and Jew. At the turn of the era, all the terms retained an ethno-geographic association; that is, a person originally from the land of Judaea (Judah, Yehud), and inextricably bound to the people (ethnos) of this land, no matter where they now dwelt. It was equivalent to Egyptian or Syrian (or Irish or Scandinavian). It is argued that prior to the second century b.c.e. all references to Jews are ethno-geographic and should be translated into English as Judaean, in order to differentiate the name from the modern name of Jew. During the second century b.c.e., the Greek Ioudaios begins to add a religious meaning to the ethno-geographic identity, but the complete transformation from ethno-geographic to religious will take centuries.173 As Jewish communities emerged in their larger urban surroundings, Gentiles paid more attention to them, and Jews or Jewishness became a topic of social discussion. Horace (65–8 b.c.e.), when he spoke of the persuasive power of a big band of poets, said: “and we, like the Jews, will compel you to make one of our throng.”174 This comment on the Jews, en passant, admits to a compelling Jewish proselytism in Rome. Cicero, during his defense of Flaccus, a governor charged with misappropriation of Jewish temple tithes in Asia, took the occasion to ridicule the “odium that is attached to Jewish gold” and feigned concern that the Jewish audience at the trial might rouse public opinion against his client.175 In another speech, he spoke of the Jews as “born to be slaves,” but this may have been a reaction to the many Jewish slaves Pompey brought back to Rome after the brief revolt in 63.176 Cicero’s disdain, however, was fair-minded, for he treated all non-Latins equally.

S2.2.2 Diaspora Jews and Jewishness The word diaspora for Jews outside Palestine is first attested in the Greek translation of Deuteronomy 28:25: “The Lord will cause you to be defeated before your enemies; you shall go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them; and you shall be a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth.” Where the Hebrew reads “you shall be a horror” the Greek proclaims, “you shall be a dispersion (diaspora)” in all the kingdoms of the earth. In the second century b.c.e. the Jewish Sibyl joined the proclamation with her oracle: “Every land and sea shall be filled with thee.”177 At the close of the Augustan era, we have a people known as the Jews scattered about the Roman Empire and beyond, with a major concentration in their homeland of Palestine. Strabo of Amaseia, the traveler and geographer par excellence of the Augustan era, remarked that the Jewish people had “made its way into every city, and it is not easy to find any place in the habitable world which has not received this nation and in which it has not made its power felt.”178 Strabo gives only an impression, but we have a fairly good idea of the geographical spread because Jewish communities will begin appearing fully formed over the next two centuries,

174   Vines Intertwined

and they all have migratory histories. There was a strong concentration in old Babylonia, with others in the northern lands of ancient Assyria. Josephus remarks, whether accurately or not, that “until now there have been ten tribes beyond the Euphrates—countless myriads whose number cannot be ascertained.”179 The Jewish population in Syria, especially around Antioch, was significant, and Jewish communities could probably be found across Asia Minor. Jews as Israelites had lived in Egypt since before the fall of the first temple, and they probably had migrated west across the northern coast of Africa during the Punic era, and were strong in Cyrene. Later, one Jewish community will claim their house of worship was built during the days of Solomon. There were Jews in Cyprus, and likely small communities in Spain, perhaps in the Cisalpine Gaul, and certainly in Italy, with a significant community in Rome. The 8000 Jews in Rome who lent their weight to the Judaean delegation in 4 b.c.e. will have been adult males, probably heads of households, and represent a Jewish community of about 40,000 souls with some political clout ever since Julius Caesar granted them recognition and rights. Although the number of Jews is a difficult estimate, there were probably between 3 and 5 million Jews in the Roman Empire, and perhaps a million in the East, throughout Mesopotamia.180 It is assumed some Jews were converts to the Jewish faith, through marriage, slavery, or conviction. Also, Jews lived hygienic lives for ritual purity reasons, which might delay early death, and rarely aborted a fetus or left unwanted children to die of exposure as other peoples did.181 Wherever Jewish communities could be found, a local Gentile could probably offer a general description of Jews. Gentiles interested in the religion of the Jews, and those who entered into it through marriage or some ill-defined conversion process, had a picture in their minds as to what being a Jew, or Jewishness, entailed. The view from the outside, a Gentile’s point of view, will have been fairly simple, even stereotypical or caricatured, such as Pliny’s view that Essenes have nothing but palm trees for companions. Jews were peculiar in many respects. But it would be difficult in the Diaspora to pick out a Jew from the crowd. Jews worshiped only one God, fanatically it seemed to many Greeks and Romans, in a world where everyone knew there were many gods. However, there was a philosophical attraction to a single “most high god,” so from a sympathetic Gentile point of view, they were devoted to the equivalent of Zeus or Jupiter. Aristeas made that point and had the hutzpah to write his treatise as if he were a Gentile. Varro (116–27), a Roman literatus of the highest caliber, later made the same observation: since Jews and Romans worship the highest God, they worship the same God, and it made no difference what he was called.182 Worship of God included festivals, sacrifices, offerings, and involvement in communal prayers and teachings, usually on the sabbath. Diaspora Jews in particular held a strong sense of community, which no doubt many a Gentile found attractive, even if it came at the expense of a certain separation from others. The sabbath was the most visible mark of Jewish difference. Most Jews took their sabbath seriously, and it drew the scorn of industrious Gentiles who called them lazy. Ovid, however, advised young men to court girls on the sabbath when many shops were closed, so the young lady could not ask for so many presents.183



Religious Development—Foundations II   175

As the planetary week became more popular, a belief that the Saturn’s day (Saturday) was unlucky and its becoming associated with the Jewish cessation of activity on the sabbath may have spurred some Gentiles to also avoid important business on that day.184 The Jewish ritual of circumcision was somewhat repugnant to the Gentile, and especially the Greek, but Jews defended it as an ancient tradition given by their widely admired founder, Moses. Anyway, the Egyptians and Ethiopians, who also circumcised some of their men, had also learned it from Moses. Others would give reasons of cleanliness, or enhanced fertility, or the symbolic value of teaching us to excise the pleasures that beguile the mind. So, at least, Philo will argue in the next generation. A small number of Jews, however, continued to dismiss circumcision as a necessary marker, and left their sons uncircumcised. The book of Jubilees (15: 33–34) condemns such Jews as sons of Satan (Belial), outside the covenant, and destined for destruction. Philo will have to admonish such Jews in his own day as well. Jews also kept a peculiar diet that limited meat to animals with cloven hooves that chew the cud, and they abhorred swine’s flesh in particular. Juvenal would later satirize Judaea as the land where a “long-established clemency suffers pigs to attain old age.”185 But here too, Jews could explain that the restrictions were to teach a moral lesson; in this case, to “discriminate between our individual actions with a view to the practice of virtue.”186 Many Gentiles found dietary discrimination admirable, and some of the most philosophically minded were vegetarians. In general, despite the need to explain themselves, Diaspora Jews thrived among their Gentile neighbors. Jewish identity was ethnic with its associated customs and beliefs, a common bond they shared with Jews everywhere, as well as with their illustrious ancestors from the old country. The head of the Alexandrian Jewish community was called the ethnarch, leader of the ethnic Jews, but Jews readily showed loyalty to king and country when called upon. Prior to emperor worship in the next generations, the two loyalties, God and country, rarely clashed. When the Jews in the Ptolemaic army would not let Antipater enter Egypt with his Judaean army in support of the embattled Julius Caesar, Antipater appealed to their “common Jewish ethnicity” and persuaded them to join his side.187 It is doubtful that had Egypt been stable under a Ptolemy, the Jews of Egypt would have been persuaded on common ethnicity alone, since their loyalty to the king was probably stronger than to the temple or Judaea. The status of citizenship in the large cities is difficult to establish. Some Jews of high standing were full citizens, but the Jews in Alexandria, and probably in other large cities, were a protected minority with their own councils, whose members dealt with local governments as necessary. The degree of Jewish assimilation into Gentile society covered the spectrum. Those who fully integrated would be indistinguishable from Gentiles. Some Jews who wished to climb the social ladder simply abandoned their Jewish identity. The “extreme Hellenists” during the Maccabean revolt had their counterparts in the Diaspora. Among the more famous is “Dositheus, known as the son of Drimylus, a Jew by birth who later changed his religion and apostatized from the ancestral traditions,” and our source assures us that he was not alone.188 A Jew who entered public service would have been expected to perform the customary religious rites,

176   Vines Intertwined

such as the two Jewish names that appear on a list of civic officials (ephebes) in Cyrene.189 Jews who entered the military would also have adapted to the public requirements, unless the army units were entirely Jewish, as some in Egypt seem to have been. The vast majority of Jews, like Aristeas, appear to have been well integrated into Gentile society, yet maintained a strong Jewish identity, at least in their own communities. It was for these Jews that the privileges were sought from Caesar and others. They could avoid going to court on the sabbath, yet maintain strong ties with business and civic leaders. Others remained segregated and kept to the Jewish quarters in cities where they existed or sheltered themselves in the Jewish community as best they could.

S2.2.3 Judaean Associations Associations are a way of like-minded people coming together for mutual benefit, and sometimes for a greater cause. Most scholars now assume that small groups lie behind the significant texts, such as Jubilees, the Enochian traditions gathered in 1 Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon, and others. Certainly the authors of these texts had a support group and an audience, and all of these texts appear to be independent of other known groups. The same assumption is applied to early Christian writings. The people behind the texts testify to the greater diversity of Jewish society than is otherwise apparent from the major historical statements of Josephus, Philo, and the Gospels. Diversity is also chronological. Associations, like the society in which they exist, are not static over the generations, so any general description of them in history will tend to blur incremental changes, and we can only hope that the descriptions given in our sources accurately reflect the groups during the times of the authors, all of which follow the era of Augustus by a generation or two.190 S2.2.3.1 Sadducees The Greek label “Sadducee” probably comes from the Hebrew Zadok, and what we have called the Zadokites among the priests. They were mostly, or perhaps exclusively, from the upper class, wealthy, educated, and associated with the ruling power structure, which focused on the temple cult. They drew their theology from the traditions that had sustained the Zadokites in power around the temple hierarchy, that is, the Torah and the divine hierarchy of the universe. This is how it had always been, and this is how it was supposed to be. It was the divine system of keeping the covenant, in which priests were the leaders and Levites were the caretakers. There was no need for prophets or angels to interfere. The former had passed their time, and the latter, even if Torah admitted to a few divine messengers, had never existed as the highly developed hierarchy of angels found in the apocalyptic literature. The rules that defined how a Jew ought to live were laid down in Torah, which as everyone ought to know, was eternal. Every Jew was responsible for his or her actions, readily known and easily observed. They paid little credence to the idea of providential control of all that happens in life. The belief in heaven, Hades, or any type of meaningful afterlife not found in Torah was therefore to be rejected. This



Religious Development—Foundations II   177

life is all there is. Make the most of it. That is what wisdom is for. An emphasis on the divine hierarchy, hence the status quo, probably lent stability to Sadducean ideology, and over the two centuries their views remained largely unchanged. The wisdom of Ben Sira may be considered a Sadducean statement of basic belief. Of course, Sadducees had to deal with new situations and perforce to make decisions based on an interpretation of Torah, but they had the advantage that if something was not clearly laid out in Torah, they could decide on the merits of the case. Such a theology might rub shoulders with other Hellenistic views without causing much friction. S2.2.3.2 Pharisees Pharisees are generally thought to derive their name from perushim, “separated ones.” If they took the name themselves, it might refer to Israel’s separation from the nations or their separation from the rest of Israel. If given by others, it may have been negative, such as “separatists.” Another possibility stems from the Hebrew parôsh, “to be precise,” hence parôshim (“specifiers”), which would accord with their reputation of being precise interpreters of the Torah.191 Pharisees were literate and reasonably educated, and they are generally placed in the upper-middle class of society called retainers, a professional class that supported the ruling class, scribes, judges, and magistrates but also included small land owners and merchants. Josephus mentions one Pharisee who was a priest, and others, such as Pollion and Samaias, were clearly leaders with access to King Herod. It is possible that some gifted members of the lower class of artisans managed to gain an education and entered the ranks of Pharisees. In the later generation of early rabbis, their occupations are clearly among the artisans, as tanners, smiths, cobblers, bakers, potters, weavers, and so forth.192 But the Pharisees of the Herodian era were mostly drawn from the professional class. The ideology that eventually bound them together was the desire to implement the covenant requirements that would lead to the fulfillment of the command to be a nation of priests.193 And as a nation of priests, they held that Torah was given to everyone, not just the priests, to interpret. They spent considerable labor in studying the Torah, and by the first century c.e., they likely merited the reputation among the people as the most accurate interpreters of Torah. Accuracy, however, should be understood as ingenuity of application of Torah rather than faithfulness to the original meaning of the text. In other words, Pharisees were the best at applying Torah to contemporary life. The Pharisees were able to find a variety of beliefs in Torah that the Sadducees did not see, most notably the resurrection of the body, last judgment, and an afterlife with appropriate rewards and punishments. They managed to find support for both sides of the theological quandary between divine providence and human free will. They were also inclined to sanctify ancestral tradition on the assumption that their ancestors followed the will of heaven, and their customs, unless clearly condemned by Torah, should be considered the way to walk in the path of righteousness. The phrase “oral Torah” can be demonstrated only from the later rabbinic traditions, but the concept has

178   Vines Intertwined

its roots in the reverence for ancestral customs and the handing down of regulations from previous interpreters of Torah. S2.2.3.3 Essenes The Essenes received the most attention from Josephus undoubtedly because they were the most interesting to a Greco-Roman audience, for they do not play a more significant role in his history than the Pharisees. Josephus probably knew of a wider curiosity about the Essenes, such as that given by Pliny the Elder (ca. 23–79) in his Natural History. “On the west side of the Dead Sea, but out of range of the noxious exhalations of the coast, is the solitary tribe of the Essenes, which is remarkable beyond all the other tribes in the whole world, as it has no women and has renounced all sexual desire, has no money, and has only palm trees for company.”194 Philo of Alexandria also mentions the Essenes out of admiration for their contemplative life, and they reminded him of another group closer to home in Alexandria, the Therapeutae. The comment by Pliny has provided the anchor for including the community that lived at the site of Khirbet Qumran under the Essenes canopy and are presumed to be the elect group described in many of the Dead Sea Scrolls that were found hidden in nearby caves in 1947. The Essene identity of the people of the scrolls has been challenged, but in the absence of a serious contender, it has survived for 60 years. Pliny’s “solitary tribe,” however, does not correlate to the description given by Josephus, who speaks of Essenes throughout Judaea and never mentions the group by the Dead Sea.195 It may well be that Pliny knew not what else to call this group by the sea and set modern scholars on the wrong path by calling them Essenes, who were better known to Judaeans by another name. Until the matter is more clearly settled, many scholars distinguish the Dead Sea Scrolls community as Covenanters but otherwise included them among the wider group of Essenes. The Hebrew or Aramaic origin of the Greek name “Essenes” is not clear, but of several options, the most convincing are the words for “doers” (of Torah), or “healers.” In the case of the Essenes, the abundance of information, in contrast with the usual dearth, creates a happy industry for scholars trying to tie it all together and to reconcile apparent contradictions. Two points must be borne in mind when describing the Essenes. There were undoubtedly different small groups of Essenes in any given generation, and over the generations, views and practices of the Essenes changed as the need to adapt arose. Modern religious denominations provide a useful reality check when observing ancient denominations of a common religion. There is, however, a fairly consistent description of the Essenes from the three major sources, Josephus, Philo, and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the common denominator would be community: “They shall eat in common and bless in common and deliberate in common.”196 Essenes lived in towns and villages throughout Judaea, but they kept themselves in a separated community, probably on the outskirts, or within a compound. Some Essenes lived in more remote and segregated places, such as the community by the Dead Sea, but we should not assume the Qumran community was the only



Religious Development—Foundations II   179

one of its kind. There may have been a small group in Jerusalem, or an Essene House, where they could reside when they came to the city. Josephus mentions an “Essene Gate” to Herod’s temple, where they probably entered with their offerings, and possibly with sacrifices. As we have seen, Herod the Great favored the Essenes, and during his reign they may have lived more prominently in Jerusalem.197 Some Essenes lived celibate lives; others married, though the married ones probably had sexual relations only for procreation and never copulated in Jerusalem, where they kept a heightened ritual purity. In some respects, Essenes tried to live like priests who functioned in the temple, but the purity rules they were able to adopt were only an effort, not a true imitation, because no one outside the temple could live like priests in the temple. Essenes avoided the use of oil, which was especially subject to impurity. They performed their bodily necessities in remote locations and bathed daily. As far as we know, only the Essenes had a rigid membership induction, which included a probation period, rituals, and oaths. The aspirant took a “binding oath to return with all his heart and soul to every commandment of the Law of Moses in accordance with all that has been revealed of it to the sons of Zadok, the Priests, Keepers of the covenant and Seekers of His will, and to the multitude of the men of their Covenant who together have freely pledged themselves to His truth and to walking in the way of His delight.”198 During communal worship Essenes sang hymns and offered up traditional prayers received from their ancestors. Part of the ancestral tradition included directing their morning prayers to the rising sun, an ancient priestly practice that was once condemned as sun worship, and no doubt was, but by this time the sun merely symbolized the power of the Creator.199 Reverence for the sun as representative of God has deep roots in Israelite history and may account for the east-west orientation of the temple.200 Meals were part of their communal worship. Certain “pure meals” required a heightened degree of ritual purity, and exclusion from participation was a means of punishment. Offenses ranged from disobedience to a superior, to spitting or guffawing foolishly.201 They also shared their possessions and practiced charity or even voluntary poverty. The degree of communal property varied among different groups. The monastic orders, such as Qumran, shared everything, while those in towns and villages contributed to a common fund that could be used to help poor and traveling Essenes.202 Essenes, like most people, worked the land and engaged in normal occupations. At Qumran they kept gardens and small livestock, apparently made pottery, and copied documents. They adopted and raised orphans and by this means supplemented their sparse reproduction. They probably educated their male youths and therefore were a more literate society than normal. The Qumran Essenes, and perhaps all Essenes, reserved an important place for priests in general, but Zadokite priests in particular. They called themselves “sons of Zadok,” although this may reflect the earlier generations when many of their members were Zadokite priests. It is difficult to know how the membership changed over the two centuries of their existence, but adoption of orphans, and others who joined, will have affected the numbers of priests and Zadokites.

180   Vines Intertwined

The exclusivity of the Essenes was enhanced by their use of a solar calendar in contrast to the rest of the Jews. This meant the temple sacrifices and rituals for the pilgrimage feasts were celebrated on the wrong days, and therefore invalid. When the wrong calendar was coupled with the non-Zadokite high priests, the result was a cultic system beyond repair, and it invited divine intervention to wipe it out and start over. In the meantime, the Essene communities themselves were a substitute temple, and their prayers stood in place of sacrifices. In this respect, they provided an example of how to sustain the covenant in the absence of a temple, an example that would soon be needed by all Jews. Philo describes a group in terms similar to the Essenes called the Therapeutae, a name derived from therapeuō, either in the sense of “cure” because they profess an art of healing better than that current in the cities which cures on the bodies, while theirs treats also souls oppressed with grievous and well-nigh incurable diseases . . . or else in the sense of “worship,” because nature and the sacred laws have schooled them to worship the Self-existent who is better than the good, purer than the One and more primordial than the Monad.203

He claims they could be found everywhere but were most prominent in Egypt, and many dwelt along the shores of the Mareotic Lake near Alexandria. Men and women joined them, but all lived celibate lives. They ate a simple fare, no meat or wine, and only once a day when the sun had set. Some fasted three and six days at a time. They slept in their own huts but shared a common room for worship and contemplation. When they came together for discussions, a partition separated the men from the women, so each could be heard but not seen. Philo calls them citizens of heaven and of the world. Therapeutae and Essenes shared a number of similarities, which may suggest a common origin in time or a common disposition of soul. Both groups followed the Pentecontad calendar, seven periods of 50 days, followed by holy days, and the feast of Pentecost (Shavuot) was the chief feast. S2.2.3.4 Others S2.2.3.4.1 Fourth Philosophy Josephus mentions another group of Jews among the schools of thought who hold a Fourth Philosophy.204 The founders of this philosophy, as we saw earlier, were Judas the Galilean and a Pharisee called Zadok who led an insurrection against Rome. The cause of their insurrection was the Roman census of Judaea after Archelaus was deposed, which in their view infringed on the exclusive right of God to number his people. The Fourth Philosophy, in a nutshell, declares “No master but God alone.” Josephus says they are like the Pharisees in all things, except “they have a passion for liberty that is almost unconquerable, since they are convinced that God alone is their leader and master.”205 While it is clear this ideology did not want Roman rule, it is not clear how they expected God to be their master, and for this reason Josephus may have felt obliged to align them with the Pharisees. But he clearly wished to isolate them as the only philosophy that was prone to revolt. In that regard, it is commonly assumed Judas the Galilean and Zadok the Pharisee



Religious Development—Foundations II   181

were the founders of the later political movement Josephus calls the Zealots (proper noun), but Josephus makes no such connection. While there will be more zealous Jews who would rather Rome quitted Palestine, they do not, as far as we know, organize themselves into a viable party until the revolt against Rome in 66 c.e. At that time, however, the grandson of Judas the Galilean will be among the leaders. S2.2.3.4.2 Samaritans Another group with claims to speak for Israel is the Samaritans. Our ancient sources, including Josephus, are not consistent on the use of “Samaritan,” which could mean a group defined by geography, ethnicity, or religious beliefs. The only Hebrew Bible reference is 2 Kgs 17:29, ha-shomeronim, where it refers to inhabitants of Samaria and would be properly translated by the ethno-geographic term “Samarians.” The self-designation of Samaritans comes from the Hebrew word shomerim, the “keepers,” meaning those who keep the law. Josephus also uses the name Shechemites and notes that they called themselves Hebrews.206 Ben Sira (50:26) refuses to admit they are an ethnic nation, those “foolish people that dwell in Shechem.” Josephus also calls them Cutheans, in reference to the people from Cuthea brought to replace the exiled Israelites by Sargon II, thereby emphasizing their Gentile ancestry.207 The Samaritans had a rather different view of things. According to the Samaritan history, the original center of worship was at Shechem, where Joshua gathered the tribes to re-establish the covenant (Josh 24:1–28), but under the leadership of Eli, and the corruption of the sacrificial cult, the center of worship moved from Shechem to Shiloh, and then under David to Jerusalem, all part of one long regress from the original worship established by Moses.208 They could also make the case that many of the Israelites of the northern kingdom had remained when Samaria was conquered by Assyria and Israelites were sent into exile, because people were left to take care of the land, just as many Judaeans had remained during the Babylonian captivity.209 Samaritans had no desire to be identified with the Jews (unless the benefits were worth it), but they could rightly claim to be descendants of Israel. Samaritan “Judaism” revered only the Torah of Moses as authoritative, and they had begun keeping their own version of it since the days of the Maccabean revolt. They were monotheists who observed the sabbath, circumcision, and the pilgrimage feasts. They believed, however, the temple of God ought to be not in Jerusalem but on Mount Gerizim near Shechem, where Abel had built the first altar to God, and where God instructed Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. They no doubt carried a bitter memory against John Hyrcanus, who had destroyed their sanctuary and Shechem in 128 b.c.e., but they seem to have occasionally visited the temple in Jerusalem and were probably no more averse to it than many Essenes.

S2.3 The People Called Israel The insider’s view of what it meant to be a Jew is a complex matter, impossible to place in neat boxes; hence the old quip: Jews are like everybody else, only more

182   Vines Intertwined

so. What Gentiles saw of the Jewish way of life, the Jews took for granted. They worshiped only their God, and most tried to follow the laws of God as custom bade. It was, after all, a way of life. Jews in the Diaspora saw themselves in relation to their non-Jewish neighbors and found their identity primarily in their ethnicity. We may assume this was true of Jews in Babylonia and elsewhere. Palestine Jews had different surroundings and saw themselves in a different light. Ethnicity faded into the general background, and different ideas of how Israel ought to walk appeared. Groups formed, the likes of which we do not see in the Diaspora. One mark of Jewish identity within Palestine that has impressed itself on scholars since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is the diversity of Jewishness. Even the descriptions of Josephus on the three schools of philosophy, an insider’s view but delivered for outsiders’ consumption, paints over many a distinction—as scholars continue to discover—and magnifies their place in the scheme of things. To begin with, Josephus gives rough numbers of 6000 Pharisees, 4000 Essenes, and far fewer Sadducees (but then, the elite would have it no other way).210 All together these party members numbered fewer than 12,000, or less than 1 percent of the Jewish population of Palestine, which in turn comprised less than a third of the Jews in the Roman Empire. Their voices were no doubt heard, but real power lay in other hands, namely, kings, priests, and men of wealth. The Sadducees had clout, but only as wealth has clout, and were part of a much larger class of wealthy aristocrats, or the major priestly families with whom they met at exclusive gatherings and exchanged financial information. The Pharisees had a good reputation among the people, and the Essenes were also revered as especially pious. Of the three groups, Josephus says the Pharisees had the most influence with the people, and that was no doubt true, since the Essenes had withdrawn from the majority and the Sadducees were too aristocratic. But from this we cannot conclude that everyone did as the Pharisees instructed them.211 Most Jews, the “other 99 sheep in the fold,” went about their lives, satisfied, or not, with their expressions of piety but rather more concerned about good food, good sex, and a good roof over their heads. In theory a Jew could decide what he believed about God and the status of the Jewish people and how much of his ancestral inheritance he wished to follow. Although social constraint was a genuine fence that kept Jews within a local fold, there was considerable room to maneuver within the fold, and only those who habitually broke the laws qualified as outcasts and were called “sinners.” Under Roman rule in the Augustan era, Jewish leaders or communities had little coercive power to force their members to comply with customs, or even the laws of Moses. The Hasmoneans and Herod executed hundreds, but as far as we know it was not for breaking the laws of Moses. Even the execution of the 300 “apostates” in the story of 3 Maccabees required approval from the king. We hear of few cases of women undergoing the bitter water test for adultery, or stoning, or any such executions prescribed in the Torah. These things did occur, but either on the local level, where people took matters into their own hands, or done against imperial law and order, and therefore liable to imperial justice. Most people obeyed the customs and laws of Moses because they wanted to. It was, after all, their way of life. Most Jews held a basic theology, which may be described as



Religious Development—Foundations II   183

common theology. The division of Jewish life into “Judaisms” will not go far in describing the Diaspora Jews, who constituted the majority of all Jews. Insofar as there was no controlling authority on Jewish practices and beliefs, no Jewish papacy, we may agree that there was no single all-embracing and official Judaism. But in everyday parlance, we give names to fuzzier concepts. One knew if one was Jewish or not, and one’s conscience was still a fair guide.

S2.3.1 Common Practices The most obvious customs of the Jews were the worship of only one God, sabbath rest, diet restrictions, and the circumcision of males. Most Jews observed all four, but with varying degrees of stringency. The biblical ritual impurities associated with sexual intercourse, menstruation, and birth were removed by the mikveh, a ritual immersion. The caution Jews expressed about association with Gentiles had more to do with a fear of falling into idolatrous ways than ritual impurity. Intermarriage, however, was probably not uncommon, and often involved the conversion of the Gentile into the Jewish way of life. At this point, as far as we know, there was no conversion ceremony; it was assumed (or not) within a marriage ceremony. Jewish exclusivity was perhaps more obvious than for most ethnic groups, but then, as now, most people tended to associate with “their people” and got along with the others. Diaspora Jews cherished the right to maintain their own customs, a right guaranteed by Rome. Synagogue buildings flourished in the large cities of the Diaspora and probably had begun appearing in Judaea, although archaeological evidence is sparse. Jews met as a synagogue assembly in existing houses. On the sabbath, Torah was read and expounded to the community. Psalms and hymns were sung. We do not know when Jews began to recite the Shema twice daily, but it had probably become the practice by the second century around the time of the Maccabean revolt, when the practice of wearing the tefillin (phylacteries) began, as attested in the Letter of Aristeas (158–159). At about the same time we suppose that some Jews began to fulfill literally the directive of Deut 4:9 by placing a mezuzah, small box containing a parchment inscribed with Deut 6:4–9 and Deut 11:13–21, on the doorpost, a practice considered ancient by the time of Josephus. Daily prayers were a common practice among Essenes, and the Amidah, or its precursor, may have accompanied the recitation of the Shema. There is no evidence for communal prayers in unison, although Essenes may have done so.212 The annual pilgrimage feasts, Pesah, Shavuot, Sukkot, were the main cultic events of the year. Diaspora Jews tried to go up to Jerusalem at least once in a lifetime. Most Jews contributed the temple tribute (tax) of two shekels.

S2.3.2 Essential Theology The common creed was the Shema, “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.” (Deut 6:4).213 The nature of the belief in one God does not mean there

184   Vines Intertwined

were no other gods, though it is unclear what power and authority other gods had and whether they were believed to be more than demons. The sovereignty of God in some form was accepted by most, if not all, Jews. The insoluble dilemma between divine providence and human free will was dealt with in different ways, using different concepts. The Greek Fate came part of Jewish theology, and as noted, Josephus makes it the key point of distinction between the Sadducees, Pharisees, and Essenes. The Golden Rule, taken from Lev 19:18, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” was also common creed. It was already part of Jewish wisdom in the time of Tobit, but the more famous expression is attributed to the Babylonian sage Hillel. The story is told how a Gentile seeking to convert to Judaism came to the other leading Pharisee, Shammai, and said, “Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I stand on one foot” (that is, briefly). Shammai repulsed the man’s impertinence with his rod. The Gentile went to Hillel with the same request. Hillel said to him, “Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.”214 It is unlikely every Jew would agree that the Golden Rule was the whole of Torah, but it is also unlikely any Jew would omit it from the essence of Judaism. The two creeds mirror the Ten Commandments. The laws of God given to Moses were inscribed on two tablets. They covered the people’s relationship to God and the individual’s relationship to the rest of the people or society. The first is often described as the vertical responsibility, the second as the horizontal responsibility. The vertical tends toward ritual conduct, the horizontal tends toward moral conduct. Acknowledging the first tablet implies acceptance of the second tablet. That is, one cannot love God and not love one’s neighbor. Conversely, loving one’s neighbor is an expression of one’s love for God.

Part Three (14–138 c.e.)

Chapter 10

Birth of the Nazarenes (14–37 c.e.)

10.1 Rome: Tiberius The senate of Rome, upon the sworn testimony of a witness who saw the genius of Augustus ascend to heaven from the funeral pyre, voted deity upon the deceased emperor, Divus Augustus, and conferred upon Tiberius Claudius Nero the powers and titles of Augustus. At age 55, Tiberius had administered the provinces jointly with Augustus and was already weary of governing and loved his seclusion.1 Augustus had named him heir out of necessity, not choice, and Tiberius received it with equal ennui. He asked the senate to restore the Republic, but the senate dutifully refused the gesture and insisted he take the helm of the empire, for the passing of Augustus settled poorly in the provinces. They also wished to name a month after him, as they had done for Julius and Augustus Caesar, but he declined, with the dry warning that there might be thirteen Caesars, and what then would they do.2 He forbade the erection of temples or statues to him without his permission and a good reason. In this, he followed the Augustan modesty more stringently and received the blessings of the Jews, who were ever anxious about the need to express loyalty to Rome in the form of image deification. Many of the legions, however, refused to accept Tiberius and offered the throne to his nephew Germanicus, the most popular general in the empire. The Pannonian legions (in the Balkans) also mutinied, and Tiberius sent his son Drusus to suppress them. Germanicus refused the nomination by his troops and put down the mutiny in Germany. He then defeated the fierce German chieftain Arminius, and although Arminius escaped, Germanicus retrieved the eagle standards of the legions lost by Varus. Germanicus returned to a triumph in Rome and was given full command of the East. He settled affairs with Artabanus II of Parthia on the succession of kingship in Armenia and formed two new provinces in Asia Minor, Cappadocia and Commagene, extending the empire to the Euphrates. In 19 Germanicus suddenly took ill and died. Various people, including Tiberius, were suspected of poisoning him, but nothing was proved. Thereafter, except for a minor revolt in Gaul, Tiberius kept the empire at peace. He was an able ruler of the empire, but he was never loved by Rome. His frugality set the empire back on a firm financial foundation, but his restraints on the theater and gladiatorial games made him unpopular with the people. By 21, he began

188   Vines Intertwined

delegating responsibilities of government to Aelius Sejanus, a trusted adviser and prefect of the Praetorian Guard. In 23 Tiberius’s son, Drusus the younger, died, and although Tiberius had thought him unfit to rule, the death left him ever more morose. Sejanus began to undermine the position of Agrippina the Elder’s sons, who were likely heirs. In 27 Tiberius toured southern Italy, and while visiting the island of Capri, perhaps at the suggestion of Sejanus, he remained and never returned to Rome. Sejanus gradually gained more power until all imperial communication between Tiberius and the senate passed through his hands. Tiberius had appointed him commander of the Praetorian Guard, and permitted all ten cohorts to be stationed near Rome. Soon Tiberius was emperor in name only. Sejanus removed many of his enemies in the senate by the law of treason and installed his own men in positions of power in preparation to seize the throne. There was apparently a widespread view among the Jews that Sejanus hated the entire Jewish people and was behind the measures Tiberius took against Jews in Rome. One reason for the malevolence of Sejanus, according to Philo, is that he knew the Jews were very loyal to Tiberius and would defend the emperor against any treachery by him.3 The treachery, in any case, soon became apparent to Tiberius. In 31 Tiberius chose Sejanus as co-consul, but when his birthday was declared a holiday and golden statues of Sejanus appeared in Rome, Tiberius heeded a few close friends who warned him of the designs of Sejanus. Tiberius sent a secret letter to the senate denouncing Sejanus, and he was summoned to appear. Never had the senate acted so efficiently. Sejanus was tried, found guilty, and executed by nightfall. His body was dragged through the streets to the cheers of Rome. Tiberius spent his last 6 years eliminating his perceived enemies. He had a ring of villas with dungeons and torture chambers built around Capri. If his early historians can be believed, he devoted himself to lecherous pursuits with young boys, even as his body decayed from disease.

10.2 The Jews 10.2.1 Roman Diaspora Judaea was calm during the first decade of Tiberius’s reign. The Jews in Rome, however, underwent another period of tension and uncertainty. Tiberius had adopted the moral reforms of Augustus and dreamed of guiding Roman society back to its dimly remembered glory days, a time before the influx of foreigners. In 19 a certain Jew who fled Judaea on account of some crime, a complete scoundrel according to Josephus, came to Rome and took advantage of the growing interest in Jewish monotheism, particularly among wealthy matrons. He played the part of a sage, and with the help of three confederates not a whit more noble than himself, met with the wife of the senator Saturnius, lady Fulvia, who was sympathetic to Judaism. After impressing her with his knowledge, he persuaded her to send purple and gold to the temple in Jerusalem. She gave them a substantial gift, which they promptly embezzled. Saturnius reported this to Tiberius, and it was just the



Birth of the Nazarenes   189

outrage needed to take action against the Jewish community, in particular the many proselytes to Judaism among Roman citizens, all of which sapped old Rome of its former glory. Tiberius ordered the Jewish community expelled from Rome. Four thousand Jews, mostly proselytes, were conscripted for military service and sent to Sardinia, ostensibly to rid the island of brigands but more likely to rid Rome of the converts. This disruption could hardly have been complete and can have lasted only a short while, for the Jewish community of Rome soon returned to its normal strength. Nevertheless, it provided a reminder of the tenuous condition of Jews in the empire.4

10.2.2 Jews of Babylonia and Syria While Tiberius ruled Rome, Artabanus II (10–38) ruled Parthia. Armenia remained the primary, and often only, territorial bone of contention between the empires. Artabanus attempted to place his son on the throne of Armenia but failed. Thereafter, rather than engage Rome directly, Artabanus sought to strengthen his own position among the princes in Persia by reforming his government. During this reform, he used the support of lesser princes against the more powerful ones. At this time we learn of the rise of a Jewish princedom under two colorful Jewish brothers, Anileus and Asineus, natives of Nehardaea, a Jewish city near the Euphrates north of the capital city of Ctesiphon.5 They were apprenticed as weavers to a Parthian, and after he whipped them for arriving late to work, they fled their master and stole a number of weapons from his house. Thereafter, they became cattle drivers and gathered a number of other disaffected young men, whom they armed. Soon they demanded and received tribute (protection money) from surrounding cattlemen, and by this means they built up a small army. The influence of Anileus and Asineus reached the attention of King Artabanus. The satrap of Babylonia took up the matter and sent a military detachment against the Jewish brothers. The Parthian soldiers thought to attack the Jews on the sabbath, assuming they would not fight, and approached the Jews somewhat casually. When Asineus learned of the tactic, he took advantage of the Parthian nonchalance and engaged and routed them on the sabbath. Artabanus, surprised at the Jewish bravado, decided to gain their loyalty and play them off against other Parthian nobles. He offered them amnesty, giving them gifts and prestige and the responsibility of keeping the king’s peace in their district. Asineus, clearly the military leader of the two, then built new forts and strengthened older defenses in the area. Other Parthian princes began paying their respects, and for 15 years, probably 20–35 c.e., Asineus enjoyed the dignity and authority of a Parthian prince, no doubt including the admiration of Jews throughout Mesopotamia. In due course, however, power went to their heads. Anileus, perhaps emboldened by the ancient Davidic model, became obsessed with the beautiful wife of a Parthian prince. He accused the prince of being an enemy of the state, and a “dead man.” He engaged and killed the Parthian in battle and took his widow for himself. She continued to worship her own gods, and this brought Anileus into disfavor

190   Vines Intertwined

with his Jewish subjects. Asineus urged Anileus to divorce her, but she managed to have Asineus poisoned, which left her husband the sole authority. The downfall of Anileus came when he plundered the territory of another prince, Mithradates, a brother-in-law of Artabanus and member of the old Parthian nobility. When Mithradates came against Anileus, the latter again surprised the Parthians by attacking them on a sabbath. Anileus captured Mithradates, and because he was related to the king, spared his life but nevertheless paraded him around naked on an ass, an act considered to be the highest disgrace by the Parthians. When Mithradates was released, his wife, daughter of the king, vowed that she would divorce him unless he took vengeance on the Jews for his disgrace. Mithradates gathered a larger army, and when Anileus learned of it, he decided to take the initiative again. Many Jews joined Anileus and his men thinking they could profit in the booty of his victory. But this time Mithradates routed them decisively, killing thousands of Jews. Anileus escaped, however, and gathered a new army of Jews, and from the protection of the city of Nehardea he began pillaging the villages of the Babylonians. The Babylonians demanded the Nehardeans give Anileus over to them, but they were not strong enough to do so. Finally, after discovering the location of Anileus and his men, the Babylonians attacked him at night while they were drunk and asleep and put an end to the Jewish prince of Babylonia. With the threat of Anileus gone, the Babylonians began a widespread persecution of the Jews around Nehardea, forcing them to migrate to Seleucia-on-theTigris, where they dwelt safely for the next 5 years. Life in the city of Seleucia was marked by a latent discord between the Greeks and the Syrians, but when the Jews joined the fray, siding with the Syrians, the Greeks decided they preferred the Syrians and made peace with them, on the grounds that both hated the Jews more than each other, on account of the peculiar customs of that people. Josephus says that the new alliance of Greeks and Syrians fell upon the Jews of Seleucia and killed upwards of 50,000. If this is anything like the truth, it will have been the first Jewish pogrom in the East of the same magnitude as the one soon to occur in Alexandria, Egypt.6 The entire story is a reminder of full-fledged Jewish life carrying on behind the veil in Parthia.

10.2.3 Palestine Tiberius installed Valerius Gratus as the new prefect of Judaea (15–26). In 18 Gratus appointed as high priest Joseph surnamed Caiaphas, and by his long tenure (18–36), Caiaphas proved himself an astute mediator between Rome and the people of Judaea. That same year, Herod Antipas began building his new city along the southwestern shore of Lake Gennesaret, which he named Tiberias in honor of the new emperor. In building the city foundations, however, workers came across numerous sepulchers that had to be dug up and removed, and this rendered the entire area subject to corpse uncleanness. Most Jews refused to dwell in the new city, and Antipas thereafter depended on strangers, or the less scrupulous Galileans, and poor people,



Birth of the Nazarenes   191

to settle the city. He offered free housing and tracts of land and brought in some by force. Despite the difficulty in populating it, the city was magnificent and worthy of Herodian ambitions. He built a stadium and a palace, each adorned with animal images to the offense of traditional Jews but appreciated by all others. As a true Hellenistic city, it was governed by a council of 600 and other officials. Antipas also built a large prayer house (proseucha), where the Jewish citizens could assemble.7 At some point late in the second decade, Herod Antipas journeyed to Rome, perhaps to curry favor with Sejanus and seek permission to mint his own coins. On the way he visited a half-brother, son of Miriamme II, who according to Josephus was named Herod but according to the Gospel of Mark was named Philip, and possibly his name was Herod Philip, by which he is now generally known and is thus distinguished from Philip the tetrarch. Herod Philip was married to Herodias, the daughter of Aristobulus Herod and therefore the niece of Antipas. Antipas fell in love with Herodias and arranged to have her divorced from his half-brother so that he might take her to wife. She agreed, provided he divorce his present wife, the daughter of Aretas IV, king of Nabataea. This arrangement required Roman approval, so Antipas added it to his requests. Word of his pending action reached his wife, and she promptly fled to her father’s kingdom. Antipas received permission for the divorce and remarriage, which occurred soon after his return. As a result, the political alliance between Antipas and Aretas fell upon the rocks and came to war by 36, in which Antipas was soundly defeated. Another Herodian, Agrippa (I) son of Aristobulus Herod and Berenice (daughter of Herod’s sister Salome), emerged as a player among the ambitious aristocracy. He had been sent to Rome for his education at age six, just before the death of his grandfather, Herod the Great. As a young man in the imperial court, he made friends with Claudius, a future emperor, and Drusus, the son of Tiberius. His chief talent seems to have been in the art of a lavish lifestyle, so that he quickly depleted his allowance and piled up debts. When Drusus died prematurely in 23, Agrippa lost his support in the imperial court, and by 29 he returned to Palestine.8 Antipas gave his dejected kinsman a minor position as overseer of the markets in his new city of Tiberias, but Agrippa soon resigned the post as beneath his dignity and sought influence with the governor of Syria, Flaccus, who took him into his entourage. Always in need of money, Agrippa accepted a bribe to influence a border dispute between Sidon and Damascus, and when it came to the ears of Flaccus, Agrippa found himself again destitute of friends and money, with only creditors seeking his company. With the help of his mother and wife, Agrippa managed to raise loans in Ptolemais, and particularly in Alexandria, where Alexander, the brother of Philo, funded him. From there he returned to Rome in the spring of 36, first presenting himself to Tiberius on Capri and then making friends with Gaius Caligula. This pursuit of influence was expensive, so Agrippa continued borrowing against his future prospects and spending on the best guarantor of his prospects, Gaius Caligula. Such blatant sycophancy, and an indiscreet remark that he wished Caligula would soon come to the throne, alarmed Tiberius, and Agrippa found himself in prison on a charge of treason, where he languished for 6 months until the death of the emperor.

192   Vines Intertwined

In 26, Tiberius, most likely upon the counsel of Sejanus, replaced Valerius Gratus as prefect of Judaea by another equestrian, Pontius Pilate (26–36). Josephus marks the start of Roman maladministration to Pilate, and Philo in Alexandria also uses Pilate as an example of how Rome should not govern the Jews. Soon after taking up residence in Caesarea, Pilate rotated his troops and sent to Jerusalem a cohort whose military standards bore the effigy of Caesar. He did so by night because he was aware of the affront such standards would have, and when the idolatrous standards were seen glimmering in the morning light from the Antonia fortress alongside the temple mount, hue and cry erupted. A throng hastened from Jerusalem to Caesarea, where they appealed to Pilate that he remove this insult. Pilate refused to yield, but after six days of the Judaeans lying prostrate in the city he agreed to listen to their arguments. He set up his tribunal in the stadium and secretly lined it with armed soldiers. While the people pleaded with him, he ordered troops to emerge swords drawn. The people again fell to their knees and bared their necks, declaring themselves prepared to die. Pilate balked and ordered the offensive standards removed.9 A second incident involved taking money from the temple treasury to pay for aqueducts that would carry a new water supply to Jerusalem. In itself, this was a fine gesture, something Herod would have done, but use of sacred funds was not the way to pay for it. Why did they pay taxes, after all? When the populace of Jerusalem assembled to protest, Pilate dispatched soldiers in plain Jewish dress concealing clubs to mingle with the crowds, and when the people refused to disperse, he gave the signal, and the soldiers came after them, inflicting a harsher blow than required or intended, and many died.10 Philo described another incident (though some believe it is the same as the standards affair) in which Pilate placed golden votive shields bearing only the name of the craftsman and the name of the one honored in the old palace of Herod. Again, the multitudes found it objectionable in the holy city and threatened Pilate, pointing out that Tiberius wished all of their laws to be honored, and if he did not remove them, they would send a delegation to the emperor. According to Philo, Pilate relented out of fear that delegation would expose all the rest of his conduct, “the outrages and wanton injuries, the executions without trial constantly repeated, the ceaseless and supremely grievous cruelty.”11 Pilate’s own side to these stories would help balance the affairs, but in Jewish memory, he was the first in a long line of bad governors. Nor was it just the opinion of Jews. In 36, the tenth year of office, Pilate quelled an uprising by the Samaritans with excessive force. An unnamed Samaritan charismatic, another prophet following their own Mosaic tradition that a prophet would come out of the tribe of Levi to discover the utensils of the first temple, summoned a group of believers to ascend Mount Gerizim, where he promised to show the golden utensils hidden by Moses. The crowds grew, and before the prophet could fulfill his destiny, soldiers blocked their ascent and many died in the confrontation. The Samaritans appealed to Vitellius, governor of Syria, and their complaint was the last straw. Vitellius sent a temporary administer of Judaea and ordered Pilate to return to Rome to give account of himself before the emperor. Pilate obeyed, but by the time he reached Rome, Tiberius had died, on March 16, 37.12



Birth of the Nazarenes   193

10.3 The Nazarenes Pontius Pilate earned his place in the histories of Josephus and Philo as the first in a long line of bad Roman governors of Judaea, but due to the rise of two Jews named John and Jesus, Pilate’s immortality was assured. Josephus reports on both of these men, though he does not seem to know a connection between them. Both are portrayed as righteous martyrs at the hands of the Jewish and Roman leaders of Judaea during the administration of Pilate. Both had popular followings, though only the followers of Jesus survived as an identifiable group when Josephus wrote of them (ca. 95).

10.3.1 John the Baptist Josephus says John, surnamed the Baptist, was a good man, known for his piety and preaching. He exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, practice justice, and as a testament to their piety, to join in baptism. This baptism, Josephus took pains to inform his readers, was not to obtain forgiveness for sins but as a visible “consecration of the body implying that the soul was already thoroughly cleansed by right behavior (dikaiosunē = righteousness, justice).”13 John had all the trappings of an oracular prophet of old, and his eloquence aroused the masses to an extent that alarmed Herod Antipas. Prophets and kings had a long history of antagonism. The tetrarch, fearing potential sedition with so much power at the command of one man, imprisoned John in the citadel of Macherus, and in due course put him to death. When Antipas later lost a battle against Aretas IV in 36, the people said it was God’s revenge upon him for killing John the Baptist. John was a rural priest, possibly an Essene, who revived the tradition of the alienated prophet in the days of old. He wore a rough woven camel hair tunic and leather sash, and he lived off of wild locusts and honey. His appearance out of the wilderness brought to mind the legendary Elijah, whose return the prophet Malachi had promised: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the Lord comes” (4:5). He gathered disciples, and from the banks of the Jordan River John delivered of himself a righteous indignation against the social conditions of his day, in particular the Jerusalem aristocracy. He castigated the elite “brood of vipers,” called for social justice, and prophesied the judgment of the wrath of God. Repentant souls were baptized, and to them John gave specific instructions for economic justice: that tax collectors take only their due, that soldiers not abuse their power and be content with their wages, and all who have some wealth to share with those who have none.14 John had more to say. He promised another baptism, one of the Holy Spirit and fire, at the hand of one mightier than himself who was to come. If Josephus was aware of this aspect to John’s ministry, he left it out for good reason, since the purpose of his history was to show how righteous and peaceful the Jewish people are. Eschatology that challenged authority had virtually no place in his account. Nevertheless, John the Baptist had awakened the populace of Judaea to the

194   Vines Intertwined

prophetic voice of God, something the generation had not known. It was at this moment of anticipation that Jesus of Nazareth appeared on the horizon one day while John the Baptizer preached and baptized in the Jordan River. Confident of his inner righteousness, he joined others in the baptismal rite, thereby identifying himself with the social confrontation of John.

10.3.2 Jesus of Nazareth At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man. For he was a doer of startling deeds, a teacher of people who received the truth with pleasure. And he gained a following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin. And when Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so. And up until this very day the tribe of Christians (named after him) has not died out.15

The elemental view of Jesus given by Josephus, with the Christian interpolations removed, represents what might have been known in the upper echelons of Jewish, or Gentile, society toward the end of the first century. That Jesus was known as a doer of startling (paradoxos) deeds placed him among the miracle workers, or magicians, which by itself would not have been astonishing because Jews were famous as exorcists. People may have had other views of Christians, but the actual knowledge of Jesus was very limited, if basically favorable. Josephus does not appear to be aware of the Gospel traditions, yet he knows Christians are followers of Jesus and elsewhere refers to “Jesus who was called Christ.” When the Gospel evidence is sifted through the fine mesh of historical scrutiny, it fills out the terse statement of Josephus, yielding a picture of Jesus that is fairly clear and historically confident. Jesus was born in Palestine probably toward the end of the reign of Herod the Great. He grew up in Galilee, in the village of Nazareth; his mother’s name was Mary, and his father was Joseph. He had brothers named James (Jacob), Simon, Judas, Joseph, and sisters whose names are not recorded. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptizer and may have been a disciple of John for a while, but after John’s imprisonment he began his own, somewhat different, ministry: besides proclaiming the advent of the kingdom of God, he healed sick people and cast out demons as evidence of the power of God already at work in his person. He designated twelve disciples to be his inner circle, symbolic of the perfected people of God, hence the kingdom of God. Jesus confined his ministry to Israel, teaching in the towns and villages, avoiding the cities. He argued with other religious leaders, particularly Pharisees and scribes, about the Torah of Moses. Like the Pharisees, as evidenced by a number of early rabbis, he taught through parables. Around 30 or 33, during the administration of Pontius Pilate and the reign of Herod Antipas, Jesus went up to Jerusalem with his disciples for the Feast of Passover. He confronted the temple authorities over the exercise of their authority and created a public disturbance at a very delicate time. In response, Jesus was arrested and interrogated by the council of the high priest Caiaphas. The chief priests, who had access to Pilate, handed Jesus



Birth of the Nazarenes   195

over to Roman jurisdiction for execution. Pilate, after a cursory inquiry, authorized the crucifixion of Jesus, which was immediately carried out. This much biographical information already places Jesus of Nazareth among a select minority of historical figures in antiquity whose lives can be confidently reconstructed. We have a stout skeletal frame on which to hang a remarkably detailed, if enigmatic, historical portrait. As the noted historian Sherwin-White has remarked, the evidence for Jesus of Nazareth is better than for the emperor Tiberius, and no one doubts that a reasonably accurate history of Tiberius may be written.16 But it is not the life and ministry of Jesus that propelled him to the forefront of western history as the most influential Jew of all time; rather, his claim to the authority of God, his conflict with the Jewish leaders leading to his death in Jerusalem, and the movement that sprang up around his memory are the pillars on which his historic persona stands. Because Jesus left no extant writings, we depend on the memories of those who knew him and the oral traditions they preserved.17 With few exceptions, that is the nature of ancient history. Jesus, as remembered, epitomized the covenant relationship between Israel and God in the twofold command: Love God and love your neighbor as yourself.18 Hillel the Elder had summarized the Torah as “Whatever is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah, while the rest is the commentary thereof; go and learn it.”19 Jesus likewise said, “Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the Torah and the Prophets.”20 Hillel’s approach was more realistic, since it takes the form of law, that is, prohibition. Jesus’ approach was idealistic and demanded initiative. For such statements, however, no one would have been crucified. Therefore, the cause of his death and the relationship between his death and the movement that bore his name become the focal point of his place in Jewish history. Why was Jesus crucified? Why did his crucifixion become the cause célèbre of a new Jewish movement? After the arrest of John the Baptizer, Jesus withdrew to Galilee, where he began calling his own disciples.21 In Capernaum, he taught in the synagogue and astonished people by his words and sense of authority. He healed sick people, exorcized demons, and ordered a man cured of leprosy to go show himself to a priest and give the sacrifice payment according to the Torah. His fame spread. Those who had known him, perhaps from childhood, were more than a little perplexed at this new prophet. Some were hostile; others thought he had gone mad, that he was “beside himself,” and they urged his family to take him into custody. But Jesus showed little sign of hesitation or uncertainty. In the eyes of the crowds he came across as confident and single-minded, as a prophet of God ought to be. Tradition consistently remarks that Jesus taught with authority, that is, his own authority, not as the scribes who relied on the authority of past masters of the law. The source of authority among Jews, as elsewhere, was antiquity, and it was expressed by quoting earlier authorities, if possible, back to the original founder of the Torah, Moses. Scribes and Pharisees, Philo and Josephus, all point to the antiquity of the Torah as proof of its authority, for its endurance is the mark of truth. Jesus quoted no one, though when debating others he did use Scripture for proof texts. Like a prophet, like John the Baptist, he spoke for God afresh, yet unlike a prophet or John the Baptist,

196   Vines Intertwined

Jesus claimed a unique relationship with God: “All things have been delivered to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and any one to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”22 Jesus intentionally confronted his observers. When a paralytic man was brought to him on a stretcher, Jesus said, “Your sins are forgiven.” The people marveled, “Is this a new teaching?” It was at least unusual, since the prerogative to pronounce God’s forgiveness after repentance and sacrifice belonged to the priest, and at worst it was blasphemy, for assuming authority greater than Torah. Jesus then told the paralytic to rise up and walk, demonstrating that his authority to pronounce sins forgiven came from God, who alone can heal. The challenge had been laid at the feet of experts in Torah. Pharisees heard about Jesus and may have come to observe him. They found him at table with his latest disciple, a tax collector named Matthew Levi and his equally unsavory friends. The Pharisees asked Jesus why he, a religious leader, shared the intimacy of table fellowship with sinners, that is, apostates or those who deliberately broke the law such as prostitutes and brigandish tax collectors. When Jesus heard of their question, he gave an answer they will have found satisfying: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I came not to call the righteous, but sinners.” Later, they questioned him about fasting, a popular form of piety, and which Pharisees, it is claimed, did twice a week. Jesus gave one of his many enigmatic dictums: “No man puts new wine in old wineskins.” So, Jesus might be introducing innovations, which by their very nature are suspect. Continued observation was demanded. Of the three philosophies of religion in Judaism, the Essenes go unmentioned in the Gospel records, the Sadducees play a minor opposition role, but the Pharisees and the professional class of scribes are the principal foil and worthy opponents.23 The reason is simple: birds of a feather flock together. If Luke is accurate, it was Pharisees who warned Jesus that Herod Antipas was out to kill him as he had killed John the Baptist. Pharisees invited Jesus to table, which showed a high degree of respect and familiarity, for they were most fastidious with whom they kept table fellowship. Jesus paid the Pharisees a prestigious compliment: “They sit in the seat of Moses, therefore act as they instruct you.” Given the later antagonism between followers of Jesus and Pharisees, the positive statements about Jesus and the Pharisees should be taken as gospel. It is the negative statements, particularly the charge of “hypocrites,” that require balance.24 Apart from the priestly aristocracy, the Pharisees had the most reason to understand Jesus, and if required, to oppose his teachings, so it is not surprising that the Pharisees are the main opponents of Jesus. The conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees found in the Gospels may be accepted as essentially accurate, if highly stylized and theologized, portraits of a relationship that falls within the bounds of verisimilitude. This caveat on the historicity of the Gospel conflict stories is especially necessary of the following to be mentioned; for it is almost certainly a later literary creation (a rather poor one at that and repaired somewhat by Matthew). The issue at stake, however, was probably disputed quite often; namely, the sort of work that is permitted on the sabbath.25 On a sabbath, the disciples picked and chewed on



Birth of the Nazarenes   197

ears of grain as they passed by a field, no doubt a common act for common peasants. In the view of some Pharisees, this was reaping, an unlawful breach of the prohibition against work, which God ordained for all time.26 Did Jesus countenance such unlawful actions? He replied, “The sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath.”27 A similar verdict is made by later rabbis: “The sabbath is handed over to you, but you are not handed over to the sabbath.”28 The response of Jesus was not a contravention of Torah but a judgment that such actions were not work according to Torah. It was a matter subject to dispute, and he reserved the right to pronounce his own interpretation based on the purpose of the sabbath. A second sabbath dispute occurred when Jesus healed a man with a withered hand. Was healing permitted on the sabbath? Had Essene Covenanters been present, they would have strongly objected to the action. Although the Pharisees would permit any life-saving action on the sabbath, they too thought such healing, like elective surgery, should be kept for the other six days.29 For Jesus, any good deed is permitted on the sabbath because it brings praise to God. All very well, but in the view of some Pharisees, Jesus was counseling others to profane the sabbath, and the law was quite clear on this point: the penalty was death.30 There was a disagreement on divorce, a contentious debate among first-century Jews. Jesus prohibited divorce for any reason (according to Mark), with the exception of adultery (according to Matthew). His view was closer to the Shammai school of the Pharisees than the school of Hillel and identical (in Mark) with the Covenanters of the Dead Sea Scrolls, who held the view that a man is “caught in fornication twice for taking a second wife while the first is alive.” Both Jesus and the Covenanters appeal to Gen 1:27 for scriptural authority: “male and female [in the singular] created he them.”31 Another point of disagreement concerned observing the traditions of the elders on the matter of ritual cleanness. Why did the disciples of Jesus eat with hands ritually defiled (unwashed)? Jesus dismissed ritual purity (handwashing) as irrelevant because he was interested in inner purity: “There is nothing outside a man which by going into him can defile him; but the things which come out of a man are what defile him.” Jesus never suggested that priests should not obey the purity laws laid down in Torah for them, or that any Jews should not obey the purity laws incumbent on them or live their lives according to the heightened purity demanded of priests but not laymen if they so desired (and as many of the Pharisees tried to do). If Mark’s interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on purity is accurate, that by it “he declared all foods clean,” then Jesus would have dealt a serious blow to the authority of the Torah by overturning a number of Mosaic regulations. But for a number of sound historical reasons, the Markan insertion must be tossed out as contrary to what the historical Jesus believed and taught; most significantly, it does not surface at his trial, nor was it remembered by his brother James or his disciple Peter during the dispute over sharing a meal with Gentiles in the following decades.32 A conflict of a different, and more serious, nature arose sometime after Jesus had appointed his twelve disciples. The miracles Jesus performed placed him in a recognized position of power, either as saint or sorcerer. To those who needed help,

198   Vines Intertwined

and they will have been legion in an age of rudimentary medical knowledge, Jesus was a saint, a hasid, even an elevated hasid, a “Son of God.” But the power to heal and to cast out demons was stock and trade of charlatans and sorcerers. Was Jesus either of those? Is it the genuine work of God? Scribes came down from Jerusalem and concluded that Jesus was a sorcerer, that he cast out demons by the prince of demons, Beelzebul. This verdict may have been a malicious slander, or a verdict based on their observation that he did not otherwise meet their expectations of a truly pious man. Had he met their expectations he may have qualified as a hasid and joined a select group miracle workers among Pharisees or Essenes, recognized to be pious and given room to oppose the religious hierarchy because of their obvious intimacy with God, such as Honi the Circle Drawer, whom Simeon b. Shetah had been afraid to excommunicate, or Simon the Essene who foretold the demise of Archelaus, or even Hanina b. Dosa, a later contemporary of Jesus much revered in rabbinic traditions.33 Jesus and his disciples did not fast as tradition required, they did not observe the sabbath laws as expected, nor did they obtain a cleanliness demanded of piety, and Jesus thrived among the lowest class of the people that paid little attention to piety. Jesus responded to the accusation with his famous analogy that a house divided against itself cannot stand. If demons are casting out demons, they are doomed. He then warned his accusers that they were in danger of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit of God, of attributing the work of God to Satan, an unforgivable sin. Jesus taught that compliance with the Torah was not a sufficient requirement for entering the kingdom of God. More was required. The Gospel of Matthew contains an important statement of Jesus: “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them” (5:17). The authenticity and precise meaning of this declaration are disputed, but even if the statement is a Matthean composition, it is not at odds with what Jesus did say and remains within the bounds of verisimilitude, because much of his conflict with religious leaders concerned interpretations of Scripture, not its abandonment.34 Torah neither commanded hand washing nor prohibited healing on the sabbath, or random plucking of grain. That some Jews may have interpreted Torah in these ways merely places Jesus within the milieu of Torah interpretation of Jewish Palestine. Jesus may have urged his fellow Jews to return to a simpler faith, a simpler life, a simpler time. But in the context of the rest of the teaching of Jesus, it also seems clear that he intended to fulfill Torah by lifting it to a higher level in keeping with Jeremiah’s prophecy of the law written on their hearts. The thrust of the classic distillation of his teaching contained in the Sermon on the Mount, in which his claim to fulfill the Torah and the Prophets occurs, points to the higher level. Where the Torah said, do not kill, Jesus taught “Do not hate”; where Torah said, do not commit adultery, Jesus taught, “Do not desire to commit adultery.” He preached Torah according to his understanding of the will of God and insisted God’s will be done on earth as it was in heaven. The following exchange must have happened in various ways more than once on his travels, though perhaps not always in such an agreeable manner. Mark sets it in the temple porticoes, just days before his death:



Birth of the Nazarenes   199 And one of the scribes came up and heard them disputing with one another, and seeing that Jesus answered them well, asked him, “Which commandment is the first of all?” Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he; and to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the strength, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself, is much more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices.” And when Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, “You are not far from the kingdom of God.”35

The agreement between Jesus and the scribe is the essence of their faith. Being “not far,” yet not there, points to the added demand of Jesus concerning the kingdom of God. If one truly loved God, the command to love others would be obeyed.36 It meant acceptance of the higher ethic that Jesus taught, which would mean an acceptance of the scribe to follow Jesus as a disciple. If the second commandment were obeyed, Israel would be completely different. The kingdom of God was a reversal of all earthly kingdoms, whether Persian, Hellenistic, Hasmonean, or Roman. The kingdom of God turns kingdoms of the earth on their heads. The humble are at the peak of nearness to God, and the proud are cast down to grovel in the dust; the former “first” shall be the new “last,” and the last shall be first. This reversal was not a human endeavor, since all such human kingdoms had failed; rather, it was the work of God. According to Jesus, however, all hierarchy, including the religious elite, will be overturned. The underlying assumption is that the religious hierarchy, though filling a divine commission and observing divine commands, had failed miserably. We should not be surprised that, given the benefit of the doubt, some Pharisees, along with certain scribes and a good many priests and Sadducees, felt themselves duty bound before God to destroy the influence of Jesus, and if necessary, destroy him. Such was the view of Saul of Tarsus toward the early followers of Jesus—the only known Pharisee, with the possible exception of Josephus, who left writings. Other scribes and Pharisees defended Jesus, and some joined the movement after his death. No other picture would be more realistic. But dispute over interpretation of Torah does not seem to have been a factor in his death. Indeed, it has been cogently argued that Jesus “had no substantial dispute about the law, nor . . . any substantial conflict with the Pharisees.”37 The death of Jesus concerned his challenge to all human authorities: the temple hierarchy, Herod Antipas, and by extension, the rule of Rome. After the death of John the Baptist, Jesus probably knew his own life was forfeit. According to Luke, Pharisees warned Jesus that Herod Antipas was looking to kill him, and likely for the same reason John had been executed, that Jesus was critical of the king’s leadership (Mark), and Jesus was becoming too influential (Josephus). Jesus is said to have replied, “Go tell that fox for me, ‘Listen, I am casting out demons and performing cures, today, tomorrow, and on the third day I finish my work.’ ”38 When the time had come, and for his own reasons, Jesus set his sights on Jerusalem during the Feast of Passover. The Gospel tradition preserves three deliberate and provocative

200   Vines Intertwined

actions of Jesus during the final week of his life: he entered Jerusalem riding on a donkey to the acclaim of a crowd; he went to the temple and attacked the money changers, and by extension the authority of the ruling priests; and he predicted the destruction of the temple complex. The second action is almost certainly historical, and as an anchor, it argues for the historicity of the third, and probably the first. Approaching Jerusalem, Jesus mounted a donkey, and surrounded by his disciples, which were far more than the inner twelve, he entered the city to the shouts of “Hosanna (God Saves)! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Blessed is the kingdom of our father David that is coming! Hosanna in the highest!” It has been argued that the incident is a cult legend, designed to fulfill the messianic passage of Zech 9:9: Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout aloud, O daughter of Jerusalem! Lo, your king comes to you; triumphant and victorious is he, humble and riding on an ass, on a colt the foal of an ass.

But the Gospel of Mark, which contains a more primitive form, does not make the association, as do Matthew and John.39 The crowd of disciples announced Jesus as one who comes in the name of God, in anticipation of the coming kingdom of God. This fits smoothly with everything else we know about Jesus, especially his sense of prophetic authority and confrontational style, and Mark’s inclusion of the incident represents a genuine primitive oral tradition. Whatever may have been the intention of Jesus or the crowd, the act was confrontational. His attack on the temple, known as the temple cleansing, has normally been interpreted as a prophetic assault on corruption by those who facilitate the sacrificial system. The house of prayer for all nations had become a den of thieves. Yet, his action hardly disrupted the corruption, such as it may have been, and he appears to have acted alone, without his disciples, perhaps to spare them the possible repercussions of arrest and punishment. A second motive fits the genre of a prophetic symbolic act, such as Jeremiah’s yoke symbolizing the imminent destruction of Jerusalem and the advent of Babylonian rule, or in recent memory, the Pharisee disciples who tore down Herod’s golden eagle, at the cost of their lives. If Jesus meant his action to be symbolic, then it symbolized the need for the temple of vainglorious Herod to be destroyed, so that God would raise up a new temple for the new kingdom. The expectation that in the end times God would build a new temple circulated among different groups, such as those behind the Enoch traditions and the Covenanters who kept the Temple Scroll.40 The two motives are not, however, mutually exclusive. Jeremiah did both: he predicted the destruction of the first temple and castigated the corruption that went on in its precincts.41 In the long run, the symbolic act of the temple destruction was the more important motive and supports the third confrontation, his prediction of its fall. For a few days Jesus taught in the temple porticoes. He apparently confirmed his reputation for teaching on his own authority and compared his ministry with that of John the Baptist. When asked by what authority he taught, Jesus replied in good form with a question: “Was the baptism of John from heaven or from men?” When they chose to not answer, he replied, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do



Birth of the Nazarenes   201

these things.” While on the temple mount, one of his disciples, who probably had never been to Jerusalem, remarked on the magnificent buildings and the huge stones. Jesus took the occasion to say, “There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.”42 Jesus may have made the prediction, or threat, more obviously to the public, for it became one of the accusations at his inquest. Jesus had mounted a confrontation with the temple authorities and anticipated a violent end. He met with his twelve disciples for a farewell meal, either the Passover Seder, or more likely—if he did not expect to survive until Passover—an imitation Passover meal without the sacrificial meat, celebrated a day earlier. During this meal, he spoke of the covenant and likened their bread to his body, and the wine to his blood, which he would now surrender for the sake of the new covenant. That night he was arrested by the Jewish authorities with the help of his disciple Judas. Whether this was prearranged between Judas and Jesus or a betrayal by Judas is impossible to know, since both interpretations are expressly made in the sources. If his arrest caught Jesus by surprise, then he was either oblivious to the danger or expected to slip out of Jerusalem unnoticed. The Gospels suggest that Jesus knew what was going on, and if so, he could have avoided capture, but at this point, Jesus intended to die. Since the authorities were seeking Jesus, the only task for Judas was to bring them to Jesus at a point where he could be arrested without a riot. At night, in a garden outside the city, was ideal. The testimony of Josephus, “Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us, condemned him to the cross,” concurs with the terse statement by Mark, “And as soon as it was morning the chief priests, with the elders and scribes, and the whole council held a consultation; and they bound Jesus and led him away and delivered him to Pilate.”43 Given the nature of political conflicts, we cannot dismiss something as basic and omnipresent as the pride of an important man; that is, Jesus may have offended the high priest and this affront became the personal vendetta of Caiaphas to see that Jesus was removed. In the following generation, the conflict between the family of Caiaphas and that of Jesus seems to have retained the nature of a personal feud. But at the time, Caiaphas had to produce reasonable cause for a Roman execution. Whatever the motive of Caiaphas, the confrontational stance of Jesus in coming up to Jerusalem places the initiative on his shoulders. Jesus led the attack, and one wonders if he was ever a victim of force majeure. What was the accusation against Jesus? He had challenged the authority of priests, scribes, and Pharisees to interpret the Torah, and this was perceived (rightly or wrongly) as a challenge to Moses by claiming a higher authority than Moses. He had declared the temple practice to be corrupt and predicted, or threatened, its destruction. These factors, the challenge to Torah and temple, offer sufficient cause for his death in the eyes of the chief priests and other Jewish leaders.44 Pilate, for his part, conducted his own enquiry according to Roman law, and the question of a claim to kingship, that is, a legitimate right to challenge the Jewish leaders recognized by Rome, was one factor in the Roman approval of the death sentence. Confusion over the nature of messianic authority may have been part of the deliberations, but it is doubtful that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, a political figure and threat to Rome, since none of the disciples of Jesus were arrested. The potentially subversive

202   Vines Intertwined

elements in the teachings of Jesus are the subject of continued debate among scholars of Jesus.45 He may have seen himself as messianic in the sense of God’s agent of divine redemption, but according to the Gospel accounts, he avoided the trappings of the various messianic expectations and the trap of militant or passive resistance to Rome. The dictum of Jesus, “Render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God,” has been interpreted to mean that because everything is God’s, nothing belongs to Caesar. If this is what Jesus meant, then his preaching was seditious; but this view cannot stand in the light of the main themes of his preaching. The office of human kingship was divinely sanctioned in Scripture, and the history of Jewish political ideology had long since come to grips with imperial rule filling the office. As far as the evidence goes, neither John the Baptist nor Jesus advocated the human overthrow of Roman rule. Jerusalem, however, may have been rife with rumors that Jesus was a messiah, and the potential for violence between Galilean supporters of Jesus, a rabble of sinners claiming to be in the new kingdom of God, and Judaean antagonists to a Galilean nobody that challenged Torah and temple, would have provided the social unrest Pilate and the temple leaders feared. To the chief priests, then, Jesus was a threat to their authority, and to Rome, Jesus was a potential threat to social stability at a delicate time. Within the few years of Jesus’ ministry, Galileans had been slaughtered in some disturbance during the Passover, and during his lifetime other Feasts of the Passover had led to riots and deaths.46 The charge “King of the Jews” is almost certainly historical, for it would hardly have been invented by his followers.47 The chief priests may have asked Pilate to write a less offensive condemnation, such as “He claimed to be king of the Jews”; if so, the inscription posted on the cross may have been Pilate’s way of laughing at both sides of the Jewish squabble. The action of a Roman equestrian governor, on his own authority, presuming to crucify the recognized king of a Roman province is an inherent farce. Pilate could not execute a legitimate king, but he could pretend to do so with an accused imposter. The charge will later be turned on its head by followers of Jesus in the Johannine statement attributed to Pilate: “Behold, your king.” To the followers of Jesus, Pilate had done precisely what he had no authority to do. To the Jewish aristocracy, the titulus on the cross would have been Roman mockery. Roman soldiers nailed Jesus to a cross outside the city walls along with two other condemned criminals in the early afternoon. His most historically believable last words are those found in Mark and Matthew: “Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani,” which means “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”48 The cry of dejection from Ps 22:2 [1] will not likely have been invented by faithful biographers, and Luke and John, who hold a much higher view of Jesus’ awareness of the victory of God, ignore it. Its association with the victorious end of the complete Ps 22 is part of the later Christian interpretation of the death of Jesus, unless it was what Jesus had in mind all along—and that we cannot know.

10.3.3 Birth of the Nazarenes The Jewish movement that sprang up after the death of Jesus rests on two equally well grounded but unverifiable traditions, without which one has a very



Birth of the Nazarenes   203

hard time of making sense of its origins: the tomb was empty, and people believed they saw Jesus alive. The subsequent belief that God had raised him from the dead, however it is interpreted, transformed the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth into a new movement. The messenger became the message. Jesus of Nazareth died during Passover, probably in 30 or 33. The death of Jesus left his followers dejected. Whatever expectations they had harbored for his ministry, his death wiped them away. They had thought him a great prophet, and some had even hoped he was the redeemer of Israel, perhaps the Messiah. He himself may have given them cause for such high hopes, but it is evident that Jesus did not foretell his death in such a clear and meaningful way as they later claimed, for all witnesses agree at the most primitive level that no one expected the tomb to be empty or that Jesus would be raised from the dead. On that first-day morning, faithful women disciples went to the tomb not to find it empty but to place herbs and spices around the corpse. Why the tomb was empty is historically unknown, but history is full of unexplained facts. An empty tomb is not a miracle per se, just a mystery. An early rumor said the disciples had stolen the body; and the rumor itself, if historically reliable, is evidence of an empty tomb. The male disciples did not believe the women’s report, though they could not help going to the tomb to confirm their folly. In the end, while it may be crucial to faith, it does not matter to subsequent history how the tomb came to be empty. Likewise the resurrection experiences are historical reports that must be accepted as data. We have at least one first-person testimony by an intelligent Jew, one given to visions and mystical meditations perhaps, but otherwise quite sober: Saul of Tarsus, more widely known by his Roman name, Paul. He testifies to the experience and the impact the experience made upon those who had such visions or encounters. Visions, by definition, cannot be objectively verified. Just as historians must pass over the veracity of miracles attributed to anyone in antiquity, so historians must pass over the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus and either accept or reject the testimony of witnesses as honest accounts of what they believed or thought they saw. The history of the Jesus movement begins with the historical probability that a sufficient number of people believed Jesus had been raised from the dead and appeared to his followers with further instructions, so as to constitute a critical mass of believers sufficient to continue in the hope that God had begun something new. According to Paul, more than 500 people made that claim.49 That all the disciples were in a state of mental shock may be taken for granted, but their mental state is merely another bit of historical data. They are the bedrock witness to the resurrection of Jesus. After Paul’s late experience, everyone had to blindly accept the testimony of those who claimed they saw Jesus. For the witnesses, perception was reality; for those that followed, faith was the conviction of things not seen. Belief in God certainly facilitated belief in miracle and resurrection. For most anyone in first-century Palestine, the question was not could Jesus have been raised from the dead, but did God raise Jesus from the dead? It was a question not of divine power but of trust: first, in God, and second, in the witnesses. The key question that spurred the transition of Jesus from a dead prophet to a risen messiah was “Why did God raise Jesus from the dead?” Luke describes

204   Vines Intertwined

the mental process in a story designed to explain the leap to transcendence. On the first-day morning after the news of the resurrection had spread, two disciples journeyed from Jerusalem to Emmaus, 7 miles east. As they walked, a stranger came beside them and asked what they discussed so earnestly. They recounted the morning’s events, admitting they had hoped that Jesus was the one to redeem Israel. The stranger replied: “O foolish men, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Was it not necessary that the Messiah should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” And beginning with Moses and all the prophets, he interpreted to them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. So they drew near to the village to which they were going. He appeared to be going further, but they constrained him, saying, “Stay with us, for it is toward evening and the day is now far spent.” So he went in to stay with them. When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight. They said to each other, “Did not our hearts burn within us while he talked to us on the road, while he opened to us the scriptures?”50

The disciples of Jesus reasoned that only God can raise anyone from the dead, and since God had raised Jesus, he must have done so for a purpose. The purpose must have been foretold because, as Amos long ago observed, “Surely the Lord God does nothing, without revealing his secret to his servants the prophets.”51 They searched the Scriptures, and their hearts burned within them. One can imagine the tingling scalps of the first interpreters of the death and resurrection of Jesus, as the psalm came alive: “The Lord said to my lord, sit at my right hand” (110), and the prophet Isaiah spoke, “He was wounded for our transgressions” (53:6). It appears the message Luke placed in the mouth of Peter quickly became a central belief among the followers of Jesus: “Therefore let the entire house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified.”52 Fundamental to the Jesus movement was the conviction that God had prophesied the death and resurrection of Jesus. Without going far afield—and we could go very far—we may note that every conceivable explanation for the empty tomb and resurrection visions has been proposed as an alternative to a straight forward description of disciples remembering the events and seeking to explain them within the providence of God. While most of the conjectures are possible, they are as irrelevant to history as they are impossible to prove. Possibly, soldiers dumped the corpse of Jesus in a trash heap outside the city, or pious Jews in charge of burying crucified criminals placed it in a common grave of criminals, and that was that. Possibly, the entire passionresurrection narrative comes from the distraught but highly creative minds of one or more of later disciples and devoid of all historicity. There is no question that exegesis of Scripture helped fashion the retelling of events surrounding the life and death of Jesus, but it is one thing to say historical events were remembered and retold according to Scripture, and quite another to say the entire narrative of Jesus was invented to fulfill Scripture; that is, prophecy historicized rather than history remembered. The question for historians is what explanation best fits the available



Birth of the Nazarenes   205

evidence within a viable chronology of a few years. Despite the fecundity of alternative scenarios, most scholars reject them as too complex or too conspiratorial to be realistically foisted on humble Galileans. The simplest explanation, that the tomb was indeed empty and people did indeed believe Jesus had been resurrected, remains the most plausible.53 The family of Jesus, mother Mary and his brothers, and disciples, both men and women, formed the nucleus of the followers of Jesus. They felt compelled to appoint a twelfth disciple to replace Judas, who had killed himself following the arrest of Jesus. This was necessary to retain the symbolism of the new covenant people begun by Jesus. Leadership of the group fell to Peter but soon was taken up by James, the brother of Jesus, who inherited the dynastic right to lead, who also saw the “risen Lord,” and who probably knew Jesus the best.54 The movement gained stability and new members, mostly from the lower ranks of society as the disciples of Jesus had been. They followed the teachings of Jesus and formed a communal fellowship, sharing what they had with one another. The wealthy among them took satisfaction in their patronage, as being obedient to Jesus, and the poor gratefully accepted it. Early on, disputes among them arose, particularly between Hellenist Jews and the native Hebrew Judaeans on sharing their wealth. Settling disputes spurred them to organize. The followers of Jesus may have called themselves Nazarenes, or Nazoreans, a name associated with Nazareth and some vague fulfillment of prophecy, according to the Gospel of Matthew: “There he made his home in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets might be fulfilled, ‘He will be called a Nazorean.’ ”55 Since no such prophecy is known from the Hebrew Scriptures, the association is probably a word play either on nazir (“Nazarite”), someone separated to the Lord, or natsar (“Branch”), a messianic title. If so, the original meaning was a geographical term to distinguish Jesus the Nazarene (of Nazareth) from the myriad of others with the common name Jesus, and later, one or both of the word associations gave a deeper meaning to the group of Nazarenes, mentioned in Acts 24:5. Another name found in Acts for the new Jesus movement is “the Way” (Greek, hodos). This has parallels in the Dead Sea Scrolls as the Way of God, or simply the Way, where it is understood as strict observance of Mosaic Torah.56 It also bears a curious similarity with the Pharisaic descriptor of the Hebrew halakhah, translated as law or custom, but probably comes from the verb “to walk,” hence the way in which Israel should walk. The Way for the followers of Jesus may derive from his own version of halakhah. Its use in Acts, however, seems to reflect the way of salvation, rather than strict observance of law, and might derive from Isa 40:3, “In the wilderness prepare the way of the Lord,” which in the Greek Septuagint also translates “way” by hodos. Finally, in the Johannine tradition Jesus says, “I am the Way (hodos)” (John 14:6), and that too may lie behind the name.57 The earliest selfdesignations, however, come from Paul. He speaks of the “saints” (holy ones) and the “congregation (ekklesia) of God.”58 According to the Acts of the Apostles, the mission of the Way began 50 days after the Feast of Passover on which Jesus was crucified. The followers were gathered

206   Vines Intertwined

in a house when they heard the sound of rushing wind, something like tongues of fire came upon them, and they responded by speaking in other tongues, as they were filled by the Holy Spirit. They went out, still speaking in various languages, and amazed a crowd of pilgrims from Parthia and Media, Elam, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia, Pontus, Asia, Phrygia, Pamphylia, Egypt, Libya of Cyrene, Crete, Arabia, Rome, both Jews and proselytes, and Judaeans.59 They all heard these Galileans speaking in their own languages. Out of this chaos, which was thought to be a drunken stupor, the lead disciple, Peter, preached his first sermon, declaring the crucified Jesus to be the Messiah. If the event at Pentecost, even as an artistic encapsulation of origins, is at all reflective of historical reality, the movement will have spread in all directions from Jerusalem within a few months on the heels of the Jews and God-fearers who had come to Jerusalem from all the Diaspora. While the numbers remained small, the geographic distribution was wide, like a handful of seeds scattered hither and yon. The Nazarenes who remained in Jerusalem continued to meet daily in the temple porticoes for worship, and the leaders taught their new faith. Members were added, but enemies were also made. The high priest and his Sadducees had some of the leaders imprisoned, but they escaped. Eventually the leaders were brought before the Jerusalem council, charged to stop preaching. Peter is said to have replied, “We must obey God rather than men,” and went on to give a short sermon. Some of the council flew into a rage and wanted a death penalty. But a Pharisee of high repute, none other than Gamaliel the Elder, ordered the Nazarenes to leave the council and called for calm among the members. He counseled that these movements come and go.60 Better to leave them alone, for if their work is their own, it will pass, but if it is of God, even the Sadducees would not want to find themselves fighting against God. Luke’s scenario may well rest on a historical incident, but as with most of his history, there is no way to corroborate it. The story does, however, advance the basic view that Jewish leaders were divided over the new movement. There were ardent opponents, loyal supporters, and those who wished to live in peace with all views. Luke could not do better than to choose the best-known Pharisee of this generation, and from what is known of him in rabbinic tradition, there is nothing to suggest Gamaliel would not have spoken as Luke portrays him. An early and natural distinction among the followers of the Way fell between Diaspora Jews who spoke Greek and were sufficiently Hellenized in Greek culture to be identified as Hellenists by Luke, and Jews who retained the dominant Hebrew (Aramaic) language and culture of Judaea.61 A problem arose when the Hellenists, perhaps some of them pilgrims to Jerusalem who became believers and remained, were slighted in the distribution of common food. The problem was resolved by choosing seven leaders among the Hellenists to oversee the distribution. Of those chosen, Stephen and Philip were active in the mission, and Nicolaus of Antioch is identified as a Gentile convert to Judaism. An older view that the Hellenists and the Hebrews represented early theological positions on Torah observance and value of the temple has largely been discarded in favor of a simpler clash between language and culture. Both groups boldly preached their cause in Aramaic or Greek and clashed with other Judaeans and Diaspora Jews in Jerusalem.



Birth of the Nazarenes   207

Peter and John were imprisoned for preaching in the temple, but when some Pharisees, possibly led by Gamaliel the Elder, advocated for them, they were released unharmed and forbidden to preach in Jerusalem. Less fortunate was Stephen, the outspoken Hellenized Jew who argued with the Greek-speaking members of the Synagogue of the Libertines, including Cyrenians and Alexandrians. What he argued is not preserved, but it must have included the basic theme that Jesus is the Messiah. Whatever he said, they hauled Stephen before the high priest on charges of blasphemy against Moses and God, with the specific charge (false, according to Luke) that Jesus of Nazareth will destroy the temple and will change the customs that Moses delivered. Stephen cannot have thought he blasphemed, but that Jesus was the Messiah and now sat at the right hand of God, implying some divine status, could be so interpreted. The prediction of Jesus that the temple would be destroyed would give rise to the expectation that when he returned, he would destroy the temple. Jesus was known to have challenged the interpretation of the laws of Moses and annulled some customs, and his followers continued to do so. The defense speech Luke composed for Stephen is a summary of Israel’s salvation history and a self-identification with the rejection of the prophets of God who condemned Israel for its unfaithfulness. He accused his audience of being stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, part of unfaithful Israel, and so provoked them that they dragged him out of the city and stoned him. As Luke reconstructs the event, Stephen became the first martyr of the Way, in close imitation of the martyrdom of his master, Jesus of Nazareth. According to Eusebius, after the death of Stephen the apostles appointed James, the brother of Jesus, to head the church of Jerusalem.62 Continued opposition in Jerusalem prompted many of the Hellenists to return to their native lands and so to plant the seeds of their faith. Among the chief persecutors of the Way was Paul of Tarsus, himself a Hellenized Jew. The movement spread into Samaria. Philip the Evangelist, one of the seven chosen by the apostles in Jerusalem, preached in the city of Samaria (Sebaste). A certain Simon, called Magus on account of his sorcery by the “power of God that is called Great,” was impressed by the miracles of Philip and became a believer.63 When Peter and John came and laid hands on some believers so they received the Holy Spirit, Simon offered Peter money to also receive the power of the Spirit. Peter condemned Simon for thinking God’s gifts could be had by money: “May your silver perish with you.” Acts tells us only that Simon repented and asked for prayer against any evil, but in later tradition this Simon Magus becomes the founder of several Gnostic sects and is prominent in other traditions.

10.3.4 Paul of Tarsus We know about Paul from his own letters, with secondary support from the Acts of the Apostles, traditionally ascribed to Luke, author of the Gospel assigned to his name. A precise chronology of his life remains elusive due to differences between Paul’s statements and Acts, but the general outline is clear and noncontroversial. Paul was born of the tribe of Benjamin and given the Hebrew name Saul,

208   Vines Intertwined

prominent in the tribe, but he went by his Roman name of Paul in all his letters. Though born in Tarsus, in southwestern Asia Minor, he probably moved to Judaea as a youth where he received his education. He became a Pharisee and in his view, at least, he advanced further than most for his age, so extremely zealous he was for the traditions of his ancestors.64 Paul may well have had missionary zeal for his Pharisaism, as did other Pharisees, “preaching circumcision” to proselytize Gentiles to become Jews, and then “zealous for the traditions” to make Jews into Pharisees. The caustic charge leveled against Pharisees by Matthew’s Jesus, “you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves,” was directed at just the sort of Pharisee Paul boasted of having been.65 We should expect a certain continuity of personality between Saul the Pharisee and Paul the servant of Jesus Christ.66 When he came upon the new movement of Nazarenes, his zeal for the traditions of his ancestors compelled him to persecute the movement. Why? Was it the undermining of Torah, the acceptance of Gentiles into fellowship among Jews without circumcision, or calling on the name of Jesus as if calling upon God that Paul and others most objected to? Paul’s opposition to the teachings of Jesus, who diluted or dismissed certain traditions of the elders, is readily understood, but it was probably the exaltation of Jesus—a crucified man now called the Messiah—that Paul saw as idolatry or blasphemy worthy of death. It is also possible these “messianists” were seen as a continuing danger to the political stability of Jewish communities.67 These Jews expressed their devotion publically, in the synagogues or their own meetings, and the numbers must have become a clear and present danger. His zeal placed him among a more radical wing of the Pharisees than others, such as Gamaliel, who were willing to let the new movement play itself out rather than stamp it out. At some point early in the movement of Nazarenes, probably around the years 34–35, Paul received his own revelation of Jesus near Damascus. He may have been on the road to Damascus, as Acts says, with letters of authority from the high priest, Caiaphas, to arrest followers of the Way. The revelation of the risen Jesus, a vision that may have temporarily blinded him, changed the course of his life in as dramatic a fashion as history has to offer. He thought of his revelation as the last time the risen Jesus appeared to anyone, and during the revelation, as Paul later recalled it, Jesus gave him the gospel message from God and commissioned him to preach this gospel to the Gentiles.68 This experience was the anchor for his claim of apostolic authority on a par with any of the disciples of Jesus or others who had seen the risen Lord. In Damascus, he met with some of the very people he went to arrest, and they introduced him to their faith. We do not know what their version of “the faith” contained, but it included a primitive explanation that Scripture had predicted a suffering messiah.69 Paul believed, and the persecutor of the Way suddenly became its champion. Any of the Pharisees and priests who had supported his mission now saw Paul as a traitor to their cause. For up to 3 years, Paul preached his new faith in the territory of Nabataea under the rule of Aretas IV, perhaps as part of an existing Damascus mission. He stirred up enough controversy that King Aretas sought to imprison him, and Paul had to escape Damascus in a basket let down by disciples



Birth of the Nazarenes   209

through a window in the wall. After 3 years he went up to Jerusalem, where he met with Peter and James the brother of Jesus in order to confirm the widespread rumor that he who had once persecuted the church was now preaching its faith. With the blessing of these two leaders Paul went to Syria and Cilicia, the district of his native city Tarsus, and perhaps further afield in Asia Minor, working quietly for over a decade. Paul’s mentor was a man called Barnabas, a Levite and native of Cyprus, and together they became the missionaries to the Gentiles.

Chapter 11

A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers (37–54 c.e.) 11.1 Rome The 17 years under the emperors Caligula and Claudius bring into the light of Roman history a number of prominent names in Jewish history, not the least of whom is our historian Josephus, born in 37. Two descendants of Herod the Great, Agrippa I and his son Agrippa II, play significant roles in Roman politics, and two members of the same aristocratic family in Alexandria, Tiberius Alexander and Philo, also stride across the imperial stage. Less visible at the time, members of the Jewish Nazarene movement, James, Peter, and Paul, establish their leadership, and perhaps the label of Christian is first applied to some followers of the Way in Antioch.

11.1.1 Caligula The emperor Tiberius was unable to decide on a successor. The leading candidates were, on the one hand, Gaius “Caligula” (born 12 c.e.), son of Germanicus and Vipsania Agrippina the Elder, and on the other hand, his grandson Tiberius “Gemellus” (born 19 c.e.), son of Julius Caesar Drusus (only surviving son of Tiberius) and Livia Julia (sister of Germanicus). Tiberius is said to have even considered his nephew Claudius (born 10 b.c.e.), son of Nero Claudius Drusus (younger brother of Tiberius and father of Germanicus) and Antonia (daughter of Mark Antony and Octavia, sister of Augustus), but he feared the bumbling idiot would bring contempt and humiliation on the memory of Augustus and the name of Caesars. If he did indicate an heir, it was not obvious enough to prevent rivalry and bloodletting between Caligula and Gemellus.70 Caligula, so named by the army of Germanicus for the “little boots” he wore as a child while dressed in a miniature uniform, joined the aging Tiberius on the island of Capri in the bay of Naples so as to be nearby when Fate played her hand. Tacitus tells us that on March 16, 37, Tiberius ceased to breathe, and word of his passing spread through the palace. Caligula, with the support of Macro, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, prepared to take control of the state amid congratulations



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   211

and good cheer. When word came that Tiberius had only fainted and was now awake, asking for food, Caligula stood dumbstruck, and his supporters backed away. But Macro, unperturbed, ordered the emperor be smothered, and so Tiberius died.71 Whispers of the emperor’s death reach Rome swiftly, but people were afraid to believe it, lest, if it were not true, untimely rejoicing would be their death sentence. Such a man was Agrippa (I) who remained in prison on orders of Tiberius. A former servant of Agrippa, when convinced of Tiberius’s death, hastened to Rome and finding Agrippa, said in Hebrew, “The lion is dead.” Agrippa could not conceal is joy and told the centurion in charge of guarding him. Knowing it would bring Agrippa his freedom, the centurion rejoiced with him and treated him to dinner. But while they feasted, news came that Tiberius was alive, and the frightened centurion immediate pushed Agrippa off his couch, clapped him in chains, and doubled the guard.72 Later, the official statement from Gaius that the emperor was truly dead brought the people into the streets, rejoicing, and shouting “To the Tiber with Tiberius,” while others prayed to Mother Earth and the gods of the underworld to give him no place except among the damned.73 The Jews in Rome may have shared the sentiment, since they had suffered an expulsion under his rule, but it is unlikely they expressed themselves so openly, and Diaspora Jews had no reason to rejoice at all. Philo lauds the memory of Tiberius, who protected the rights of Jews throughout the empire, just as Augustus had done. Jews had all the more reason to praise Tiberius, however, when compared with his successor. The change of emperors brought forth the usual accolades in Palestine, and special sacrifices and prayers were made in the temple, as well as the continuation of daily sacrifices on behalf of the emperor. Vitellius, the governor of Syria, finished off the negotiations with Parthian king Artabanus and visited Jerusalem during the Passover. The city presented him with such a lavish welcome that he acceded to a request that they be given control over the high-priestly vestments, which had been kept under Roman control in the Antonia fortress since the time of Coponius. Agrippa’s fortunes soon turned. After an appropriate time of public mourning, Caligula released Agrippa from prison, placed around his neck a chain of gold equal in weight to the chain of iron he had worn, and appointed him king over the tetrachies of Philip and Lysanius. Caligula also sent a new prefect, Marullus, to replace Pilate. The imperial gifts bestowed upon Agrippa piqued the ambition of his sister Herodias. Agrippa had fled debtor’s prison in Judaea only to be imprisoned in Rome, and now he arrived in such a royal state that he was deemed to be a model of the power of Fortuna. Herodias urged her husband to likewise seek the status of king in place of common tetrarch. Antipas resisted for a while but gave in and sailed to Rome. Agrippa, upon learning this move, sent a dispatch hot on their heels, in which he accused Antipas of conspiring with Sejanus against Tiberius and of now being in league with Artabanus the Parthian against Rome. Antipas was apparently unable to defend against the charge, and Caligula banished him to Lyons in Gaul. Because Herodias was the sister of Agrippa, he allowed her to keep her estate and serve her brother, but to her credit, she remained loyal to her husband and went

212   Vines Intertwined

into exile with him. The tetrarchy of Antipas, Galilee and Peraea, was then added to the kingdom of Agrippa. The reign of Gaius Caligula had started well, and he gave the empire 7 months of stable rule before he suffered an illness that seems to have altered his mental state. Some claimed the illness left him deranged, but because he suspected someone had poisoned him, it may have merely made him aware of his tenuous hold on power and fostered a latent megalomania. After the death of his foster mother, Antonia, who had been a restraining influence on him, he claimed to be above the law: “I may do what I will against all persons whomsoever.”74 He sought divine honors from all quarters, which created difficulties for the Jews. In the autumn of 39, he undertook an invasion of Germany and Britain to commemorate the campaign of his father Germanicus, but returned, to the amusement of Rome, with only a collection of sea shells for spoils of war. Thereafter, he grew increasingly capricious in his exercise of power. On January 24, 41, soldiers took matters into their own hands and assassinated him.

11.1.2 Claudius The Roman senate was supposedly deliberating whether they should abolish the imperial system and restore the Republic when the Praetorian Guard, the true power in Rome, found Caligula’s 50-year-old uncle, Claudius, hiding behind a palace curtain in fear of his life. They hauled him to the senate and proclaimed him emperor. The senate confronted the timid Claudius, urging him not to usurp the throne, and both sides sought the mediation of the Jewish prince Agrippa, who was in Rome at the time. Through the good services of Agrippa, bloodshed was avoided and Claudius took the throne.75 Claudius was not much to look at: he limped, trembled, and stuttered, possibly all from a childhood paralysis, and when he grew angry he would foam at the mouth and trickle at the nose.76 Despite all that, he brought a steady hand to the ship of state. Abandoned in his youth as an impossible candidate for any position of authority, Claudius studied with the historian Livy, who instilled a love for history and literature in the unlikely future emperor. He authored several tomes in Greek, a defense of Cicero, histories of the Etruscans and Carthaginians, and he began a history of the principate. Pliny the Elder cited him as an authority. Claudius also put his pedantic mind to work in repairing the affairs of the empire after Caligula squandered the treasury. His construction projects included two magnificent aqueducts and a new harbor near Ostia to facilitate the import of grain. His first threat was senatorial support of a rebellion by the governor of Dalmatia. His loyal army restored order, and then he executed a number of senators. He never did get on well with the senate. Over the course of his reign he executed 35 to 40 senators and 300 equestrians, some of whom were involved in assassination attempts on his life. Despite his respect for the old aristocracy, Claudius knew true power lay with the army, and he paid them well. One notable gadfly, the caustic Spaniard, Lucius Annaeus Seneca the Younger, made a name for himself criticizing

A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   213

Shar on

n of

o

m

o

d g

a

re

n te

eo

Phasaelis

Pella

3

Gerasa (Jerash)

Amathus

Jab b o k R .

Gadara

Archelais

En-gedi

4

o Arn n R.

Dead Sea

Masada Malatha

Mampsis

n N a b a t e a

©2003 CHK America www.mapsusa.com

A

r

B

5 m

Bro o k Nessana

Auranitis

o

K i n

Thamna Gophna Modein

2

Dion?

Philadelphia (Amman) Jericho Emmaus Betharamphtha Cyprus Esbus(Heshbon) Jerusalem Bethany Mt. Nebo J u d e a Hyrcania Qumran Bethlehem Medeba Herodium Betogabri (Beth-guvrin) Callirrhoe Marisa (Maresha) Machaerus Hebron Adora The

Bersabe (Beer-sheba)

N e g e b

Abila Gedor(Gadara)

Raphana

d

Th sor

T h e

6

f

Plai

e M edi ter ran ean Sea

Samaria

Alexandrium

muk R . Ya r

Trachon itis

p o l i s c a

R k on .

H

Mt. Ebal Neapolis Mt. Gerazim (Nablus)

I d u m e a

Be Raphia

Sebaste (Samaria)

e

Gamala

Hippos

a

e

Gaza

5

Scythopolis (Beth-shan) Mt. Gilboa

ne

D

Yar

Lydda(Lod) Gazara(Gezer) Jamnia (Jabneh)

Anthedon

l

Caesarea (Strato’s Tower)

tis ni B at a

Beth-saida

ee

Dor

Antipatris(Aphek) Joppa

Azotus (Ashdod) Ascalon (Ashkelon) (free city)

li

Geba/Hippeum

Apollonia

4

Ga

Mt. Carmel

3

a

Ptolemais (Akko)

20 Kilometers

Lake Huleh

Se Galialeoef

10

Chorazin Capernaum Gennesaret Magdala/ Taricheae Sepphoris Nazareth Mt. Tabor

1

Panias Dan(Caesarea Philippi)

d

0

20 Miles

o

10

Gischala Merom?

Aba n a

Ph a r par R.

Perea

0

P

2

Province boundaries

v

o

r

Boundary of Herod’s kingdom – greatest extent

c e

Damascus

S y r i a

a

NABATEAN Kingdom/province

n iKedesh

o f

ilene

Mt. Hermon

ul

Region

Jo rd a n Riv e r

GALILEE

Ab

Ga

Tyre

L

en

City

ici

Sarepta

Mt. Nebo Geographic feature

s R.

Sidon

D

u

T HE L AND OF I SRAEL/ P A L E STI N E I N TH E F I RST C ENTU RY O F TH E C OM MO N E R A

C

R.

1

B

It

A

Pho



K

i n

g

Khirbet Tannur

Z e re d B roo

6

k

C

D

214   Vines Intertwined

emperors, and Claudius managed to have charges of adultery (with the princess Julia Livia) brought against him, and Seneca was exiled to Corsica in 41. The reign of Claudius was marked by innovations that demonstrated his awareness of the transformation of the empire from the centralized rule of the senatorial class to a more liberal meritocracy, such as elevating freedmen to positions of power, permitting Gallic chieftains to become senators, and appointing a Jew, then a freedman, governor of Judaea. He added two Mauretanian provinces in North Africa to the empire, the province of Lycia in Asia Minor, and Thrace in 46. But in order to establish his reputation for true conquest, he invaded Britain in 43, personally joining his troops as they crossed the Thames. He returned to Rome for his triumph in 44, and Britain became a Roman province. He wisely kept peace with Parthia. Claudius had four wives who gave him both natural and adopted heirs, with all the intrigue and rivalries inherent therein. His last two wives were the most devisive. At age 38, he married the 16-year-old Valeria Messalina, and she was his consort when he took the throne. She bore him a son in 41, Germanicus, renamed Britannicus after the invasion of Britain, and a daughter, Octavia. Messalina, having done her duty, kept a troop of lovers passing in and out of her chambers, much to the dismay of Claudius and the Roman nobility. But when she conspired against Claudius in 48 and held a public marriage to one of her lovers, it was too great an embarrassment, and she and her lover were executed. Despite a claim that he would never marry again, Claudius sought permission from the senate to marry his niece Julia Agrippina the Younger, daughter of Vipsania Agrippina the Elder and Germanicus. The union was illegal in Roman law, so the law was changed. Julia Agrippina brought her son from a previous marriage, Lucius Domitus Ahenobarbus, and insisted Claudius adopt him and give his daughter Octavia in marriage. Because Domitus Ahenobarbus was older than Britannicus by three years, he became first in line for succession and would later change his name to Nero. Agrippina summoned Seneca from his exile to educate Nero. Behind the back of the aging Claudius she accumulated wealth and power by conspiring with the powerful minister of the treasury, Pallas, to condemn, execute, and confiscate properties of many leading citizens. After 5 years of marriage to Agrippina, Claudius seems to have awakened to her true designs, and he resolved to put both her and Nero aside by naming Britannicus heir. He never did. All ancient historians agree that Claudius was poisoned, rumored to have been in his favorite dish of mushrooms, rumored at the hand of Agrippina. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the rumors have been handed down as history. After twelve hours of anguish, he expired on October 13, 54.

11.1.3 King Agrippa I Agrippa received from Claudius, in gratitude for his help in securing the throne, the kingdom of his grandfather, Herod the Great, over Judaea and Samaria, adding the districts of Trachonitis and Auranitis. The emperor awarded Agrippa’s brother, Herod, the principality of Chalcis on the western slope of Mount Hermon.



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   215

A Roman governor under the administrative title of procurator continued to dwell in Caesarea and keep effective control on Judaea. Momentarily, Judaea was again a client kingdom of Rome, and Agrippa set out to revive the legacy of his grandfather. Although he continued to borrow and spend more than his revenue allowed, he was an able ruler from Rome’s point of view, because he spread his wealth among the neighboring cities, as well as his own land. He devoted large sums to the northern city of Berytus (modern Beirut), building a theater, amphitheater, baths, and porticoes. Agrippa also expanded the city of Jerusalem to the north by building a third wall around the overflow of buildings. The quarter was called Bezetha, or in Greek, New City. But this wall, which would have made the city nearly impregnable, aroused the suspicion of the new Roman governor of Syria, Marsus, who replaced the benevolent Petronius in 42. Agrippa had only laid the impressive foundations when Marsus persuaded Claudius to stop the new wall on the grounds that it could lead to insurrection, and as unlikely as it would seem for one who had been raised in Rome and was on intimate terms with two emperors, Josephus hints that Agrippa had some thought of revolt.77 Josephus praised Agrippa for his piety and the care by which he safeguarded the customs in Judaea. When he had returned to Jerusalem on the accession of Claudius, Agrippa offered sacrifices of thanksgiving, and the golden chain given him by Caligula he placed within the temple above the treasury. He gained the praise of the residents of Jerusalem by remitting their property taxes. Early in his reign, he intervened on behalf of the Jewish community in Dora, just north of Caesarea, but beyond his jurisdiction. Certain Greek youths provoked the Jews by erecting a statue of Claudius near the synagogue. Agrippa wrote to Petronius, who immediately ordered the leaders of Dora to remove the sacrilege and send the offenders to him for judgment. In order to strengthen his own position as king of Judaea and associate his rule with the glory days of his grandfather, Herod the Great, he replaced the high priest Theophilus son of Ananus, who had been a Roman appointment, with Simon Cantheras, son of Boethus, who was a descendant of the Simon appointed by Herod the Great to the high priesthood, as well as becoming his father-in-law. The following year, however, Agrippa appointed a member of the house of Ananus, Matthias. It was probably during the high priesthood of Matthias the son of Ananus (42–43), and perhaps at his instigation, that Agrippa intervened against the young Nazarene movement and executed one of the original twelve disciples of Jesus, James the son of Zebedee.78 During the first three decades of the Judaean Nazarenes, opposition to their leadership in Jerusalem appears to have come primarily from the priestly aristocracy associated with Ananus, a Sadducee, including Caiaphas his son-in-law, and perhaps Sadducees en bloc.79 The leading Pharisee, Gamaliel the Elder, was at least ambivalent toward them, and Paul had gotten his authority to arrest Nazarenes from the chief priests.80 The fact that some members of the Nazarenes were Pharisees, and James, the brother of Jesus, was held in high esteem by many Pharisees may have contributed to the antagonism with the Sadducees. When Agrippa found this action pleased certain influential Jews, he had Peter arrested during Passover, but before Peter could be handed over to his antagonists,

216   Vines Intertwined

he escaped prison.81 At this point Peter may have traveled to Rome to preach the gospel, and others of the Jerusalem church spread abroad in the Jewish Diaspora. Both Acts of the Apostles and Josephus tell the story of the death of Agrippa as divine judgment.82 Agrippa joined in a lavish festival in honor of Claudius Caesar, probably for his safe return in 44 from the conquest of Britain. Many of the magistrates of the territories were present.83 At daybreak Agrippa entered the theater robed in a garment of spun silver, and the rising sun’s rays sparkled upon him such that when he spoke, the audience responded, “The voice of a god, and not of a man.” Josephus says that these ministerial flatterers had not Agrippa’s interests at heart, but the king’s mistake was that he did not rebuke them for blasphemy and disavow such a pretense. According to Josephus, Agrippa saw an owl perched on a rope above him, and knowing the omen of death, he developed acute stomach pains and perished within five days. Acts says simply that an angel smote him and he was eaten by worms and died. Both agree his death was by the hand of God, because he accepted the acclamation of his deity. Others have suggested he was poisoned, but for the same reason.

11.2 Jewish Diaspora 11.2.1 Conversion of King of Adiabene The Jewish mission to Gentiles gained new success during the reign of Claudius. The ruling family of Adiabene converted to Judaism. Adiabene was a small feudal kingdom within the Parthian empire, located in northern Mesopotamia east of the Tigris.84 As Josephus tells it, King Monobazus of Adiabene had raised his favorite son, Izates, in Asia Minor to protect him from jealous siblings. While Izates dwelt there, a Jewish merchant named Ananias influenced the wives of Izates toward Judaism, and in due course, Izates himself. When the time came for him to assume the throne of Adiabene, he learned that his mother, Queen Helena, had likewise taken to the Jewish religion and had converted. Izates decided to convert, and he prepared himself for circumcision, but the queen cautioned him against it because the open worship of a god different from his subjects would undermine his rule. Izates told Ananias of his mother’s concern, and Ananias agreed with her, saying that the king, if he was devout in all other matters, could worship the God of the Jews without undergoing circumcision. God would pardon him for neglecting that obligation, and a baptism of purification, as his mother had no doubt performed, would suffice. Izates was not fully convinced, and later a Jew from Galilee who had a reputation for his strict interpretations of ancestral laws, probably a Pharisee, came and informed Izates that he must be circumcised if he wished to convert to the Jewish faith. That was the advice the king wanted to hear, and he summoned a surgeon to perform the act, informing his mother only after it was accomplished. The conversion did cause difficulties for his rule, but he survived, ever faithful. The queen mother visited Jerusalem, and when she saw the condition of the poor due to the famine (46–47), she had agents purchase grain from Egypt and dried figs from



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   217

Cyprus for distribution to the needy. Izates, his mother, and other family members built villas in Jerusalem and gave many gifts to the city. Further east, faint but visible traditions reveal the Pharisaic expansion of their teachings. Among the Jews of Babylonia, two cities served as collection points for the universal half shekel temple tax, Nisibis in the north and Nehardea in the south. There also appear to have been Torah study houses in each city prior to the destruction of the temple.

11.2.2 Pharisee Influence in Babylonia? A brief rabbinic tradition suggests a certain Judah ben Bathyra of Nisibis is the first Jewish sage of the later rabbinic persuasion known outside of Palestine.85 Judah ben Bathyra oversaw the temple tax collection in Nisibis, and the traditions ascribed to him show that he took particular interest in the sanctity of the temple in Jerusalem. For example, a Syrian Gentile boasted that he went up to Jerusalem and partook of the Jewish Passover, in defiance of the law that prohibits an uncircumcised foreigner from entering the temple courts. Judah told the man to ask for the fat-tail of his sacrifice the next time he went up, and when the Syrian did so, the priest knew he was not Jewish and executed him. They sent thanks to Judah, saying, “Peace be with you, Rabbi Judah b. Bathyra, for you are in Nisibis, and yet your net is spread in Jerusalem!” A second Jew known as Nehemiah of Bet Deli near Nehardea apparently studied with Gamaliel the Elder and then returned to Nehardea, where he promulgated his learning of the Pharisees.86 If so, Nehemiah of Bet Deli may have known of Paul of Tarsus and the Nazarenes.

11.2.3 Alexandria The city of Alexandria had harbored from its foundation an immigrant society, predominantly of Macedonians, Syrians, and Jews. After Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar, Romans added their names to the ruling class. The vast underclass that provided a labor pool were the native Egyptian fellaheen, though some Egyptians, through intermarriage or their own family wealth, joined the elite. The city had declined since the golden age of the early Ptolemies, but it remained one of the largest cities in the world, and among the most prosperous. The population of more than a million probably included 400,000 Jews, descendants of original colonists under Alexander the Great, or of slaves brought in from the Ptolemaic wars in Palestine, or refugees from the Maccabean revolt and later Hasmonean rule. Thereafter, Jewish immigrants trickled in, from Palestine and elsewhere in Egypt, drawn by the economic and intellectual glow of the city. Philo estimated there were more than a million Jews in Egypt, to which may be added a significant number who had migrated west along the coast of Africa, even as far as Spain. Under the Ptolemies, the Jews throughout Egypt were included among the Hellene immigrant and upper class. After Octavian made Egypt a Roman province, the Jews began to decline. They were no longer part of the Hellenes but were

218   Vines Intertwined

reduced to a status alongside the Egyptians. Jewish residents of Alexandria fared a little better, but they were not counted as citizens of the polis even though they were social equals to the Greeks, and a few Jews were citizens. The Jewish community formed their own recognized civic unit (politeuma), governed by their council, and were granted certain privileges that allowed them to follow their customs, such as sabbath rest from official duties or court appearances, and ritual purity of oil, for which they received a monetary sum during public distributions so they might purchase their own ritually pure oil. These sorts of privileges did not endear Jews to the Greeks or the Egyptians, and the Jews themselves admitted to a double identity, in which Egypt was the “fatherland” but Judaea was the “motherland.”87 Nevertheless, the Jewish community of Alexandria boldly trumpeted their Alexandrian heritage and their loyalty to Rome, and they put forth their most eminent members as examples of their true worth. Among the several very wealthy families in Alexandria were two brothers, Alexander Lysimachus, the Alabarch (minister of canal customs), and Philo. 11.2.3.1 Philo the Jew Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 b.c.e.–50 c.e.), often called Philo Judaeus, was the Jewish philosopher par excellence since the author of Ecclesiastes. Philo was possibly of priestly descent with Sadducean leanings, certainly wealthy, well educated, and “no novice in philosophy.”88 He represents the epitome of the cosmopolitan Jew, at home in Hellenistic culture yet proud of his Jewish heritage, and a firm believer that the God of Israel is the only true God whom all lovers of wisdom seek. He received a Greek education in the encyclia and recalled how delighted he was in the study of literature, mathematics, and music, yet he knew these were but stepping stones to the higher study of philosophy and wisdom.89 For the rest of his life he patronized the arts, music, and theater and was often found at the chariot races or other athletic contests. A prolific author, he wrote allegorical commentaries and spiritual essays on the Torah, in particular on the book of Genesis. His Greek was excellent, but his knowledge of Hebrew rudimentary at best. Like most Hellenistic Jews, he made a virtue of necessity and esteemed the Septuagint to be of equal value and authority to the original Hebrew. As a philosopher and an observant Jew, his goal was to elucidate the universal truths handed down in the Jewish Scriptures in such a way that Greeks and Romans could appreciate them and see the superiority of the Jewish way of life, defined by the Mosaic law, which, in his view, provides the best environment for the rule of God over humanity, humankind over the world, and mind over matter. Philo believed in Roman rule and again represents the vast majority of Hellenistic Jews. He grew up during the reign of Augustus and cherished the memory of that rule as the Roman ideal. He argued in his political philosophy that it served Rome well to protect the Jews on two counts. On the one hand, God watches over the Jews, and Roman rule desires the blessings of Providence; on the other hand, Rome should safeguard the Jews because of their past, present, and future loyalty to Rome. In contrast, Philo’s disdain for Egyptians occasionally escapes his otherwise



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   219

polite rhetoric. Egyptians, he says, are “a seed bed of evil in whose souls both the venom and the temper of the native crocodiles and asps were reproduced.”90 Bachelor philosophers, like Philo, preferred the quiet life of contemplation, but he could not in good conscience avoid the duties of his station in society and often found himself thrust into public life. When the Jews of Alexandria found themselves in dire straits, he answered his calling and led a Jewish delegation to Rome. It is from his accounts On the Embassy to Gaius and the riots under Flaccus in Against Flaccus, and comments by Josephus, that we gain our knowledge of these troubled times. 11.2.3.2 Apion the Greco-Egyptian Greek-speaking Egyptians had been writing pamphlets against the Jews, primarily popular fables of Jewish origins from Egypt, Jewish worship of an ass, and the folly of the sabbath rest, as early as the third century b.c.e. This venerable Egyptian pastime was taken up again by a certain Apion, son of Posidonius, and a contemporary of Philo. His name is derived from the Egyptian bull-god Apis, and he was therefore probably Greco-Egyptian. His nickname, Pleistonikes, “victor of many contests,” bespeaks his self-worth, which others described as ridiculously vain. Apion was born and raised in the El Kargeh oasis, where he studied under Didymus the Great. Early in the first century, he succeeded Theon as head of the school of Alexandria and gained popularity in Egypt and Greece by his lectures on Homer.91 He later retired in Rome and opened a school. Pliny the Elder studied with Apion for a while but came away convinced the man was a charlatan, trumpeting his own fame, a view shared by Tiberius.92 Among his works (mostly lost) he wrote a history of Egypt in five books, in which he placed much of his anti-Jewish polemic, tied to the exodus of Moses and the Israelites, and to which Josephus would later respond. Apion leveled three major calumnies against the Jews. First, Moses was an Egyptian who led a band of diseased slaves out of Egypt. Apion numbered the Jewish refugees of the exodus at 110,000 and then offers an etymological origin to the sabbath: “After six days’ march, they developed tumors in the groin, and that was why, after safely reaching the country now called Judaea, they rested on the seventh day, and called that day sabbaton, preserving the Egyptian terminology; for the disease of the groin in Egypt is called sabbato (or sabbatosis).” To this, Josephus does not know whether one should laugh or be offended. Second, Alexandrian Jews were former Syrians who weaseled their way into the city and should not have any kind of citizenship in Alexandria because they do not worship the gods of Alexandria. Josephus responds with a detailed account of the inauguration of the Jewish community and the Delta quarter in the city under Alexander and the Ptolemies. Third, Apion repeats the widespread tale that Jews worship the head of an ass, with a golden replica concealed in the Holy of Holies. He also accused the Jews of misanthropy; specifically, every year they kidnap a Greek boy, fatten him up, then take him into the woods where they slay him, and eat his flesh. Before burying the remains, they swear an eternal oath of hostility to all Greeks. Josephus easily

220   Vines Intertwined

dismisses these hideous claims, for in each case, Apion claims it was King Antiochus Epiphanes who made the discovery, and had the rumors been true, the king would have rightly exposed them, but there is not a trace of them in the records.93 Apion’s opposition to the Jewish community in Alexandria, however, brought him sufficient notoriety that he was appointed head of the Greek delegation to counter the Jews during the embassy before Gaius Caligula. 11.2.3.3 Strife in Alexandria During the brief reign of Caligula, the Jews of Alexandria suffered the greatest pogrom in their history to that point, if pogrom is the right word for such a humiliation and destruction directed out of sheer hatred of them.94 There had been riots and persecutions against Jews in the Diaspora before, but if we may believe the first-person narrative of it from Philo in his book entitled Against Flaccus, nothing on this scale. Ever since the rise of Egyptian nationalism under Ptolemy III after the battle of Raphia (217 b.c.e.), in which 30,000 Egyptians fought, an undercurrent of native resentment at foreign rule simmered beneath the surface of society, threatening anarchy and mob rule. The Jewish community was a convenient target of Egyptian animosity because they were the most standoffishly foreign and less powerful than the Macedonians. The Roman governor of Egypt, Aulus Avillius Flaccus, had supported Gemellus, a rival of Caligula to succeed Tiberius, and upon the succession of Caligula and the subsequent death of Gemellus, he sought the support of prominent Alexandrians to intercede with Caligula on his behalf. The cost of their support, however, was that Flaccus sanction their plot to take away the political protection of the Jews in the city. Agrippa had returned to Palestine by way of Alexandria and paraded his new status for the Jewish community surrounded by a golden armored bodyguard and much pomp. Egyptians accused the Jews of a greater loyalty to this “foreign ruler” than to Rome. To the delight of the offended Egyptians, a few enterprising youths grabbed an imbecile named Carabas who went around the city naked, thrust him onto a stage in the gymnasium, and clothed him in a carpet, with a shaft of papyrus for a scepter. They stood round their king with rods on their shoulders as a bodyguard and proceeded to mock the presence of Agrippa by hailing this poor soul as “Marin,” that is, “lord” in Aramaic. When Flaccus did nothing to prevent this insult to a foreign ruler, the crowd grew bolder and ransacked the synagogues and set up images of the emperor. Flaccus responded to the Jewish protest by denouncing them as foreigners and aliens who, therefore, did not enjoy the status of Alexandrian citizenship. This illegal action emboldened the Egyptians still further, and they evicted Jews from the three districts of the city where they were in the minority and plundered their homes. Some families hiding in fear were burned alive; others were dragged through the streets of the city until dead and partially dismembered. Soon the Delta quarter was choking with Jewish refugees. Flaccus arrested 38 elders of the Jewish council and publically paraded them in shackles through the market. The greatest disgrace came when they were arrayed in the theater and flogged, and



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   221

several old men expired from the flogging. The mob seized women in the marketplace and theater, brought swine’s flesh, and ordered the women to place it in their mouths. Those who did were let go, but those who refused where handed over to gangs who abused and violated them. Many esteemed Greek citizens called for justice over the blatant illegality of the riot. Within a year Flaccus was arrested and exiled, though whether for his complicity in the riots or as an imagined threat to the emperor, the Jews of Alexandria could not say. But they realized that they must renew their protection of law, and they requested permission from the new prefect, Vitrasius Pollio, to send a delegation to appeal their case before Caesar. The venerable Philo agreed to lead the delegation, and he wrote about the experience in On the Embassy to Gaius. The Jewish delegation was forced to make their appeal to the emperor in a villa outside Rome while Caligula instructed his troop of decorators on the remodeling changes he desired. Also present was a delegation of the anti-Jewish Alexandrians, including the notorious Apion. The emperor joined in ridicule of the customs of Jews, asking why they did not eat the flesh of swine. The Jewish delegation responded that different nations have different taboos, Jews as well as Egyptians. The Alexandrians jibed, “Yes, just as many don’t eat lamb which is so easily obtainable,” and Caligula laughed, “Quite right too, for it’s not nice.” Such puerility was both customary and bearable, but when Caligula stretched out his hairy arms to heaven and uttered a blasphemy, probably an attempt to pronounce the divine name Yahweh, such as “Eyaaaoooeh” found in Greek magical inscriptions, the delegation was rendered defenseless, for he then required them to acknowledge his divinity as an expression of their loyalty to Rome.95 They protested that they demonstrated their loyalty by offering up daily sacrifices on his behalf in the Jerusalem temple. He replied, “All right, that is true, you have sacrificed, but to another [god], even if it was for me; what good is it then? For you have not sacrificed to me.” Caligula dismissed the speechless Jews, declaring them less seditious than foolish, in that they refused to acknowledge him as a god. Josephus says that Caligula reacted to the Jewish impertinence by ordering the legate of Syria, Petronius, to commission the giant statue of Zeus with his own likeness and to place it in the temple of Jerusalem. Philo claims the action was a response to an incident in Jamnia, in which Jews destroyed an altar to the emperor. Both agree that Petronius realized the impossibility of such an action and delayed its prosecution as long as he could. While the artisans fashioned the statute, he attempted to negotiate some sort of compromise with the leaders of Jerusalem, but the multitude gathered and bared their necks, preferring death to desecration of the divine Name. Agrippa I, not unmindful of the disaster that awaited Judaea, prevailed upon his friendship with Caligula by writing a lengthy letter to the emperor, appealing to his noble ancestry and the reality that if the decision were carried through by force, a revolt would result and he, Agrippa, would have no kingdom left to rule. Caligula gave in and instructed Petronius to abandon the project. Shortly after Caligula had sent his directive to Petronius, he received the letter of Petronius asking him to reverse his order concerning the statue. Caligula flew into a rage and sent another missive instructing Petronius to commit suicide

222   Vines Intertwined

for his impertinence. But the messengers were delayed by the winter weather, and on January 24, 41, soldiers assassinated Caligula. Word of the emperor’s death reached Petronius early in March. The missive of Caligula commanding him commit suicide arrived in April. Petronius ignored it. The riot in Alexandria, and the imperial attempt to erect a statue in the Jewish temple, may have emboldened some Gentiles in Antioch to vent their anger over a dispute between the chariot race factions, Greens and Blues, in the amphitheater, at which Petronius was present. After the Blues chanted, “Time raises up and casts down: the Greens are lechers,” a riot ensued in which Hellenes killed many Jews and burned their synagogues. Our only source, the chronographer John Malalas, also recounts the impossible retaliation of some 30,000 Jews from Tiberias against the men of Antioch under the leadership of a priest, but it is entirely possible that Jews of Syria and Palestine did retaliate.96 It is noteworthy that latent anti-Jewish sentiments, such as there were, tended to erupt during the reigns of kings and emperors who openly expressed their own hatred of the Jews. The incident also reveals the civic involvement of Jews in the major cities, including circus factions, and their tenacious insistence to defend themselves, to retaliate, and to seek justice from the emperor. In the end, the leaders of the Hellenes were tried and executed.

11.2.4 Jews under Claudius Although Roman historians did not recall Claudius in a respectable light, the Jews of the Empire welcomed his accession to the throne because they believed anyone would be better than Caligula. Claudius settled affairs for the recovering Jewish community in Alexandria and issued an edict safeguarding the rights of Jews throughout the empire to “observe the customs of their fathers without let or hindrance.” But he also noted that the Jews should not “intrude themselves into the games presided over by the gymnasiarchoi and the kosmetai (gymnasia officials) since they enjoyed what is their own, and in a city which is not their own they possess an abundance of all good things.”97 Despite the long residence of Jews in Alexandria, Claudius annulled previous privileges of Jews who entered the gymnasia to prepare for full Alexandrian citizenship. This was a crushing blow to the higher ranks of the Jewish community, led by the venerable Philo, who wished to integrate themselves into Alexandrian life, and marked the start of the decline of the Jews in Egypt. The untimely death of Agrippa placed the rule of Judaea back in the lap of Claudius. He thought to appoint Agrippa’s son, Agrippa II, king in his father’s stead, but councilors advised against it until the son, still a youth of 17, should prove the worth of the father. Judaea reverted to an imperial province, and in keeping with his reorganization of his administration, Claudius sent Cuspius Fadus, a procurator (in place of the former prefects), with greater financial responsibilities to administer Caesar’s properties. In due course, after the death of Herod, king of Chalcis in 48, Claudius elevated Agrippa II to that throne, but Agrippa II remained in Rome for 2 more years.



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   223

Cuspius Fadus (ca. 44–46) put down a minor border dispute between Jews of Peraea and the Greeks of Philadelphia in the eastern highlands, and he executed the brigands of a small village. He also impounded the vestments of the high priest, placing them in the Antonia under Roman control, as they had formerly been. The Jerusalem leaders immediately petitioned Caesar to have them returned, and Claudius, upon the urging of Agrippa II, did so. During his administration, a selfproclaimed prophet called Theudas persuaded a considerable throng to follow him to the Jordan River, where he would part the river, as had been done by Joshua, and lead them across. What else Theudas intended we are not told, but Fadus gave him no time, and after killing many of the followers, captured Theudas and brought his decapitated head to Jerusalem. Around 46, Claudius sent Tiberius Alexander, a member of the most illustrious family of the Jewish Alexandrian aristocracy, to administer Judaea. His father, the very wealthy Alexander the Alabarch, had funded Herod’s gold plating in the temple. His uncle was the philosopher Philo of Alexandria.98 Unlike his father and uncle, however, Tiberius Alexander had determined that in order to rise in the ranks of the Roman military, as a number of Alexandrian Jews had done in the past under the Ptolemies, he would have to shed some particulars of his Jewishness; for Josephus says he did not observe the customs of his people, which probably meant ignoring the dietary regulations.99 Josephus records two difficulties Tiberius Alexander faced while he governed Judaea. A famine swept Egypt and Greater Palestine (46–47) and brought great hardship to the poor. There was no doubt a rise in brigandage, for at this time the two sons of the rebel Judas the Galilean, James and Simon, were captured, and he ordered them to be crucified.100 Under Nero, Tiberius Alexander would advance to become prefect of Egypt, and in due course, a key player in the rise of Vespasian to the imperial throne. Law and order began to go astray under the next procurator, Ventidius Cumanus (ca. 48–52).101 At the Feast of Passover, Roman soldiers were stationed on the portico roofs around the temple to maintain order. One soldier made an obscene gesture to the pilgrim crowd, either to expose his genitals, or according to a different account, he turned his backside, lifted his tunic, stooped, and blew a noise in keeping with his posture.102 Angry cries of “blasphemy” followed, and when they demanded action from Cumanus, he attempted to dismiss the insult as a minor affair, demonstrating his ignorance of the province he governed. The crowds then hurled abuses at Cumanus. He responded by summoning his entire force in the Antonia fortress. The crowd panicked, and in their attempt to flee through the gates, thousands were crushed to death.103 Soon after, an important slave of Caesar was robbed by brigands while traveling on the public road leading to Bethhoron. Cumanus ordered soldiers to ransack the nearby villages in search of the stolen goods, and while carrying out the raids, one soldier found a Torah scroll. He brought it out and tore it in two while uttering a string of blasphemies. A mass delegation appealed to Cumanus, and this time he avoided another riot by having the soldier beheaded. A third incident became so serious it required the intervention of the governor of Syria, and eventually the emperor himself. Samaritans attacked a contingent of

224   Vines Intertwined

Galilean pilgrims passing through Samaria on the way to Jerusalem for a festival. Samaritans then bribed Cumanus so that he brought no one to justice. A band of Galileans, led by a well-known mountain brigand, Eleazar son of Deinaeus, burned down Samaritan villages and slaughtered the villagers in revenge. Cumanus intervened at this point but in a manner that nearly led to war. He led the Roman cohort called the Sebastenes and armed Samaritans out against the Jews, killing and capturing many. At this point the leaders in Jerusalem put on sackcloth and ashes in hopes of calming the Galileans. They managed to prevent further retaliation by the Galileans, but from that point on, Josephus tells us, the whole of Judaea was infested with brigands. Meanwhile, delegations from the Samaritans and the Jews reached Quadratus, the governor of Syria, and he quickly realized the reputation of Roman rule was at stake. After his own investigation in Palestine, he executed leading rebels on both sides and sent Cumanus, his tribune Celer, and leaders of the Samaritans and Jews, including the high priest Ananias, to Caesar for judgment. In Rome, Agrippa II, still residing in the house of Claudius, prevailed on the empress Agrippina to ensure that the emperor gave the Jewish delegation a fair hearing. In the end, Claudius executed three leading Samaritans and exiled Cumanus. As for the tribune Celer, who had been responsible for the troops in Jerusalem, Claudius ordered him to be returned to Jerusalem, where he was to be dragged around the city in a public spectacle and then executed, thus repairing the original lewd insult in the temple. In place of Cumanus, Claudius took the unprecedented step of appointing a freedman, Felix, as procurator of Judaea. This came at the request of a chief priest, Jonathan, but it turned out to have been another poor choice on the part of the emperor in governing his eastern front, though he did not live to see the full truth of it.

11.3 “Christian” Apostolic Era In this generation the Nazarene movement expanded from Jerusalem to establish colonies in the major urban centers of the eastern Roman Empire, as well as Rome itself. There were numerous house churches in Judaea, and one community of Galileans formed a church at the home of Peter in Capernaum and likely planted others in the Galilee, although there is little archaeological evidence for the spread of Nazarenes during the first century because they all gathered in homes indistinguishable from those of their neighbors. We know of Nazarenes as far as Damascus within the first 2 years after Jesus, and they spread to Antioch soon after. We must also suppose that the movement, along with early variations of belief, spread to Alexandria and Rome within the first decade, so that during the apostolic era, the nascent Christianity laid roots in the major cities of the eastern Mediterranean lands. The message, euangelion (“good news”), or gospel, as it was soon called, adapted to accommodate the many God-fearers and any Gentiles drawn to the movement. In this case, Paul seems to have been the chief architect of the good news that departed Jerusalem for the ends of the earth. The “beloved of God in Rome,” as Paul called them during the first decades of their existence, were hardly distinct from the many Jewish communities, some



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   225

of whom banded together according to their own immigrant origins.104 Claudius, Suetonius tells us, made some effort to cleanse Rome of the nefarious sects and ethnic associations and took specific action against the Jews. “Since the Jews constantly made disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.” This incident cannot be precisely dated, though it likely occurred either in 41 (Dio), or later in 49 (Orosius).105 Nor is it clear to whom this Chrestus refers. While it is conceivable that a Jew named Chrestus was stirring up the Jewish community during the reign of Claudius, it has generally been judged more likely that “the instigation of Chrestus” refers to Jews preaching about Jesus Christ, a kind of disturbance for which a great deal of evidence can be marshaled. Luke probably has the incident in mind when he speaks of the “Jew named Aquila, a native of Pontus, who had recently come from Italy with his wife Priscilla, because Claudius had ordered all Jews to leave Rome.”106 The bulk of the evidence supports the later date of 49, though it is not impossible that Claudius twice took action against the Jews of Rome. The significance of the event, however, is that followers of Christ at this time saw themselves, and were so seen by others, as members of the Jewish community, and the expulsion may have been a formative moment in the awareness of a distinction between themselves and the Jewish communities.107 Meanwhile, the congregation in Jerusalem remained the mother church, with all the prestige that came from the eternal city, and it ministered to a number of smaller congregations throughout Judaea. Although hindsight looks back at the early days as a beginning of the Christian church, at the time it was merely a continuation of a community of like-minded Jewish believers. The people of the Way met together and organized themselves as a synagogue, the form of community they knew. At some point, quite early on, they chose the term ekklēsia rather than synagogue to identify their association, apparently in order to distinguish their congregation from the standard Jewish community meetings in Judaea and the Diaspora, and because the Greek ekklēsia was the standard Septuagint translation of the Hebrew qahal (“to call out”). The ekklēsia was called out to assemble distinctly.108 James, the brother of Jesus, led the Jerusalem church, but alongside were two of the original disciples, Simon Peter (Aramaic, Cephas), and John b. Zebedee, who, along with his brother James, Jesus had nicknamed Sons of Thunder. We know very little of these leaders, except that they were carrying on a mission to Judaea that brought them into serious conflict with influential Jews, former companions of Paul and others, so that a prominent member, James b. Zebedee, was executed on authority of King Agrippa I around 43.109 Their mission was one of life and death, and this factor looms large in the relations between the Jerusalem leaders and the supporters of Paul.

11.3.1 Paul of Tarsus: Missionary to the Gentiles Paul says that after joining the Nazarenes he spent 3 years preaching in the Arabian area south of Damascus. Only then did he finally come up to Jerusalem, where he met with the Nazarene leaders, Peter and James, the brother of Jesus. The

226   Vines Intertwined

churches of Judaea rejoiced at this news.110 By conventional reckoning, this took place around 37. Thereafter, he went to the regions of Syria and Cilicia, where he continued to preach his gospel. Paul spent the next decade or so as an itinerant preacher, traveling through Galatia, western Asia Minor, Macedonia, and Greece. He met growing opposition along the way, but this only hardened his resolve. It is impossible to know how much of Paul’s gospel he received in one fell swoop of revelation and how much he developed it over the early years.111 He admits to accepting a basic tradition handed down to him from the first witnesses: For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.112

On the other hand, Paul insists that he was given a mission to the Gentiles at the time the risen Jesus was revealed to him.113 Therefore, from the start he proclaimed a gospel that brought the Gentiles into the covenant people of God, and his thoughts about it (his theology) sought the rationale for a means by which this was to be accomplished. There is no doubt that Paul relied on Stocism to serve as a bridge between his Jewish gospel and the Greek philosophy of life and the Deity, such as Acts 17 portrays him in Athens, arguing with philosophers about their altar to an unknown god.114 A question that arose very early was the relationship of the covenant law to the participation of Gentiles in the new covenant. To this Paul devoted his mental labor. He drew up a theology that facilitated the entrance of Gentiles into the new covenant and further explained the significance of the death of Jesus. Essentially, the death of Jesus was God’s ultimate sacrifice for the forgiveness of human sin, and all that is required to obtain forgiveness and reconciliation with God is faith in God’s act of reconciliation through the mediation of Jesus. The sign of this new faith was baptism into the new life in Jesus Christ. The dilemma of Gentile inclusion into the Jewish covenant was encapsulated by Luke in the person of the apostle Peter. While dozing one afternoon on the rooftop of a house in Joppa, Peter dreamed he saw a sheet descending from heaven filled with all manner of forbidden foods. A voice commanded him to eat, but Peter bravely refused because he had never eaten any unclean thing. The voice said, “What God has cleansed, you must not call common.”115 Peter was then invited to the house of a Roman centurion, Cornelius, who was already a God-fearer and wished to hear the gospel. Peter realized from his dream that God no longer showed partiality between Jews and Gentiles, and while he was delivering the gospel message, the Holy Spirit fell on all the Gentiles who listened. Jewish believers who came with Peter were amazed but agreed with Peter that Cornelius and his household should be baptized and accepted as they were into the community of believers. The question remained, however, whether confession and baptism were sufficient, or was circumcision yet required.



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   227

11.3.2 Incident at Antioch The conflict came to a head at Antioch.116 Although the chronology is obscure, and therefore disputed, it was during the time of Claudius, in the early 40s, that Jewish believers from Cyprus and Cyrene came to Antioch in Syria and began preaching that Jesus is Lord and Messiah to Gentiles. Antioch of Syria had long considered itself the capital of the East and was probably the third largest city of the Roman Empire, after Alexandria and Rome. By now the Jewish community, buttressed by a substantial number of proselytes, constituted a significant force within the city, numbering perhaps 30,000 to 50,000.117 Many Gentiles, including God-fearers and full proselytes to Judaism, accepted the new form of Judaism. At this point in his narrative, Luke recalls that in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians, though we should not assume it occurred at this precise time (ca. 44–45), since it is the city, not the time, that summons Luke’s remark.118 The name Christian remained a slanderous epithet well into the next century and testifies to the problem of distinguishing followers of Jesus from the other Jews in Antioch. When the church in Jerusalem heard of the expansion of the movement to Gentiles, they sent Barnabas, a Levite from Cyprus who had joined the Nazarenes, to observe. He was encouraged by it and brought Paul from Tarsus, whose task was to help guide the Gentiles in Antioch. Paul and Barnabas remained with them for a year, and the Gentile church flourished. Paul’s gospel had remained largely unknown to the church in Jerusalem, but it soon came to their attention after he joined the mission in Antioch. The believers from Cyprus and Cyrene likely baptized their converts and then subjected them to circumcision and Torah. Paul argued that Gentiles should not be subject to either because they were accepted by God on their profession of faith in Jesus. For Paul, the Gentile church of God was just that group who had long been predicted and envisioned in the completion of God’s providence. Paul believed the new covenant accepted Gentiles as is, with no further requirements. Baptism was their sign of admission, the counterpart of Jewish circumcision: one covenant, one people. For most of the Jewish believers, this was too radical a notion of the covenant to accept. At this point, if not earlier, opposition among the Nazarenes began. Paul felt he needed to settle the matter with Jerusalem. After 14 years of mission work, he thought he might have been preaching in vain, and he sought the approval of the leaders in the mother church. The journey may have been facilitated by an offering from the church of Antioch to Jerusalem for famine relief, placing it around 47, when Queen Helena was also providing for the poor in Jerusalem.119 Paul and Barnabas met privately with James, Peter, and John, the pillars of the Jerusalem congregation. Paul explained the gospel he preached to the Gentiles, that they should not require circumcision, and he used Abraham as the archetype, who was reckoned by God as righteous before he was circumcised. As a test case, Paul brought with him Titus, a Gentile believer, and although some members of the congregation (whom Paul calls “false brothers”) argued he must be circumcised to enter their fellowship, the leaders did not require Titus to be circumcised. The

228   Vines Intertwined

Jerusalem pillars, James, Peter, and John, extended the right hand of fellowship to Paul and sent him on his way. Paul would take the gospel to the “uncircumcised” (Gentiles), and Peter would take the gospel to the “circumcised” (Jews). The matter, however, was not settled. The two ways of looking at Gentiles came to a head over table fellowship in the incident at Antioch. Because table fellowship (including, but not limited to the Lord’s Supper) was the supreme act of unity and of a common identity, Paul insisted that Jewish believers eat together with “uncircumcised” Gentile believers. After Paul and Barnabas returned to Antioch from a mission to Cyprus and Asia Minor (Acts 13–14), Peter paid an important visit to the city. He initially shared table fellowship with the Gentile believers according to Paul’s understanding of their previous agreement: when among the mission to the Gentiles, accept them as brethren. But then a delegation sent by James from Jerusalem arrived to monitor the Gentile church, and they denounced the breach of Mosaic law. Peter gave in to the pressure of the delegation and withdrew his support of common table fellowship. It is not clear whether the delegation pushed the views of James or their own, but it was likely the authority of James, the leading pillar, that caused Peter, himself a pillar, to back away. The Jewish believers followed suit and separated themselves from the Gentiles. Even Barnabas withdrew from the previous fellowship. This raised the ire and fury of Paul. He publically accused Peter of being a hypocrite. “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”120 Peter’s humiliation went down poorly among the Jerusalem members, as well as among the Jewish believers in Antioch. The “right hand of fellowship” had been shattered. Soon, more Jewish believers from Jerusalem came to Antioch, teaching at the very least that circumcision according to the custom of Moses was a requirement for fellowship with the mother church in Jerusalem, and perhaps even that salvation depended on circumcision; in other words, there was no salvation outside of traditional Israel. Their teachings made an impact and spread from the Gentile mother congregation in Antioch to the Gentile congregations in Galatia. Shortly thereafter, Paul wrote the animated defense of his gospel to the congregations in Galatia. (According to this scenario, the Epistle to the Galatians is Paul’s first letter.) For Paul, believers in the Way were not to be distinguished between Jew or Greek, slave or free, male or female, for they were all one in Christ.121 Throughout the incident, according to Paul’s account, the position of James and the Jerusalem church remains in the background. It is probable that James and his elders were under considerable political pressure in Jerusalem to demonstrate control over the Jesus movement within their jurisdiction.122 It is possible, as has been suggested, that James accepted a prevalent understanding among Jews, at least among certain conservative circles, that the ideal land of Israel extended beyond Damascus, even to the river Euphrates, therefore including Antioch of Syria.123 If so, or even if Antioch is merely the gateway to the Diaspora, from a conservative point of view the restrictions on Jewish mingling with Gentiles may have applied. James directed his oversight to Jews in Antioch, not to Gentiles, over which he had no particular concern. The second wave of Jewish believers from Jerusalem who insisted on circumcision of Gentile believers in Antioch did not come from



A Troubled Diaspora for Jews and Jewish Believers   229

James, so that the disagreement between Paul and James was probably less than is often assumed, and the point of disagreement was more about the application of halakhah on Jews than theology of the new Jesus movement. James was following the directive of his elder brother, who was sent to the “lost sheep of the house of Israel” and his own mission to the “twelve tribes in the Dispersion.”124 Paul’s mission to the Gentiles became the lodestone of the entire conflict over the inclusion of Gentiles into the covenant of God. The circumcision party of Jerusalem, Pharisees within the congregation, insisted Gentiles must “be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.” Paul again went up to Jerusalem to meet with the leaders of the church.125 The arguments on each side were both sound and passionate. On the one hand, the new covenant was a renewal of God’s covenant, built upon the covenant with Moses, and even in Jeremiah’s prophecy of the new covenant, God had stated that “I will put my law (Torah) in their hearts.” The Torah of God was well known. On the other hand, God was accepting Gentiles into the covenant as they were, and all agreed that entrance of Gentiles was made possible by the death of Jesus. Paul insisted that Gentiles were no longer under any obligation to the covenant laws of Moses because the age of the Messiah had come. At this point, James, most likely acting as mediator, handed down his decision to permit Gentiles into the covenant according to the gospel of Paul, but they should observe the laws against eating blood, idolatry, and sexual immorality. James also admitted that members of the Jerusalem church had caused trouble for the believers in Antioch without his permission, and therefore, a letter announcing his decision was sent to the congregations in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia. James, however, did not send the letter by Paul and Barnabas but by members in good standing with the mother congregation in Jerusalem, Barsabbas and Silas. The Jerusalem church, or a significant group of its leaders, expected the Jesus movement to remain as two distinct groups, Jews and Gentiles, equal in God’s grace but separate in practice, including table fellowship, each abiding by their own laws of the covenant. There was a model ready at hand, those Gentile God-fearers who associated with Jews throughout the Diaspora but did not fully convert to Judaism. And it is quite likely that Jerusalem Pharisees would have criticized the social practices of Hellenistic Jews across the Diaspora for similar reasons. Whether James and Paul ever were fully reconciled is unknown, but it seems unlikely. Jews had long been wrestling with the inclusion of Gentiles into the mercy of God and as with the conversion of Izates, some said circumcision was required, others said not. At this stage, Gentiles who became God-fearers (monotheists) were welcomed into the Court of Gentiles of the temple and would receive salvation as such. Philo likewise says of such uncircumcised believers in the God of Israel that their kinship with Jews is in many respects deeper than blood kinship, and as proof of their righteous standing, he notes that Israel itself was uncircumcised in Egypt and in the wilderness, yet they received the salvation of God.126 But acceptance by God did not make them Jews, merely righteous Gentiles. Paul also accepted, or conceived by himself, the belief that the resurrection of Jesus had inaugurated the great resurrection of the last days, predicted by Daniel. He was still a young believer, vigorously developing his mission, when Caligula

230   Vines Intertwined

attempted to set up his statue in Jerusalem and force the Jews to recognize that he was God. This threat surely sharpened the focus of his eschatological expectations, when “the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming himself to be God.”127 These were heady times, and it was probably during this decade that Paul had additional visions, including the memorable one in which he was caught up into heaven, whether in the body or out of the body, he could not say, and there he heard things for his own sake, which he was not permitted to reveal to anyone else.128 Paul also believed that God had given him a “thorn in the flesh,” some infirmity, perhaps the irony of poor sight, just to prevent him from pride in the many visions granted by God.

Chapter 12

The Great War (54–70 c.e.) 12.1 Rome 12.1.1 Nero Shortly after Claudius stopped breathing, the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, Sextus Afranius Burrus, marched to the senate and proclaimed Nero emperor. The senate had little choice than to confer the imperial powers upon him. And they promptly deified Claudius, thus enhancing the position of his successor. The caustic Spaniard, Seneca, lampooned the senate’s apotheosis of the dead emperor in the satire Apocolocyntosis divi Claudii, “The Pumpkinification of the Divine Claudius” (or, as others have rendered the Latin, “The Apotheosis of Claudius the Gourd”). The first 5 years of Nero’s reign were judged by ancient historians as excellent, the Golden Age, partly because Nero left the decisions of rule to Seneca and the prefect of the Praetorian Guard, Sextus Afranius Burrus. Nero corrected areas of bureaucratic corruption that had crept into the administration of Claudius, reduced the influence of freedmen, and paid greater respect to the authority of the senate. He sent the experienced general Corbulo to repair the Roman reputation in Armenia, but it took Corbulo 4 years to whip the eastern army into shape. In 58, he invaded Armenia but found it impossible to sustain the Roman client king Tigranes (V) on the Armenian throne. Parthia engaged Rome in a series of skirmishes and the Armenian problem was not resolved until 66, when it was agreed that the Parthian candidate for the throne of Armenia, Tiridates, brother of Vologeses I, would receive his crown as a vassal of Rome.129 Nero trumpeted the event as a great military victory. After Nero grew accustomed to his august position, he found the interference of his mother, Agrippina, more tiresome. When she suggested his half-brother would make a better emperor, Britannicus was soon found poisoned. When Nero, unhappily married to his mother’s choice of Octavia, fell in love with Poppea Sabina, the wife of Otho, one of his generals, the general and his wife obliged the emperor’s desires, but his mother pestered him over the affair. Nero decided his mother’s counsel was no longer useful, and he had Agrippina murdered in 59. The matricide was roundly condemned, and according to Tacitus, marked the decline of his rule. The revolt of Britain under Queen Boudicca cost Nero a good deal of prestige. According to Tacitus, it all began with the folly of the Roman commanders. The

232   Vines Intertwined

client king Prasutagus of the Iceni tribe died in 60, and without a male heir, he left his wealth to his daughters and Nero, expecting Roman protection for his family. When the Roman governor annexed his kingdom, soldiers plundered his house while slaves raped his daughters, and his queen, Boudicca, was imprisoned. The Icenian chiefs were also deprived of their estates. Boudicca led her tribe and others in a revolt against the Romans. Initially the tribes defeated the Romans and plundered villages and towns, including the abandoned Londinium (London). Roman and provincial deaths were said to be 70,000. But in a final, pitched battle, the British natives were defeated, losing nearly 80,000 according to one report. Boudicca ended her life by poison. With the death of the Praetorian prefect Burrus in 62, Seneca felt he had no more influence with Nero and begged leave of the emperor to retire. Leave was not granted, and thereafter Seneca’s own position was tenuous. The new Praetorian prefect, Tigellinus, encouraged Nero to begin removing his enemies, both imagined and real. The innocent empress Octavia was among the first to go. Nero divorced her for barrenness, then banished her on a fabricated charge of adultery, and finally he had her severed head delivered. Thereafter, Poppea Sabina became empress. The following year Nero added a preoccupation with strange religious cults, all of which were denounced by the people of Rome. His control of the affairs of state and his personal esteem deteriorated steadily, and disaffection spread throughout the empire. In 64, a fire broke out in Rome, destroying much of the densely populated city. Although Nero was absent, he was accused of having started the fire (and playing his lyre while it burned), in order to advance his own rebuilding scheme. Nero, says Tacitus, sought to distract the angry crowds and seized upon the growing sect of Christians as scapegoats. First, Nero had self-acknowledged Christians arrested. Then, on their information, large numbers of others were condemned—not so much for incendiarism as for their anti-social tendencies (odio humani generis). Their deaths were made farcical. Dressed in wild animal’s skins, they were torn to pieces by dogs, or crucified, or made into torches to be ignited after dark as substitutes for daylight. Nero provided his Gardens for the spectacle, and exhibited displays in the Circus, at which he mingled with the crowds—or stood in a chariot, dressed as a charioteer.130

Having transferred his guilt to the scapegoats, Nero made great efforts to provide shelter and food for the many homeless citizens of Rome. When the charred debris had been removed, he launched an ambitious rebuilding program. Cities of the empire were encouraged to contribute. He replaced the winding, crowded passageways with broad avenues, parks, and his famous Golden House, a complex that, had he lived to complete it, would have taken up a third of the city. Nero grew ever more preoccupied with his own pleasures and art. A lifelong philhellene, he introduced to high society his love for the arts—which the Greeks preferred over bloody gladiatorial games—and established in 60 the first public games after the Greek system, with contests in poetry, oratory, lyre, and song. He had wished to compete himself, but high society deemed artistic performance



The Great War   233

beneath their dignity, and his entourage dissuaded him. At the second games in 65, Nero did participate and earned the enduring reputation of a bore among the upper class, but his performances were wildly popular among the masses. Poppea Sabina died in 65, and Nero lost the child in her womb. Both Tacitus and Suetonius report that Nero, in a fit of anger, kicked her to death.131 In his grief, Nero embalmed his queen with spices and deified the lost infant. That same year, a number of leading senators and equestrians formed a conspiracy to replace Nero with the respected and wealthy Calpurnius Piso. The plot was betrayed, and Piso, rather than draw the conspirators together to oppose Nero, committed suicide. Nero was reportedly shocked at the numbers who opposed him, but in the end, only 18 of them were executed. Others were soon suspected of compliance, among them Seneca, who was ordered to commit suicide, and did so. The following year, Nero embarked on a tour of Greece, where the audiences appeared to appreciate his artistic talents.

12.1.2 Judaea before the War The governor of Judaea, Antonius Felix, remained in office during the early years of Nero. Felix, a former slave, is remembered for his servile nature and poor administration of Judaea. Struck by the beauty of Drusilla, a sister of Agrippa II, he succeeded in making her his wife, and did so without being circumcised, though Drusilla had required it of her previous royal husband, Azizus king of Emesa. In this, says Josephus, Drusilla transgressed ancestral laws, and it did not endear Felix to the zealous or the masses.132 Felix also ordered the assassination of a former high priest Jonathan, who had initially favored the appointment of Felix but had since withdrawn his support because of the governor’s maladministration.133 A trusted friend of Jonathan employed Jewish brigands to approach the chief priest during worship with daggers concealed and kill him. The deed went unpunished, and thereafter a grassroots anarchy blanketed the land, as men began to kill for vengeance or for hire, even in the temple. Thus was born a new species of banditti, the sicarii, so named for the short curved dagger (sicae) carried under the cloak, which penetrated beneath the ribs and went swiftly to the heart.134 Amid the general disaffection with Roman rule, a variety of prophets appeared, calling the masses to follow them into the desert, where they would see signs and marvels. Felix dealt harshly with them, but one prophet from Egypt gathered a throng 30,000 strong, according to Josephus, but a more realistic 4000 according to Acts, and led them on a meandering march through the desert toward the Mount of Olives, where he predicted the walls of Jerusalem would collapse and that he would overcome the Roman solders and set himself up as tyrant in Jerusalem. Felix met them with heavy infantry and slaughtered many, though the Egyptian escaped. A battle broke out in Caesarea between the Jewish and Syrian residents, each claiming more original rights to determine how the city should be governed. Although Herod the Great had built the city, its earlier town called Strato’s Tower

234   Vines Intertwined

had been a Syrian trading port, and the initial population of Herod’s Caesarea was exclusively Gentile. Daily skirmishes increased between the Jews and Syrians until the soldiers of Felix fell upon the Jews, who were gaining the advantage, and killed many. Then Felix directed each side to send an embassy to Nero for a decision.135 By 59 or 60, a new procurator, Porcius Festus, was sent to Judaea. Festus is most famous for his review of the case against a prisoner named Paul, who had come to trial under Felix, but the event would scarcely have been remembered by the beleaguered procurator. Festus inherited the mess left by Felix, which Josephus describes as a land full of bandits, the “principal plague of the country.” Festus captured and executed scores, if not hundreds, of such anarchists. Agrippa added to the problems of Festus by constructing a new dining room to his palace from which he could observe the priestly rituals in the temple. The priests responded by building a wall to prevent the royal peeper, and Festus ordered them to tear down the wall. They brought their case before Festus, and in the end, he agreed to let them appeal to Nero. When they had done so, the emperor, no doubt influenced by his wife Poppea, a devotee of Judaism, let the wall stand. Festus died while in office in 62, and Nero sent Albinus (62–64) to replace him. Josephus says the recently appointed high priest, Ananus (II) the son of Ananus (I), also a member of the Sadducees, took advantage of the brief absence of a Roman governor to bring James, the brother of Jesus, among others, to trial on charges of transgressing the law. The council found them guilty, and they were executed by stoning.136 A later tradition says James was pushed off the pinnacle of the temple, then stoned, and finally killed by a fuller’s club.137 After his martyrdom, a number of Jerusalem inhabitants, “strict in the observance of the law,” probably Pharisees, urged King Agrippa to intervene, while others informed the new procurator, Albinus, of the illegal executions of the council. Albinus threatened vengeance on him, and Agrippa deposed Ananus, replacing him with Jesus son of Damnaeus. The march to anarchy in Judaea accelerated under Albinus, whose sole purpose, it appears, was to enrich himself during his term of office. He accepted ransom payments for release of prisoners, and the sicarii, when they could not afford to free their men, simply kidnapped wealthy men and used their ransom money to pay Albinus. A notable exchange came when the sicarii abducted the secretary of the temple captain, Eleazar, a son of Ananias, and secured the release of 10 leading sicarii from prison.138 The leading priestly families also fought against the priests, who sided with the rebels and the general population, hiring thugs to curse them and throw stones. Josephus says the chief priests would send slaves to the threshing floors where lesser priests received the tithe and seize the grain by force, even beating with staves those who resisted, so that many of the poorer priests died of want. Rabbinic tradition preserves a lament from these days.139 Woe is me because of the house of Ishmael the son of Phabi, woe is me because of their fists! For they are high priests and their sons are [temple] treasurers and their sons-inlaw are trustees and their servants beat the people with staves.

Josephus also recalls a disturbing portent begun during the Feast of Tabernacles in the autumn of 62. A peasant called Jesus son of Ananias stood in the temple



The Great War   235

and cried, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds; a voice against Jerusalem and the sanctuary, a voice against the bridegroom and the bride, a voice against all the people.” Day and night he went through the city with this cry on his lips. The leaders dared not silence him, fearing he might be under divine impulse, so they took him before Albinus. The procurator had him flayed to the bone, but he wailed with each stroke, “Woe to Jerusalem.” Albinus finally judged him insane and released him. The prophet of woe healed and kept up his daily vigil for seven and a half years until the start of the siege of Jerusalem. Then someone threw a boulder and struck him on the head. He perished still crying woe. By then, Josephus tells us, another oracle from sacred Scripture was floating in the air; that at this time “one from their country would become ruler of the world.”140 At this time the work on the temple, which had continued (including repairs) since Herod began it in 20 b.c.e., came to an end. This left 18,000 workers unemployed, and Agrippa kept the peace by hiring them to pave the streets of Jerusalem with white stones. Agrippa then replaced the high priest Jesus with Matthias the son of Theophilus, although the former high priest Ananias (47–59) remained a leading figure in the political turmoil.141 Toward the end of his 2 years in office, Albinus emptied the prisons, releasing those who could pay a ransom and crucifying the rest. The final governor of Judaea, Gessius Florus (64–66), was such, says Josephus, that he made Albinus look like a paragon of virtue.142 The extortion Albinus had practiced secretly, Florus redoubled and flaunted openly. Where Albinus despoiled families, Florus raped whole cities. As a result, the rebels flourished, banditry spread, and tribute fell. Ever since the Jewish delegation lost the suit in Rome over control of Caesarea, the emboldened Syrians of Caesarea had provoked the Jews. In May of 66, Syrians obstructed the passageway to the synagogue of Caesarea, and one provocateur sacrificed a bird on an overturned pot outside the entrance on a sabbath, insinuating that Jews were lepers, a favorite calumny against Jews in the Diaspora.143 A Jewish elder offered Florus eight talents to provide a safe passage to their synagogue, but he merely took the money and departed for Sebaste. Anticipating a battle, the elders removed the Torah scroll from the synagogue and fled. When they appealed to Florus, he imprisoned them for removing a copy of the Law from Caesarea. News of this injustice infuriated Jerusalem, and Florus responded by confiscating 17 talents from the temple treasury, ostensibly for arrears in tribute.144 A group of young wags ridiculed the greed of Florus by passing begging bowls around Jerusalem to raise donations for the poor procurator. The dignity of Florus was duly bruised, and he handed over part of the city to be sacked by a detachment of troops. Perhaps under orders, they let loose their own contempt and seized various members of the upper class, scourged them, and crucified them. The following day, Florus demanded the citizens of Jerusalem formally welcome two returning cohorts to the city. The city leaders persuaded the people to do so, but when the troops ignored the public greetings, the humiliated crowds shouted insults against Florus. The soldiers quickly broke ranks, drew their swords, and drove the people back into the city, killing and maiming all the way. Josephus undoubtedly amplifies the

236   Vines Intertwined

Roman negligence as part of his buildup to the war, but the Roman administration generally reflected the policies of the emperor. In an earlier time, under a different Caesar, Florus would have been sharply rebuked by the legate of Syria and sent back to Caesar for maladministration. But under the deteriorating rule of Nero, the entire empire suffered.

12.1.3 The Great War King Agrippa II, his sister Berenice, and the Jerusalem leaders attempted in vain to bring the people under control. Further submission to Florus, however, lay beyond their endurance. Then came the decisive act. Eleazar, a son of Ananias, persuaded the priesthood to suspend the daily sacrifice on behalf of the emperor, along with those brought by any Gentiles. The twice daily sacrifice on behalf of the emperor, instituted by Augustus, was the diplomatic ritual of loyalty between Judaea and Rome, by which the emperor supplicated the god of the Jews for divine blessings and the Jews therefore gave their loyalty to the emperor. The cessation of the imperial daily sacrifice was a declaration of independence and therefore of war.145 Virtually all the ruling class of Judaea opposed this action, but they no longer carried authority. The aristocracy, including many Pharisees, resorted to force, and with the help of Agrippa’s cavalry gained control of the upper west part of the city, but the rebels kept control of the temple mount and the lower city. Jerusalem was in a state of civil war between rebels and loyalists to Rome. Around this time, Menachem, a grandson of Judas the Galilean, led a band of sicarii and raided the fortress of Masada for weapons.146 The fanatical zeal of those bent on overthrowing Roman rule turned the tide in the month of August of 66. The Zealots, as we may now begin to call their party by its proper noun, controlled all Jerusalem. They set fire to the palaces of the high priest and Agrippa and gutted the Office of Records, burning all the archives in order to win a host of debtors to their cause. The populist rebellion was as much class warfare as a bid for any kind of independence. The Zealots themselves soon fell into anarchy. They executed the former high priest Ananias (48–59) and, in the view of Josephus, discarded any possible honor they might have retained.147 The Roman garrison in the Antonia fortress of Jerusalem sued for a surrender. The Zealots granted the soldiers security to depart Jerusalem, leaving their weapons behind, and sent a delegation to seal the capitulation by an exchange of oaths. The Romans thought it best to depart on a sabbath. While the armed soldiers marched through the city, they were left alone, but when they reached the gate and lay down their weapons, the Zealots surrounded them. The Roman soldiers neither resisted nor appealed for mercy but cried out “the oaths, the oaths!” Thus they were butchered, save for their general, who promised to be circumcised and become a Jew. Him they let live.148 With the revolution won in the capital, battles broke out in many other cities in which the conflict between rebel and loyalist was essentially Jew against Gentile. In Caesarea more than 20,000 Jews lost their lives. (It bears remembering that all casualty numbers given by Josephus are estimations, probably inflated, and must be



The Great War   237

taken as representative of large, medium, and small groups.) The enraged Jews responded by attacking Syrians in towns and villages throughout Peraea, Galilee, and Judaea.149 In Syria, the equally outraged Greeks fell upon the Jewish communities. Where Jews had a majority, the Gentiles were slaughtered; where Gentiles held the advantage, Jews were slaughtered. Only in three cities of Syria, Antioch, Apamea, and Sidon, did the Gentiles protect their Jewish communities.150 The unrest spread to Alexandria, where during the riots, three Jews were burned alive, and the Jews responded by trying to set fire to the amphitheater where Greeks were assembled. Tiberius Alexander, the prefect of Egypt, attempted to quell the riot by negotiations, but when that failed, he let loose his soldiers on the rioters. Many Jews fought back, but the battle left the Delta quarter in carnage, homes gutted of valuables and burned. When the dead, from infants to the aged, were collected, they tallied roughly 50,000 corpses.151 Rome finally mobilized its strength against the latest insurrection in the empire. Cestius Gallus, the governor of Syria, marched on Jerusalem with the Twelfth Legion and auxiliary forces. While he camped a few miles north of the city, the Jews launched a surprise attack on the Roman army and killed more than 500 while losing but a handful of their own. Among the most distinguished of their ranks, Josephus mentions Monobazus and Cenedaeus, Jewish proselytes and members of the Adiabene royalty. In the month of Tishri (September/October), Cestius took the unprotected northern suburb of Jerusalem, but when his assault on the temple failed, he inexplicably decided to withdraw. Because he was unaware of the many loyalists trying to open the gates to him, perhaps he thought his forces were insufficient for the siege, and with winter approaching, he decided to await reinforcements. But herein lies the key moment of the Great Revolt. As Cestius retreated, he passed through the gorge near Beth-Horon where the rebels fell upon his army and decimated it. Cestius fled in a rout and left their arms to the rebels. Rome lost about 6000 troops. The Zealots interpreted the defeat of a Roman army as divine intervention that augured apocalyptic victory. Despite all the internal strife that followed, a conviction that God was on the side of the rebels fired them with courage to the bitter end. Essenes and more proselytes from Adiabene would join the revolt. Josephus also surmised that God had intervened, but only by turning his back on Jerusalem that they should not see the end of the war on that day. Voices of compromise in Jerusalem were quickly silenced. Roman loyalists and the moderate faction abandoned the city “like a sinking ship.”152 It may be that, as Eusebius later reports, the Nazarene congregation also fled Jerusalem at this time, perhaps settling in Pella, across the Jordan in the Decapolis region.153 The rebels were now in full control, and they organized for the inevitable assault of Rome. They elected new government and priesthood, led by Joseph ben Gorion and the former high priest Ananus (62). The districts of Judaea received commanders, and Galilee was given to Joseph ben Matthias, better known by his Latin name Josephus Flavius, our irreplaceable historian. Josephus undertook the administration of Galilee with enterprise, but with a profound awareness that in the end, no matter what, he would surrender to Rome.

238   Vines Intertwined

The true rebels apparently sensed his premature resignation, and while Josephus did his best to form an army of the ragtag Galileans and bulwark defenses in their cities, the rebel peasant John of Gischala thwarted Josephus at every turn. It is likely that at this stage, all the leaders of the war council were looking for a way to hand back power to Rome because they knew the rebellion was futile, but they had to retain the confidence of the Zealots. The impoverished masses meanwhile sided with the revolt in hopes of some gain or relief. Sepphoris, a principal city in Galilee, declared its loyalty to Rome and welcomed a Roman garrison. Tiberias, the other leading city of Galilee, was split, with the council and upper class loyal to Rome but the rest favoring the revolt. Josephus sought to gain some authority over the people by ordering the council to demolish all the offensive statues in the palace of Agrippa, and they reluctantly complied, but fooled none of the Zealot leaders. At this point, Nero sacked Cestius Gallus and appointed Flavius Vespasian to suppress the revolt. It was alleged that Vespasian was being punished for falling asleep during one of Nero’s recitals in Greece. The experienced general assembled his forces at Antioch, three legions, with additional auxiliaries, amounting to 60,000. In the spring of 67, Vespasian and his son Titus marched into Galilee. Josephus expected to encounter Vespasian in the hills of northern Galilee, but when his army saw the legions on parade, they recognized the face of death and fled. Josephus retreated to Tiberias with his few companions, reorganized his army, and encamped in the fortress of Jotapatah, just north of Sepphoris.154 Vespasian besieged the city with 160 catapults. Josephus describes at length the valiant resistance he inspired among his troops. Nevertheless, the town was taken by late June. Josephus escaped with forty companions to a cavern. When they were discovered, Josephus negotiated a surrender, but his men preferred to die and gave him only the option of dying as a soldier with them or as a traitor before them. In a rather stark confession, Josephus recounts how he proposed they should each die by the hand of a companion according to an order drawn by lots. They agreed, and the drawing of lots, whether by chance or by the providence of God he did not know, left him as the last man. When all but one of his men had perished by the hand of a companion, Josephus persuaded the other to surrender with him.155 Josephus also assures us that when he stood before Vespasian, he convinced the general that he had a message from God, and it was none other than a prediction that Vespasian would become emperor. By this manner he entered into the entourage of Vespasian and counseled him on the rest of the war. Soon after the fall of Jotapatah, the city Tiberias opened its gate to Vespasian’s son Titus, and the other fortresses of Gamala in Gaulanitis, Mount Tabor, and the northern Zealot stronghold of Gischala fell to the Romans under the sole command of Titus. The Zealot leader John, however, escaped to Jerusalem. By the end of 67, all Galilee was back under Roman control. The Zealots in the countryside fled to Jerusalem or other fortresses in Judaea. John of Gischala took control of the Zealots in Jerusalem and seized power from the aristocratic war council, which included the Pharisee Simon son of Gamaliel the Elder, the former high priests Ananus son of Ananus, and Jesus son of Gamaliel. They deposed the current high priest Matthias son of Theophilus and



The Great War   239

elected a common priest by lot, Phannias son of Samuel, from the obscure village of Aphthia. They dragged the frightened priest into the temple, dressed him with the high-priestly vestments, and instructed him how to perform. Josephus, a member of the priestly elite, called this a “monstrous impiety.”156 And perhaps it was, but it was also a populist reaction to the long-endured abuse by the closely guarded privilege of the aristocratic high-priestly families and their appointment by rulers appointed by Rome. A biblical prophet like Micah might have applauded. But the remaining opposition leaders of high esteem, including the former high priest Ananus, and the Pharisee Simeon b. Gamaliel, saw the move as sacrilege, the ultimate sin, and stirred up the people to “purge the sanctuary of its bloodstained polluters.” Josephus composed a speech of righteous indignation for Ananus, in which he equated the tyranny of the Zealots to slavery and the rule of Rome to liberty, because Zealots kill their brethren and profane the sacred sanctuary, while Rome preserved the boundary line between Jews and Gentiles and secured the right of Jews to worship God.157 The speech, of course, was for later readers. Whatever Ananus and Simeon b. Gamaliel may have said at the time, it merely aroused the Zealots and led to a pitched battle. Ananus and his people secured the outer courts, but the Zealots held the sanctuary. The Zealots appealed to the Idumaeans for support, and John of Gischala succeeded in smuggling a band of their soldiers into Jerusalem during a torrential rain. There followed a reign of terror, during which the Zealots destroyed the aristocratic moderate party, ransacked their homes, and executed the former high priests Ananus and Jesus.158 John of Gischala was now the supreme leader, and the Idumaeans departed with their loot. Throughout the campaign season of 68, Vespasian controlled Peraea and captured the major cities of Judaea, from Jericho and Antipatris in the east to Lydda, Jamnia, Emmaus, Samaria, and Neapolis. All that remained was Jerusalem and a few fortress outposts. Then came news of the death of Nero on June 9, 68. Vespasian ceased operations and awaited the succession of a new emperor. When word came that Galba had been declared emperor, Vespasian sent Titus to pay his respects and await any new command about the war, but Titus got no further than Corinth when he learned of Galba’s assassination in January of 69 and returned to Caesarea. The general Vitellius was declared emperor by the legions of the Rhine, Gaul, Britain, Spain, but in Rome, the Praetorian Guard proclaimed another general, Otho, emperor, and Egypt, Africa, and legions of the Danube and the Euphrates sided with them. Vespasian simply held off to see who would emerge victorious. While Vespasian waited, a new Zealot leader arose to terrorize the land, Simon bar Giora, which meant Simon the son of a proselyte. He led a new band of Zealots to ransack the countryside of Judaea and Idumaea. Vespasian was forced to protect the people, and in June Vespasian resumed subjugation of Judaea. Bar Giora had already entered Jerusalem, where many of the people were now weary of the tyranny of John of Gischala and hoped Bar Giora would neutralize it. But the violence only increased as Bar Giora’s sicarii fought the Zealots loyal to John. It is at this point, in June of 69, that we may insert the rabbinic tradition of the elderly sage, Johanan ben Zakkai, who escaped from Jerusalem. Josephus leaves

240   Vines Intertwined

the story unmentioned, perhaps because it never happened, or he did not know of it, or he knew and chose to suppress it. The story is undoubtedly a rabbinic foundation legend, but it cannot be dismissed as sheer fiction. That Vespasian, along with his Jewish council which included Josephus, will have engaged Jewish leaders opposed to the Zealots is to be accepted as standard policy. According to the story, Johanan ben Zakkai realized that Jerusalem was doomed, and he managed to have his disciples smuggle him out of Jerusalem in a casket. He then went to the camp of Vespasian and was given an audience as a leader of the moderate party in Jerusalem. Ben Zakkai explained that it was prophesied in the Hebrew Scriptures in the book of Isaiah that Vespasian would capture and destroy Jerusalem, but also that Vespasian would ascend to the throne of the emperor. Vespasian rebuked Ben Zakkai for committing treason by calling him emperor but allowed that it were possible. He then granted Ben Zakkai a request. The aged Pharisee asked for a city, Jamnia, where the sages could set up a school to teach the Jewish law, and that the family of Gamaliel be given liberty after the fall of Jerusalem to lead the people. Vespasian granted his requests.159 Vespasian had just returned to Caesarea after securing Judaea when word came that Vitellius had defeated Otho and was proclaimed emperor. The person of Vitellius, famed for his gluttony, inspired no confidence in Egypt or the east. On July 1, the Jewish governor Tiberius Alexander declared Egypt for Vespasian, and two days later all the eastern legions followed suit. Vespasian gave Titus the task of taking Jerusalem and entrusted the remaining Flavian forces to his brother Sabinus to march against Rome, while he joined Tiberius Alexander in Egypt, where he could control the grain supply on which Rome depended. At this time Josephus was also given his liberty. A third faction emerged in Jerusalem under the leadership of the priest Eleazar son of Simon, who had gained his reputation early in the war. Eleazar seized control of the inner forecourt of the temple and fought for supreme command from there. During the ceaseless internal struggles, the massive grain stores were burned to prevent a rival from controlling them, and the people began to starve. Titus had four legions at his disposal, including the Twelfth, which had been under the command of Cestius. Titus brought Tiberius Alexander from Egypt as chief of staff, and Josephus also served in the war council. Jerusalem was a city set on two hills, separated by the so-called Tyropean Valley. The western hill, called the upper city, was larger and higher than the eastern hill which included the temple mount and the old City of David. The northern district, called the New City (Bethzeda), had been enclosed by the third wall begun by Agrippa I but only recently completed by the Zealots. Titus encamped on Mount Scopus (lookout place), from where all Jerusalem could be seen. The siege of Jerusalem began just before Passover of 70. Soon after Titus began building the ramparts for the siege engines, however, the factions finally came to their senses and joined common cause. The Romans attacked the weakest point, the western side of the third wall, not far from the modern Jaffa Gate. Wood towers were erected outside the wall from which archers protected the battering rams. The tallest ram tower of 25 meters high was called Victor, because of its victory over all



The Great War   241

obstacles. Toward the end of May, the Romans broke through and demolished the remains of the New City, still largely in a state of ruins since the campaign of Cestius.160 Despite valiant resistance and Zealot attempts to lure Roman soldiers into vulnerable positions, the battering rams quickly penetrated the second wall. Titus permitted all the people caught behind the second wall to depart unhurt, and he promised their property would be protected. According to Josephus, Titus hoped to keep the city and the temple intact for the benefit of Rome. While building four ramparts, two against the upper city and two against the Antonia fortress, Josephus walked around the city just beyond the range of the arrows and attempted to convince the Zealots to surrender.161 Some of the starving citizens dared escape at the risk of death from the Zealots. They gave information about the terrible starvation in the city, unburied bodies in the streets, and huddled women and children in the last stages of life. Zealots dug tunnels under the ramparts and caused their collapse. Before rebuilding them, Titus erected a wall around the remaining city to tighten the starvation. Daily, more starving people fled the city. Some were so bloated from starvation that when given food, they gorged themselves and died. Many swallowed gold coins before their escape, but after Syrian and Arab soldiers saw a man searching for coins in his excrement, they began ripping open the bellies of refugees looking for gold in their intestines. Titus forbade this, but the practice continued. After new ramparts were constructed in twenty-one days, the attack resumed and the Antonia fortress was taken. On Tammuz 17 (August 6), the daily sacrifice ceased for lack of men to perform it. A second call for surrender by Josephus was ignored. The Romans erected new ramparts against the temple mount, but the massive walls resisted the battering rams. Titus fired the gates, and on Av 9, when they were completely burned, Titus held his war council. He put before them the fate of the temple. His advisers agreed that if the Zealots surrendered, the temple should be spared, but if they mounted it to fight, then it was a fortress, not a sanctuary. Josephus assures us that Titus, against the advice of his council, wished to spare the temple as an ornament to the empire, so that it should not be burned even if the Zealots fought from it. The attempt by Josephus to remove all guilt for the destruction of the temple from his patron Titus has been viewed skeptically by historians. Tacitus, if he is the source for the later Christian historian Sulpicius Severus, wrote that Titus and several of his council decided “the Temple should be destroyed without delay, in order that the religion of the Jews and Christians should be more completely exterminated. For those religions, though opposed to one another, derive from the same founders; the Christians stemmed from the Jews and the extirpation of the root would easily cause the offspring to perish.”162 The next day, on Av 10, the battle was engaged in the outer courts. The Zealots fought with fanatical fury, but by the fifth hour, they were exhausted and shut themselves up in the inner temple courts. Titus returned to the Antonia intending to resume fighting the next day, but fate would not be thwarted, says Josephus, for it was on Av 10 that the first temple had been destroyed, and so it must be for the present temple.163 Another skirmish broke out, and while soldiers were extinguishing a fire in the inner court, one soldier took a firebrand and cast it through the

242   Vines Intertwined

golden window along the north wall. From there the flames spread. Titus ran to the temple and gave orders to extinguish the flames, but amid the mounting chaos his shouts went unheard. The impetuosity of the legionnaires, when they joined the fray, neither exhortation nor threat could restrain; passion was for all the only leader. Crushed together about the entrances, many were trampled down by their companions; many, stumbling on the still hot and smoldering ruins of the porticoes, suffered the fate of the vanquished. As they drew nearer to the sanctuary they pretended not even to hear Caesar’s orders and shouted to those in front of them to throw in the firebrands. The insurgents, for their part, were now powerless to help; and on all sides was carnage and flight. Most of the slain were civilians, weak and unarmed people, each butchered where he was caught. Around the altar a pile of corpses was accumulating; down the steps of the sanctuary flowed a stream of blood, and the bodies of the victims killed above went sliding to the bottom.164

In the end, the entire temple mount was burned and demolished. John of Gischala and Bar Giora escaped with some men to the Upper City, but this too was taken in September after the lower city had been destroyed. The soldiers set up their military standards and sang the victory hymn. The Judaeans who were not murdered by soldiers during the looting were sold into slavery. Titus kept John of Gischala and Simon Bar Giora captive for his triumph. The city was razed to the ground, except for three towers of Herod’s palace and a segment of wall as a monument to its former greatness, and a defense for the Tenth Legion that remained as a garrison.165 Titus left the capture of the three fortresses, Herodium, Machaerus, and Masada, to his generals, and returned to Rome. On the way, he held victory celebrations in various cities and forced some 2500 Zealots to kill each other in gladiatorial combat or had them burned alive.166 In 71, Titus celebrated a joint triumph with his father Vespasian and his brother Domitian. The Zealot leaders John of Gischala and Simon Bar Giora were paraded along with 700 captives. Others carried the golden Table of Showbread and the seven-branched menorah of the temple. Later Vespasian built the Temple of the Goddess of Peace and deposited the Jerusalem temple utensils within. Their fate is uncertain, but they probably remained in Rome until the Vandals sacked the city in 455, when they were taken to Africa, and finally to Constantinople in 534, by then thought to be relics of Solomon.167

12.2 Jews: The Last “Pharisees” Apart from the tumult of Jewish affairs recounted by Josephus during the reign of Nero, we know of one leading Pharisee family, Gamaliel the Elder, and his son, Simeon, praised by Josephus as illustrious in Jerusalem.168 Simeon was active in the preparations for war against Rome. We may assume other Pharisees were involved in the war. Another Jewish scholar, perhaps a Pharisee, whose star will rise, was Johanan ben Zakkai ( fl. 40–80), often called simply Ben Zakkai.169 Johanan is also tied by



The Great War   243

tradition to Hillel as the least, or last, of his disciples. If Johanan was a disciple of Hillel, in spirit if not in fact, it would explain his reputation for peace. It was perhaps in response to the Jewish destruction of a Hellenic altar in Jamnia that led to the order to install the statue that Ben Zakkai said, “Do not tear down pagan altars lest you be forced to build them with your own hands. Do not tear down altars of wood, lest they say to you: Come and build them of stone.” Like Hillel, his life is divided into three periods of 40 years, yielding the honorary 120.170 Initially he was a merchant, then a student of Torah, and finally a master. For 18 years he led a small school in Arav, a town in lower Galilee. Johanan ben Zakkai had a reputation for teaching in the shadow of the temple. Tradition knows of five disciples: Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, Joshua b. Hananiah, Jose the Priest, Simeon b. Nathaniel, and Eleazar b. Arak. The first two will become the greatest sages of the next generation, and Eliezer will be called “the Great,” while nothing is known of the last two. According to Ben Zakkai, “If all the sages of Israel were in the one scale of the balance and Eliezer b. Hyrcanus in the other, he would outweigh them all.” But another tradition preserves a comment by Ben Zakkai that puts greatness in perspective. “If all the sages of Israel were in the one scale of the balance and with them Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, and Eleazar b. Arak in the other, he would outweigh them all.”171 Ben Zakkai is also portrayed arguing with the Sadducees. In one debate the Sadducees protested that Pharisees appear to treat the books of Homer (or Greek philosophical works) as more sacred than Scriptures, because they declare that a scroll of Scripture is a source of ritual impurity while the books of Homer are not. Ben Zakkai noted that Sadducees treat the bones of a high priest as rendering impurity but not the bones of an ass. The Sadducees replied that people will not make profane use of things that are declared ritually impure, such as making spoons from the bones of their parents. Ben Zakkai argued that likewise the Pharisees protect Scripture by declaring it renders the hands ritually impure when handled, whereas the books of Homer are not so important.172 Apart from the few named individuals at this time, the Pharisee houses or schools of Hillel and Shammai had by now solidified into their own camps. We do not know how many of the Pharisees were associated with these houses, but they are among those who helped make the transition from the Pharisees to the sages after the war. They disputed over many topics and provide a context for firstcentury discussion in Judaism. Two examples: [Concerning the ritual of the meal] The House of Shammai say, “One recites the blessing over the day then one recites the blessing over the wine.” But the House of Hillel say, “One recites the blessing over the wine and then one recites the blessing over the day.” The house of Shammai say, “They wash the hands and then mix the cup [of wine].” But the House of Hillel say, “They mix the cup and then wash the hands.” The House of Shammai say, “One wipes his hands on the napkin and places it on the table.” But the House of Hillel say, “On the cushion.”173 [Concerning life] Our Rabbis taught: For two and a half years were the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel in dispute, the former asserting that it were better for man

244   Vines Intertwined not to have been created than to have been created, and the latter maintaining that it is better for man to have been created than not to have been created. They finally took a vote and decided that it were better for man not to have been created than to have been created, but now that he has been created, let him investigate his past deeds [for sin] or, as others say, let him examine his future actions [to avoid sin].174

These are arguments only scholars can appreciate, and it is doubtful they ever came to blows over philosophy or table manners. They associated together, and members of each house would sometimes consult, or agree, with the other house. We are told that on some matters, “the more scrupulous of the House of Hillel used to observe the words of the House of Shammai.”175 During the reigns of Caligula, Claudius, and Nero, as the tension mounted that led to war, dissension among the houses also increased. “Now once the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who did not adequately serve their master had become many, contentions multiplied in Israel, and they became two Torahs.”176 One famous tradition recounts that in the years before the war, the leaders of the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai met in the upper chamber of Hananiah b. Hezekiah b. Garon, who is thought to have been the leader of the House of Shammai. “When they went up to visit him they took a count, and the House of Shammai outnumbered the House of Hillel: eighteen things did they decree that day.”177 In the memory of later sages, the moment was a black day when the House of Shammai had gained ascendancy over the House of Hillel.

12.3 Christians: End of the Apostolic Era 12.3.1 Paul The history of Jesus movement during the reign of Nero, for lack of evidence other than Acts, is dominated by the life of Paul, who spent the last years of his life in missions to the Gentiles and collecting an offering for believers in Judaea. He took up the collection perhaps partly to ensure some support from them, that his labor not be entirely in vain, but also out of his reverence for the mother congregation of Jerusalem. It is possible that Nazarenes felt they should support the congregation of Jerusalem just as Jews supported the temple with the half-shekel contribution. From Antioch, Paul traveled through Asia Minor to the northwestern city of Troas and crossed over to Macedonia and Greece. The traditional three missionary journeys taken from Acts may provide a hypothetical itinerary. According to Acts, Paul often went straight to the synagogue in any given city and preached and argued, convincing a few Jews and devout Greeks and then moving on. Paul never mentions the synagogues in his letters, but his message, which drew so heavily on the Hebrew Scriptures, would have made only sense in a Jewish and sympathetic Gentile God-fearer context. And Paul’s own tally of his hardships features his Jewish brethren. Five times I have received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. Three times I have been beaten with rods; once I was stoned. Three times I have been shipwrecked;



The Great War   245 a night and a day I have been adrift at sea; on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brethren; in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.178

Paul established congregations at Philippi, Thessalonika, and Corinth, among other places. He worked with different companions along the way, chiefly Silas, Titus, and Timothy, as well as Mark, Epaphroditus, Aristarchus, Demas, Philemon, and Luke. In Ephesus, Paul joined forces with Aquila and Prisca (Priscilla), two Jewish believers caught in the expulsion of Jews from Rome under Claudius. While in Ephesus, before returning to Jerusalem, Paul wrote a letter to the congregation in Rome, in the hopes of clarifying his gospel to them so that they would receive him when he journeyed to Spain after delivering the offering from the congregations in Macedonia and Achaia to the poor among the saints at Jerusalem.179 Finally, with a considerable gift of money donated by his many Gentile congregations for the believers in Judaea, he returned to Jerusalem. The early congregations, whether founded by Paul or others, formed the basic urban mold of early Christianity, located in the major cities of the empire, whence they could expand to surrounding villages. The members came from the breadth of Greco-Roman society, excluding perhaps the upper and lower extremes. However, when a head of a household, whether male or female, accepted the faith, it was customary for everyone in the household, including infants and slaves, to be enrolled through baptism into the congregation. Among Paul’s congregations, we hear of wealthy artisans and traders, those of high and low income, freedmen and a few slaves, and from the upper echelons, wealthy women, some widows, as well as members of Caesar’s household, that is, magistrates. There seem to have been few day laborers or members of the senatorial class. People met in the homes of the wealthy, many of whom were widows. Later they would transform homes into worship centers on the basic pattern of the synagogue. Paul was working in Asia Minor, based in Ephesus, when Claudius died in 54. Two years later, he again visited his church in Corinth. In 57, Paul went up to Jerusalem for Passover with the offering from the congregation in Macedonia and Achaia to the poor among the saints at Jerusalem. Following Luke’s account, which begins with one of the eyewitness “we” passages in Acts, Paul was warned in Caesarea not to go to Jerusalem, where he would be arrested and handed over to the Gentiles. He would not be persuaded. In Jerusalem, Paul and his traveling companions lodged in the house of Mnason, a Jew from Cyprus, that is, a Hellenist believer. Luke says “the brethren received us gladly,” but whether these were only the Hellenists or the entire Jerusalem congregation is not clear. When Paul met James and the elders, he told them of the advance of the gospel among the Gentiles. They rejoiced and pointed out the advance in Judaea, that the thousands of believers among the Jews were all zealous for the law. Concerning the law, they noted, word had spread that Paul was teaching Jews through the Diaspora to forsake Moses, to neither circumcise their children nor observe the

246   Vines Intertwined

customs. James and the elders were justifiably worried that association with Paul would undermine their mission to the Jews, especially the many who had come up for the Passover. They advised Paul to demonstrate his own observance of the laws of Moses publically by purifying himself along with four Jewish believers under vow, and paying for the priestly shaving of their heads in the temple when they had completed their vows. This would demonstrate his support for Torah observance among the Jewish believers. Paul did as they requested, no doubt abiding by his own dictum to be a Jew to the Jews as much as submitting to the Jerusalem congregation, but in the temple some Jews from Asia who knew Paul by sight stirred up a crowd by claiming Paul had brought a Gentile beyond the barrier to the Court of the Israelites. The crowd dragged Paul out of the temple and attempted to kill him, which they had a legal right to do if had he broken the law restricting Gentiles, but Roman soldiers intervened and arrested him. Paul, no doubt bruised and bloodied, was allowed to speak to the crowd, but he only infuriated them all the more. They shouted, “Away with such a fellow from the earth.” When the tribune learned Paul was a Roman citizen, he kept him in custody until they could figure out the problem and then look for a solution. The high priest Ananias held a council to render a verdict on Paul. Knowing the council contained Pharisees and Sadducees, Paul claimed to be on trial because of his hope in the resurrection. The Pharisees judged him innocent, dissension broke out, and the tribune ordered Paul back into custody and soon took him to Caesarea. It is curious, and perhaps significant, that James and the elders never came to Paul’s aid, nor does Luke confirm that the Jerusalem congregation accepted the Gentile gift for the poor. Given the tendency of Luke to smooth over conflicts among the early believers, the absence of brotherly love during the arrest and imprisonment of Paul cries out in its silence. Possibly, the Jewish believers felt that accepting any aid from Gentiles at the hand of Paul, like the question of table fellowship, would compromise them further in the effort to retain their respectable identity as Judaeans and upholders of Torah. It has been proposed that the advice given to Paul by the Jerusalem elders was a trap, and when it had sprung, they washed their hands of him. While possible, it goes rather beyond the face value of the account. Paul had many enemies among his own people, and particularly among the priesthood for whom he had once worked. The earlier Paul would have killed the later Paul without hesitation, and James himself would soon die at the hands of the priestly families. Paul remained a prisoner in Caesarea until the new administration of Festus. Finally he received a hearing, during which he appealed for a trial and verdict by Caesar. Paul was taken by ship under Roman guard to Rome. His voyage became an adventure when the ship was caught in a storm and sank off the coast of Malta, where Paul and the crew survived the winter. This was his second shipwreck at sea. Paul arrived in Italy in the summer of 60. Believers from the congregation in Rome met him on the way and escorted him to the city. He was placed under house arrest, and the history of Acts breaks off with these words: “He lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.”180



The Great War   247

Tradition is mixed on the final end of Paul. The earliest testimony comes from the presbyter (or bishop) of the congregation in Rome, Clement, around 95. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed the way to the prize of endurance; seven times he was in bonds, he was exiled, he was stoned, he was a herald both in the East and in the West, he gained the noble fame of his faith, he taught righteousness to all the world, and when he had reached the limits of the West he gave his testimony before the rulers, and thus passed from the world and was taken up into the Holy Place,—the greatest example of endurance.181

The statement “he had reached the limits of the West” was later thought to refer to Spain, though it may mean the limits of Paul’s mission, which in the west was Rome. Had Paul gone to Spain, we would expect Clement to say so, and other traditions to have developed around it, especially from the later Christians in Spain. The “jealousy and strife” suggest Paul was not welcomed by many among the believers in Rome, and certainly not among the Jews.182 From a personal statement, probably incorporated into a later circular letter, Paul testifies to his abandonment by fellow workers, with only Luke beside him.183 Paul probably died alone and abandoned during the persecution of Christians by Nero. What he thought on the day of his death, along with the when and the where of it, lies buried in a nameless grave— even though a place outside of Rome was later designated as the burial site of Peter and Paul. Throughout his life Paul was concerned that he might not measure up to his calling. What would he lay before the feet of his Lord at the last judgment? As a driven man, this was his battle. His epitaph, perhaps bequeathed by a disciple, read: “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith.”184

12.3.2 Peter Peter’s relatively minor but important place in the Acts of the Apostles, as well as his reputation in church tradition, suggests that he played a more prominent role in church leadership, at least in Asia Minor, than our evidence records. Eusebius supposes, according to unclear sources, that Peter preached to the Diaspora Jews in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia Minor before coming to Rome. The traditions that Peter founded the congregation of Rome are much later, and with little historical merit. The Gospel of Matthew, which is generally thought to be written in Palestine or Syria, elevated Peter to the leader of the church, with the keys to the kingdom of heaven.185 Matthew may have done this in opposition to the influence of Paul, but it reflects an importance Peter held among the congregations in the East. The Gospel of John, probably written in Ephesus, provides a postresurrection encounter between Peter and Jesus, in which Jesus tells Peter, “feed my sheep,” likely a reference to Peter’s pastoral work in Asia Minor.186 Likewise, the letters of Peter, even if pseudonymous, reflect his reputation. But that is all we know. Church traditions, probably beginning with the same letter of 1 Clement, though possibly hinted at in the Gospel of John, speak of the death of Peter also in Rome, and probably before or during the persecution of Nero in 64. Eusebius preserves

248   Vines Intertwined

traditions attributed to earlier sources that Paul, a Roman citizen, was beheaded, and Peter was crucified head down, a tradition also attested in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (ca. 180–190), in which Peter has a vision of Christ and famously calls out, “Quo vadis, Lord?”.187

12.3.3 James the Just We know little about the congregation of Jerusalem during the reign of Nero, except that it thrived under the oversight of James, and the numbers of Nazarenes in Judaea grew into the thousands. James gained a solid reputation among Pharisees, and if Acts is accurate, some of the Nazarenes retained their fellowship with Pharisees. During these years, then, the congregation of Jerusalem seems to have protected its reputation for piety and had no serious disputes with other groups of Pharisees, either the House of Hillel or the House of Shammai. Indeed, they may well have been allies, disputing only minor points of Torah and the messiahship of Jesus. James likely had more difficulties with the Hellenists in the congregation, and followers of Paul, than with Pharisees. If the New Testament letter attributed to James comes from his hand, even if it has been edited later by disciples, we find a piety that not only flows seamlessly from the teachings of Jesus but also would enhance his reputation among Pharisees. Like Jesus, James summed up the law by Lev 19:18: “If you really fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself,’ you do well” (2:8). Said James: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.” And righteousness depended on works, James insisted, not on faith alone (1:27; 2:24). Hegesippus, around 180, said James was called “the Just” (or the Righteous) in his own day, that he drank no wine or strong drink, ate no flesh, nor did he cut his hair or anoint himself with oil, but that he was so often in the temple kneeling in prayer for the people that his knees grew hard like a camel’s.188 Embellished legend it may be, but the legend enshrouds a man who, once he had taken up the leadership of the Nazarenes, determined never to darken the name of his elder brother and Lord. The death of James in 62 marked the final attack on the Nazarenes by a member of the high-priestly family of Ananus and suggests a specific animosity of this Sadducean ruling family toward Jesus and his followers, begun by the father Ananus and his son-in-law Caiaphas some 30 years before. The cryptic statement of Josephus does not tell us much about the nature of the conflict or the laws for which James and certain others were condemned of “having transgressed the law.”189 As a group, they were all probably members of the Jerusalem congregation. Their transgression was a judgment of the Sadducean high priest. But others in Jerusalem, whom Josephus describes as fair-minded and “strict in observance of the law,” probably Pharisees, were offended at this miscarriage of justice. The scenario appears to be similar to the inquest of Peter, in which Gamaliel the Elder defended the Nazarenes for their basic piety, which might or might not be the work of God. Likewise, according to Acts, Paul had his defenders among the Pharisees against



The Great War   249

the Sadducees over his belief in the resurrection. While it requires a small leap of imagination, it is possible that some of the defenders of James were Pharisees who would later form the first rabbinic congregation. Among them may have been Johanan b. Zakkai.

12.3.4 Persecution under Nero Luke does not mention the death of James. He speaks of the persecution the followers of Jesus received but limits it to the earliest years in Palestine and then the life of Paul. The Gospel of Mark, usually dated to the end of Nero’s reign, reflects the social history of the followers of Jesus as much as the historical life of Jesus. The Gospel was written for a purpose, to meet the needs of the believers, and would have been written differently if life were different. The conflicts of Jesus are models for the faithful to endure their own conflicts. But the prediction of suffering in Mark 13 is tailored to the experiences of the church. They were handed over to councils, some were beaten in synagogues, others handed over to governors and kings; families were broken up over adherence to the faith as brother betrayed brother and children their parents. Paul qualified for persecution by synagogues and Gentile rulers, but he cannot have been alone, and Mark may have in mind the brief persecution of Christians in Rome at the hands of Nero. “But the one who endures to the end will be saved.”190

Chapter 13

Jews and Christians without a Temple (70–117 c.e.) 13.1 Rome 13.1.1 Flavian Dynasty Flavius Vespasian (69–79) inaugurated the era of imperial Roman rule by the strongest general. As emperor, he reluctantly took on the aura of a deity. Suetonius tells us that while Vespasian was in Egypt, preparing to go to Rome, two men, one blind and other lame, came before him begging to be healed, since he was now a god. They had been told in a dream that if Vespasian but spit into the eyes of the blind man and touched the other, both would be healed. Vespasian hardly believed the act would succeed, but his friends prevailed on him, and he performed both actions. Suetonius assures us the two men were healed.191 Naturally, modern historians suspect a charade by the new emperor’s friends. In Rome, Vespasian the military man reduced the size of the Praetorian Guard and recalled many fugitives who had escaped the wrath of Nero, as well as the three failed emperors Galba, Otho, and Vitellius. More importantly, Vespasian made peace with the senate. His goal was to stabilize the tottering empire and then to adorn it. Stability came through a wide net of taxation and replenishing the ruling class by drawing many entrepreneurs around Italy to Rome. Besides the Temple of Peace, which he adorned with elegant paintings as well as the golden menorah from Jerusalem, he built his forum and began construction of the Colosseum over the foundations of Nero’s Golden House. On the frontiers, Vespasian pressed northward. He annexed more of Germany, and expanded Roman territory into Wales and the Scottish highlands. He enlarged the Roman army in the east from four legions to six and changed the political status of Judaea from a third-rank province under a governor of the equestrian order to an independent second-rank province of Rome governed by a member of the praetorian order, and with a standing legion in the province. The Tenth Legion, Fretensis, was stationed in the destroyed city of Jerusalem, but the governor resided in Caesarea with part of the legion. The legionnaires in Jerusalem produced clay brick roof tiles, stamped with the legion’s emblem and fired in kilns. Vespasian leased out large estates for his private income and gave the town of Emmaus to 800 veterans as a place to live.192 The former half-shekel temple tax became a poll tax on



Jews and Christians without a Temple   251

all Jews of the empire to fortify his coffers and refurbish the rival temple of Jupitor Capitolina. In the time of Domitian, this would be known as the fiscus Iudaicus, a two-drachma poll tax on every Jew in the empire. What had once been a source of Jewish unity became the symbol of Jewish humiliation. In 75, Agrippa II and his sister, the ever-beautiful Julia Berenice, visited Rome. Titus, no doubt already enamored of her from the campaign in Judaea, took Berenice openly as his mistress. She, a mature 47, was some 10 years older than the emperor’s son, but Titus now felt secure enough in power to flout the sensibilities of the Roman gentry with his Jewess. But when he came to the throne on June 23, 79, on the death of his father, Titus found the title of emperor was altogether different than emperor’s son. Rome was not ready for a Jewish empress. Under pressure from the populace, and probably the senate, Titus reluctantly sent Berenice away. Titus had barely ruled 3 months when Mount Vesuvius erupted and buried Pompeii, Herculaneum, Stabiae, and Torre Annunziata, among other communities, in 19 to 23 feet of lava and ashes. Pompeii, situated near the mouth of the Sarno River, 14 miles southeast of Naples, had already been severely damaged by an earthquake in 62, and its population of perhaps 20,000 was still recovering when Vesuvius erupted. Among the dead lay Pliny the Elder, author of the 37-volume Natural History. The city would remain entombed for 17 centuries, until archeologists began digging up the pristine first-century museum of death. Titus completed the Colosseum begun by his father and began additional construction in Rome. He had every intention of establishing a reign of moderation and seems to have made a good start, but he died prematurely on September 13, 81, at the age of forty-one, after a brief reign of 2 years and 2 months. His death was apparently natural, and the senate deified him as his brother Domitian ascended to the throne. Domitian (81–96), younger than Titus by 12 years, had been relegated to the honorable background of the imperial household, where he had formed his own views on how to govern the empire. In need of a military reputation of his own, he emerged from the shadow of Titus, conqueror of Jerusalem, by launching a campaign against the Chatti tribe of Germans. The Chatti, who had expanded their territory at the expense of the Cherusci and other tribes, offered little resistance, and Domitian secured new territory on the right bank of the Rhine. He took the title Germanicus, “Conqueror of the Germans,” for his triumph in Rome, but the minor victory earned him only scorn from the historians. Domitian fared poorly along the other great river, the Danube, where pressure continued to grow. Throughout his reign, the Dacians and Sarmatians threatened the northeastern boundary of the Roman Empire, omens of the barbarian invasions to come. The Sarmatians were tribes of Indo-European origin who for centuries had occupied the central plains of the middle Danube basin in modern Hungary. The Dacians were related tribes who occupied the lower basin of the Danube, much of modern Romania. The tribes united under one king, Decebalus, and in 85, the Dacians crossed the Danube to wreak havoc in the Roman province of Moesia. Domitian fought a series of battles, resulting in a stalemate that betrayed the weakened grasp of Rome on its Danube border. The province was split into Upper and Lower Moesia (Serbia, Bulgaria). The

252   Vines Intertwined

emperor also recalled the general Agricola from his northward thrust into Scotland in order to strengthen a more defensive position. In this respect, Domitian followed the intentions of Augustus, who thought the empire had expanded in his day to its defensible limits. In 89, Saturninus, commander in Upper Germany, let two legions proclaim him emperor. The revolt had no support among the other legions and was swiftly put down, but it further weakened and embarrassed Domitian. He eventually settled affairs on the Danube by paying Decebalus to defend Rome’s province from the Sarmatians. From that point on, Domitian’s paranoia seems to have governed him. He grew progressively more like Nero and Caligula before him. He executed many senators, grumbling that the conditions of princes was most miserable, since no one would believe in conspiracy against him until the king was slain.193 His undisguised autocratic rule and disdain of the senatorial class soon brought on the condemnation of the philosophers, as it would of the historians in good time. Domitian erected statues of himself throughout Rome and deified his family, wife, and sisters, and himself. In his official correspondence to procurators, he began “Our lord and god thus commands.” Soon he permitted no one to address him in any other way.194 Once again Jews and Christians suffered under imperial megalomania. Domitian accused the Jews of not paying the required temple tax and renewed the effort to collect it in Rome. The humiliating tax apparently led some Jews to hide their identity, and Domitian attempted to apply the tax on anyone who appeared Jewish, which included a good many Gentile sympathizers. It also led to the denunciation of people known to be secret Jews, the charge of calumnia. Procurators in the provinces took license to abuse the Jews as they liked, and Suetonius recounts his eyewitness experience of seeing an old Jew disgraced when searched in public to determine if he was circumcised.195 According to Dio Cassius, in 95 Domitian executed the consul Flavius Clemens and his wife Flavia Domitilla on the charge of atheism, “a charge on which many others who drifted into Jewish ways were condemned.”196 Later, Eusebius took it for granted that Flavia Domitilla was a Christian, as indeed Roman Christians at this point could still be described as those who drifted toward Judaism, but he says she was banished, not slain. Clement, the leader of the Christians in Rome under Domitian, quietly wrote of the times of persecution they were suffering.197 Domitian’s fear of conspiracy eventually materialized, but not among the senators or Praetorian guard; rather, within his own house. He was assassinated in his bed chamber by a steward on September 18, 96, no doubt with the assistance of others, perhaps even the queen Domitia Longina. The senate moved quickly to nominate a new emperor, Marcus Cocceius Nerva, an old man of the Republican nobility. That settled, the senate, by the formal resolution of damnatio memoriae, damned the memory of Domitian: his statues were destroyed, his name was erased from every monument in Rome. In Christian literature, he would be immortalized as the “the beast and his image.”198 Nerva accepted the throne as an old man over 60, infirm, and childless. He provided a suitable transition, but nothing more. Nerva seems to have known this



Jews and Christians without a Temple   253

and perhaps even regretted his elevation, for he was caught between those who suffered and those who prospered under Domitian; that is, between the senate and the people, and the soldiers who had revered Domitian for their increase in pay if for no other reason. The praetorians demanded the execution of the emperor’s assassins, and Nerva was forced to offer public thanks for subsequent deaths of the conspirators. This cost him prestige among the people, and beneath the growing clouds of discontent in October of 97, he ascended the Capitol and adopted as son, heir, co-ruler, and successor, Marcus Ulpius Traianus (Trajan), the governor of Upper Germany. The choice of successor was strictly pragmatic, for Trajan was the strongest general in the empire, the least likely to be challenged. That done, Nerva died of old age within four months. He was remembered for building granaries in Rome, for attempting to alleviate the plight of the poor, and initiating the alimenta, a welfare program to provide funds for the poorest children in rural Italy. He reversed Domitian’s pressure to tax anyone suspect of being Jewish and returned to the policy of taxing only professing Jews.

13.1.2 Trajan and the Diaspora Revolt Trajan (98–117) assumed the throne in late January of 98, acclaimed by the senate and the legions. He spent a year inspecting the troops along the Rhine and the troubled Danube frontier before coming to Rome. In keeping with his restoration of military discipline, he ordered the execution of the praetorians who had forced Nerva to execute the conspirators against Domitian. Once in Rome, he paid his respects to the senate and attended to the affairs of state left him by Nerva, including implementation of the poor children’s fund. He also increased the numbers of poor eligible for the grain dole, gave generous cash gifts to the populace, relieved taxes here and there, and inaugurated new public building programs. The unsettled affairs along the Danube occupied Trajan during the first decade of his rule. He fought two difficult campaigns, 101–102, and again in 105–106. He defeated Decebalus, who committed suicide, and annexed the territory north of the Danube within the basin of the Carpathian Mountains, the center of Transylvania, creating the new province of Dacia. The war had required eleven legions, but the reward was considerable. Dacia held vast gold and salt mines, and the revenue of gold paid for Trajan’s new forum in Rome, as well as an extravagant one-hundredday celebration. On the eastern frontier of Palestine, Trajan created the Province of Arabia in 106 from the old Nabataean territory and made its capital at Bostra (Bosra). Over the next decade he constructed the Via Trajana to link the Gulf of Aqaba with the Euphrates tributaries, a part of Roman strategy to protect the southern trade route and constrain Parthia in the south, as his expansion into Armenia would do in the north. Soon, Christianity would establish itself in Arabia.199 With the northern frontier stable, Trajan turned his attention to the east and the ever-present Parthian menace. Around 110, King Osroes (Khusrau) of Parthia deposed the pro-Roman king of Armenia. Since the treaty of Rhandeia in 63, Rome

254   Vines Intertwined

and Parthia had agreed that a Persian Arsacid would occupy the throne of Armenia, but as a vassal of Rome. Trajan could have negotiated a settlement, but he refused all diplomatic initiatives. In 113, he declared war and invaded Armenia. The Parthian candidate for kinship came and laid his crown at Trajan’s feet in the ritual of submission, expecting to receive it back as the new vassal king of Rome. Trajan, however, had greater prizes to claim. He refused the diadem, and after the king and his retinue departed, Trajan sent troops to murder them. Rome voiced its disapproval but applauded Trajan when he annexed Armenia. He marched on the city of Nisibis, which submitted without a struggle, and finding popular support in all directions, he organized Mesopotamia and annexed it as another Roman province. While he wintered in Antioch, ships were constructed by sections in Mesopotamia. In the early spring, the pieces were assembled on the Tigris, and Trajan invaded Adiabene. King Abgar VII did not resist, and as Parthia did not interfere, Trajan annexed Abgar’s kingdom of Osrhoene and renamed it the Roman province of Assyria. Trajan crossed back to the Euphrates and followed it down to the Parthian capital of Ctesiphon, which promptly fell, after King Osroes departed without a fight. Trajan captured the capital, for which Rome awarded him the title Parthicus. As a victory tour, he sailed down the Euphrates to the Persian Gulf, where Roman standards had never been set. Trajan had little time to enjoy his laurels. In distant Cyrene, west of Egypt, the so-called Diaspora Revolt (115–117) broke out. Although the tension between Jews and Greeks that had simmered since before the Alexandrian riots in 38 provided the fuel for the widespread conflagration in North Africa, the initial cause remains a mystery. Jews of Cyrene, led by one called Andreas or Lucuas, began attacking their Greek neighbors. The local authorities were unable to quell the violence, and riots turned into massacres. While the Jews of Cyrene ravaged the land on their march toward Egypt, they damaged the temples of Zeus, Apollo, Artemis, Isis, Hecate and the Dioscuri.200 Many Greeks fled to Alexandria where they took out their vengeance on the Jews, killing thousands. Soon the Jews of the Egyptian countryside joined in the chaotic violence. One source, the second-century historian Dio Cassius, describes gruesome atrocities inflicted by Jews on the Greeks: “They would eat the flesh of their victims, make belts for themselves of their entrails, anoint themselves with their blood and wear their skins for clothing; many they sawed in two, from the head downwards; others they gave to wild beasts, and still others they forced to fight as gladiators.”201 But this comes from the epitome of his eighty-book history compiled at the hands of the eleventh-century monk, Johanes Xiphilinus of Trapezus, and smacks of Byzantine anti-Jewish embellishment that relies on timeworn calumnies, including Jewish cannibalism, which Josephus had already dealt with in the first century. That Jews would die rather than eat pork, but kill to eat humans, which is equally unkosher, has never been satisfactorily explained. Atrocities, such as there were, came from both sides, as the earlier works of Philo and Josephus attest. Eusebius, our other historian who had good earlier sources, says nothing of this savagery.202 But Greeks were rightly terrified of the Jewish rampage. A certain Apollonius received a letter from his mother informing him of her prayers to the gods that the Jews “might not roast you.”203



Jews and Christians without a Temple   255

The Jewish conflagration spread to Cyprus, led by one called Artemion. Trajan dispatched a top general, Macius Turbo, from his Dacian campaigns to Cyrene, but only with great difficulty and many battles was Turbo able to bring the land under control. Meanwhile, the Parthian Osroes began a counterattack in Adiabene, and Roman garrisons were in dire straits. At this point the Jews of Mesopotamia joined in a general uprising against Roman dominion. Trajan reacted swiftly. He dispatched his general Lucius Quietus, who recaptured northern Mesopotamia. The cities of Edessa, Nisibis, and Seleucia were taken, pillaged, and burned. Thousands of Jews perished under the Roman sword, led by Lusius Quietus. When the last of the rebellion was crushed, Trajan rewarded Quietus by making him governor of the province of Judaea. There is some hint in the rabbinic tradition that the rebellion broke out in Judaea as well, known as the “War of Qitos” led by two brothers, Pappus and Julianus. Qitos possibly refers to the general Quietus, but the comments are confused, and it is likely that the tradition reflects, if anything, the Jewish uprising in Mesopotamia, although small disturbances in Judaea may have occurred. Dio takes it for granted that Jews of Mesopotamia fought against Trajan, for which he sent Lucius Quietus to subdue them.204 The Jewish communities in Mesopotamia had offered little or no support to the Jews of Palestine during their war against Rome (66–70), but the next generation of eastern Jews had many reasons to join their western brethren in opposing Rome, not least of which was Roman interference with the trade routes through Mesopotamia, a change that would harm the strong Jewish merchant class along with all the major caravan cities. The ambiguous status of the land between the two powers gave Jews a decided advantage as middlemen, with their co-religionists spread out in both empires as far as Spain and India. Furthermore, after the destruction of Jerusalem, Jewish refugees who carried a new hatred of Rome with them will have swollen the ranks of Jewish Mesopotamia. Parthia, therefore, assumed an active interest in drawing support among Jews to their cause and fostering Jewish participation in the revolt against Trajan. The Jewish king of Adiabene, Abgar VII, son of Izates, was reluctant to support Trajan’s dominion, and, though offering obeisance, probably joined the revolt in 116, for which the city of Edessa was sacked and burned.205 The question whether Parthia encouraged Jews throughout the Roman Empire to rise up against Roman rule, promising them a better life if Parthia were to extend its rule westward, remains unanswerable. The cause and intensity of the revolt, in general terms, may be found in a persistent messianic hope that followed the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. Zealots who escaped the war in 66 had stirred up the Jews of Alexandria and brought on their slaughter under Tiberius Julius Alexander. That humiliation, coupled with the expectation that the destruction of the temple was but the beginning of the messianic woes, a necessary dark era before the messiah would come to destroy Rome and rebuild the temple, may have lingered into a new generation. It has been suggested that some Jews, under the charismatic leadership of men like AndreasLoukuas, believed that they could take control of Egypt and by stopping the grain flow bring Rome to its knees (as Rome well knew). This would offer a glint of sanity

256   Vines Intertwined

to an otherwise suicidal folly. After a few victories, many Jews were again caught up in the expectation that this time, God would send his messiah and set up his kingdom. The initial spark of a great fire is soon lost in the conflagration. Whatever the cause, the result was akin to decapitation of the once thriving Jewish communities in Egypt. According to Dio, the number massacred reached 220,000 in Cyrene and 240,000 in Cyprus. Again, these numbers are hyperbolic, but probably more Jews were killed in the end than Greeks. Still, the slaughter of the Greeks on Cyprus was so severe that when the revolt was over, Jews were banished from the island. Dio says that even Jewish survivors of shipwreck who made it to the shores of Cyprus were immediately put to death. Appian of Alexandria, a Roman historian who had to flee the war, refers to the fact that “the Roman emperor Trajan was exterminating the Jewish nation in Egypt.”206 The repression of the revolt by Turbo persisted until the Jews of Egypt had nearly vanished. Many survivors fled or were assimilated into the Greco-Roman and Christian communities. It is estimated that a million Jews disappeared. The land had become a vast Jewish cemetery, with formerly Jewish homes destroyed, or vacant, or inhabited by Egyptians. Properties of condemned and deceased Jews went to the crown, later to be sold.207 The Diaspora war may well have forced many Jews of Africa to migrate further west, to Spain, or to Italy and northwards, where Jews were left unscathed. Some, however, remained in the outskirts of the cities, for they continue to appear in the records of Alexandria and across North Africa. A sufficient number of Jews apparently remained in Alexandria to send an embassy to Hadrian in 119 seeking to defend themselves against Greek charges over events during the revolt.208 But thereafter, we have no trace of the Jewish community for the next century. The Parthian king Osroes invaded the new Roman province of Assyria in the spring of 117, and Trajan found himself in difficult straits throughout Mesopotamia, with the turmoil ongoing in Egypt. By midsummer, while besieging the Mesopotamian city of Hatra (Al-Hadr, Iraq), Trajan fell ill. He abandoned the siege and died on his return to Italy. On his deathbed he was said to have adopted Hadrian (Aelius Hadrianus), a relative and native Spaniard from Italica serving as legate of Syria. The troops hailed Hadrian emperor, and the senate voted him the required powers.

13.2 Jews The history of the Jews in this generation is dominated by the aftermath of the war with Rome. Some Zealots fled to Alexandria and Cyrene, where they instigated Jewish riots, but none serious. Nevertheless, Vespasian closed the temple of Onias at Leontopolis in the Nile delta out of fear it might become the focus of another Jewish rebellion. The land of Judaea became the province of Judaea, with the civil headquarters at Caesarea, a private possession of the emperor, to be leased out for his advantage. Agrippa II remained a figurehead king. Josephus took up residence in Rome. A few Zealots and sicarii held out in Judaea. The Herodium fell quickly, and the fortress of Machaerus surrendered before a siege was mounted. Masada, under



Jews and Christians without a Temple   257

the leadership of Eleazar ben Yair, a descendant of Judas the Galilean, held out for another 4 years. The task of its capture fell to Flavius Silva. Because of its height in the Judaea ridge above the Dead Sea, the siege was long and difficult, and the story is told in chilling detail by Josephus. A rampart was built by Jewish prisoners, and the battering ram eventually breached the wall. But the defenders had already built a second barrier of wood and earth that resisted the ram. It then became a battle of fire, and when Eleazar saw they could not prevent the assault, he addressed his men and put before them the cause of taking their own lives rather than submitting to Rome. Each soldier then slit the throats of his family, and they did the same for each other. When the Romans breached the barrier the next morning, probably in April of 74, they stood in awe at the self-sacrifice of a thousand dead Judaeans. The scars of the famous siege can still be seen. Josephus retired in Rome under the patronage of the Flavians and outlived them all. Josephus tells us that Domitian kept him in favor, guaranteeing his position and punishing his enemies, so that Domitian cannot be branded as anti-Jewish per se.209 Josephus wrote his first book, Jewish War, within a few years after the war. He wrote it in Aramaic, ostensibly for the many Jews in Palestine and the eastern provinces who suffered and had good cause to hate Rome. Josephus wanted them to know who was responsible for the war; namely, a small cadre of fanatics. He had it translated into Greek, no doubt with revisions, for the Greco-Roman audience, so that they too, might know that Jews were a pious and reasonable people. He then began his history of the Jews, Jewish Antiquities, which he published in 20 books after 15 to 20 years of labor. He also wrote his autobiography, Life, and a defense of Judaism, called Against Apion, in 2 books. Josephus was a gifted man, and although he had a view of his talents that matched or even exceeded them, he cannot have known how enduring his tomes would be. We now leave behind the lush fields of Philo and Josephus and enter the barren plain of Jewish history. Here we begin the process of attempting a history from the rabbinic sources, a task correctly called “a potentially thankless search for ‘historical kernels’ whose plausibility is measured against the limits of his or her own credulity.”210 We can only hope that tradition is verisimilar to the unrecoverable reality, and there is good reason to suppose it is. As the rabbis gain a greater voice, it should also be remembered that Jews who actively engaged Gentiles, both socially and intellectually, did not cease to exist upon the deaths of Philo and Josephus. They are always out there, and any reference to the Jews by Hellenes or Christians should bring them back to mind.

13.2.1 Judaea and Rabbinic Origins Judaea recovered slowly. Most Jews had not joined in the war, but all suffered its consequences. Many fled the land, adding their numbers to the Jewish Diaspora. The shift left a higher proportion of Gentiles in Palestine, now the Roman province of Judaea. The loss of the temple meant the loss of the economic vitality of Judaea. The presence of a Roman legion in Jerusalem, however, brought in needed currency

258   Vines Intertwined

and provided a small economic base for local produce. The new Roman status of the province also spurred the building of roads, and many of the former temple stone masons likely found employment. Roman laws applied, Roman judges ruled. Jewish customs could be voluntarily followed, and no doubt many people did. Rome would support local custom, but it did not set up new local leaders who might have functioned under a client kingship. Rome viewed the Jewish religion in terms of its temple cult. The customs of the Jews and personal piety were part of the social mores of the land, and of no great concern.211 The destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, from the Roman point of view, was the destruction of Jewish religion. Many Jews saw the destruction in similar ways and withdrew from the Jewishness that bound them together while the temple stood. Scholars suppose the defection of Jews from their Judaism was considerable, as population estimates plummet. Among those who remained in Palestine, a cadre of Jews, probably under the guiding light of Johannan ben Zakkai, gathered in the town of Jamnia, which in Hebrew and rabbinic tradition is called Yavneh, a city near the coast, south of Joppa, with a harbor on the coast just to the north. Jamnia had been largely a Syrian Greek city since the time of the Maccabees, captured by Simon Maccabee, and held as a Jewish town until Pompey liberated it and restored control of the city to its Syrian inhabitants. It passed into the realm of Herod, who gave it to his sister Salome, and in her will she bequeathed it to Livia, wife of Augustus, where it passed into the hands of Tiberius and the subsequent Caesars as a personal property. Philo claims it held a majority of Jews, with Greeks in the minority, when the incident of the altar raised for the deification of Caligula, which the Jews tore down, resulted in the emperor’s command to set up the statue of himself in the temple courts.212 After the war, Jamnia became an autonomous city of the imperial province. The common assertion that the Pharisees were the only party to survive the war and became the rabbis is—to borrow a phrase from the rabbis—like a mountain hanging by a hair. The assumption is weighty, and the evidence is thin. Josephus has no more to say about the Pharisees than the Essenes and Sadducees in the first 30 years after the war. Individuals from all three parties undoubtedly survived, but it appears that the existence of the organized associations depended on the temple for their raison d’être. While the temple stood, it formed the focus of the Jewish religion, controlled by the priestly families and those who supported them, the Sadducees. The Pharisees and Essenes, loyal to God and the covenant, served as the loyal opposition to the priests who defined how Israel ought to walk. Without the temple, the opposition vanished, and without opposition, those who had banded together in common identity now disbanded.213 What survived of the Pharisees was their reputation. Josephus, after the war, claimed to have been a Pharisee (back when there were Pharisees). How many other Pharisees were alive after the war ended? We do not know, but like Josephus, they resumed their lives as best they could, no longer Pharisees in any meaningful sense, though perhaps basking in their former glory. Many may have emigrated, and being among the educated retainer class, they pursued a retainer life in the Diaspora. The shift from Pharisees to rabbis is equally tenuous. It is certain, however, that not all the surviving Pharisees became rabbis. We are told there were about 6000



Jews and Christians without a Temple   259

Pharisees before the war. After the war, sages arise, of which slightly more than a dozen are named. Rabbinic tradition never identifies itself, or its pre-70 sages, as Pharisees, but there are names that link the two groups. Johanan b. Zakkai is said to have disputed with Sadducees, and in the disputes between Pharisees and Sadducees (or Boethians) preserved in rabbinic tradition, the rabbis usually side with the Pharisees. Josephus names Samaias and Pollion as leading Pharisees during the early reign of Herod the Great, and they are probably Shemiah and Abtalion of rabbinic tradition.214 The strongest link is the family of Rabban Gamaliel the Elder, his son Simeon b. Gamaliel, and his grandson Gamaliel II. Gamaliel the Elder is mentioned as a leading Pharisee by Luke and the Mishnah. Simeon b. Gamaliel, of a noble family and of the Pharisees, is mentioned by Josephus and acknowledged in the Mishnah. Simeon’s son, Gamaliel II, is not mentioned by Josephus or ever called a Pharisee in rabbinic tradition, but he retained some of his family’s prestige and wealth, for he was among the aristocracy of the land that survived. If his father was executed by the Romans, as a later rabbinic tradition claims, and other Pharisees were prominent in the war, then Gamaliel II and the sages had reason to disassociate themselves from the Pharisees.215 Nevertheless, it is probably safe to say, as the majority view does, that some Pharisees joined the movement of Johanan b. Zakkai and Gamaliel II. Insofar as Pharisees had been the leaders of the people in matters of Torah interpretation and ancient customs, the Pharisees and priests who survived the war will have remained to some extent leaders of the Judaeans who wished to abide by the laws of Moses and who revered the interpretations of the sages. Overall, the gathering at Yavneh appears to have been a new phenomenon, and those who gathered were never keen to claim the legacy of the Pharisees. A number of the early sages were priests. Among them was Hanina, the captain of the priests, whose saying preserved in the Mishnah echoed the words of Jeremiah to pray for the city in which you dwell in exile: “Pray for the peace of the ruling power; since but for the fear of it men should have swallowed up each other alive.”216

13.2.2 Johanan ben Zakkai and His Disciples Johanan b. Zakkai is often called the father of rabbinic Judaism, yet the historical evidence is weak. Josephus, who did know of John the Baptist, Jesus, and his brother James, does not seem to have known Johanan and his disciples, or if he knew, he did not find them worth mentioning. The life of Johanan b. Zakkai may simply be the foundation legend of a later generation. If so, he serves as the legendary figure for Jews who did exist and who cobbled together the movement of sages that would produce rabbinic Judaism. The alternative to Ben Zakkai’s dramatis persona is the silent admission that we cannot know how rabbinic Judaism began. Therefore, he belongs in rabbinic history, at least as sanctified memory, in which historical verisimilitude, if it can be attained, will have to suffice.217 Of Ben Zakkai’s five disciples of repute, only Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and Joshua ben Hananiah appear to have emerged from the war with their master. Eliezer came from a wealthy family and is reputed to have defied his father to become a disciple

260   Vines Intertwined

of Ben Zakkai. For a number of years he studied in abject poverty, often going without food. When his father, Hyrcanus, came to Jerusalem to formally disinherit his son, Ben Zakkai arranged for Hyrcanus to attend his daily lecture and told Eliezer to deliver it in his stead. Hyrcanus recognized the vast learning of his son, and upon hearing the praise Ben Zakkai showered on Eliezer, he was reconciled to his son and left sufficient inheritance that Eliezer remained a wealthy man. Ben Zakkai recognized Eliezer’s gifted mind by the epithet “a plastered cistern that loses not a drop.”218 Joshua ben Hananiah was a Levite and had served among the temple singers. His mother is said to have taken him as an infant to the synagogue, where he was raised on the words of Torah, and perhaps for this cause did Ben Zakkai say of him, “Happy is she that bore him.”219 Through the misty glass of memory, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua were later reckoned the pillars of their generation and are often depicted in imposing opposition to each other, in which Joshua took the side of Hillel and Eliezer the side of Shammai. In reality, Ben Zakkai and his disciples, along with other sages, were as obscure and powerless among the Jewish people as had been Paul, Peter, and James. At some point in this postwar generation, the respectful manner of addressing an eminent person as Rabbi, “my master,” equivalent to “my lord” or “sir,” became the honorific title “Rab,” though not associated exclusively with teachers or experts in Torah. The sages also began to use the title, and through them, it gained the dominant sense of teacher. Under Ben Zakkai, the masters of Torah began to ordain their own disciples, who then took the title Rab or Rabbi.220 This was merely a development in the long tradition of a hierarchy within self-organized groups, such as the Qumran Covenanters, and was paralleled by the Christians, some of whom were also called Rabbi, as both Jesus and John the Baptist may have been. The task of leadership meant reviving certain temple rituals and holy days in the absence of the temple. Ben Zakkai issued a number of takanot, decrees, by which he enabled Jews to resume their customary worship, such as the sounding of the trumpets for the New Year, concerning witnesses for the new moon by which the holy days would be counted, and that priests should go barefoot upon the synagogue platform to pronounce the blessings, as they had done in the temple. In general, he set up a court of Yavneh to serve as the hub of the holy year. Beyond his decrees, his legal rulings followed the House of Hillel. But his most enduring legacy was his response to the loss of the temple. After the destruction of the temple, his disciple Joshua lamented, “Woe unto us, that this place, the place where the iniquities of Israel were atoned for, is laid waste.” Johanan comforted him: “Be not grieved. We have another atonement as effective as this. And what is it? It is acts of steadfast love, as it is said, ‘I desire steadfast love, not sacrifice.’ ”221 Israel needed compassion from God, and perhaps by showing compassion to their neighbors, they might receive it from their God. In one act of Torah interpretation, Ben Zakkai replaced the entire temple ritual of sacrificial atonement with the universal command to practice hesed, mercy, compassion, steadfast love. This was hardly a novel interpretation concerning temple ritual, but never had it meant so much. Ben Zakkai indulged in allegorical interpretation of Scripture, so popular with Philo. To the verse of Eccl 9:8, “Let your garments be always white; let not oil be



Jews and Christians without a Temple   261

lacking on your head,” he replied, “If the text speaks of white garments, how many of these have the peoples of the world; and if it speaks of good oil, how much of it do the peoples of the world possess! Behold, it speaks only of precepts, good deeds, and [the study of] Torah.”222 He is also reputed to have occupied himself in the esoteric study of Works of the Chariot of Elijah with his disciple Eleazar ben Arak, and to have passed it on to Rabbi Akiba. Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai’s leadership did not last long, for he was already a very old man when the temple was destroyed, though probably not the honorary 120 years later assigned to him.223 When Johanan was near death, his disciples came and found him in tears. They asked why he wept. He replied: If I were being taken today before a human king who is here today and tomorrow in the grave, whose anger if he is angry with me does not last for ever, who if he imprisons me does not imprison me for ever and who if he puts me to death does not put me to everlasting death, and whom I can persuade with words and bribe with money, even so I would weep. Now that I am being taken before the supreme King of Kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who lives and endures for ever and ever, whose anger, if He is angry with me, is an everlasting anger, who if He imprisons me imprisons me for ever, who if He puts me to death puts me to death for ever, and whom I cannot persuade with words or bribe with money—nay more, when there are two ways before me, one leading to Paradise and the other to Gehinnom, and I do not know by which I shall be taken, shall I not weep?

His disciples asked for his blessing. He said, “May it be God’s will that you fear heaven as much as you fear flesh and blood.” When they asked if that was all, he replied, “If only. . . [you can achieve that].”224

13.2.3 Gamaliel II and Yavneh During the 80s, Gamaliel II, grandson of the prominent Gamaliel the Elder, emerged to take the helm.225 He was both guided by, and opposed by, the disciples of Ben Zakkai, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Joshua b. Hananiah. The task at hand was to gain authority for themselves in the eyes of other Jewish leaders and to replace destroyed Jerusalem with Yavneh. The holy site of the temple mount was probably still controlled by priests and whatever Sadducean aristocracy remained. The shadow of the temple precinct was not a conducive place for Gamaliel and his sages to establish their authority. One early dispute among the sages concerned which places could substitute for Jerusalem and reenact temple rituals: some said only at Yavneh, others, any place a Jewish court assembled.226 This discussion, as with virtually all discussions traced to the sages who assembled at Yavneh, was theoretical and affected only themselves and anyone who chose to follow them. There is not a shred of external evidence to corroborate rabbinic decisions at Yavneh during the life of Gamaliel II. Rabbinic tradition says the sages met in the “vineyard of Yavneh.”227 The Palestinian Talmud explains the “vineyard” to mean the sages sat in rows similar to vines in a vineyard, but originally they may have met in a sheltered site of someone’s

262   Vines Intertwined

vineyard, or it may be a metaphor. Until the current generation of scholarship, this council was usually interpreted to mean that the rabbis reconstituted the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews. Such early grandeur is no longer tenable. It appears that the notion of “the Great Sanhedrin” (Greek synedrion) described in the Mishnah tractate Sanhedrin is the ideal of a permanent court or legislative body that never existed. The synedrion mentioned in the Gospels and Josephus was never more than a council assembled to advise a leader or render judgment as a court.228 There is no sound evidence for a permanent Sanhedrin during the Talmudic era. The Mishnah and a Talmudic tradition in fact state that the Sanhedrin (whatever it may have referred to) ceased with the destruction of the temple.229 On the other hand, Gamaliel no doubt formed a council, and a court, for deciding issues that arose among the sages. Such a council of learned men will have carried some weight among the population in that a few members of the previous Council of Elders that attended to the ruling priests before the war likely retained their influence. At some point in Gamaliel’s leadership, perhaps as early as 92, a tradition says he traveled to Syria to obtain “authority.”230 This brief comment was once thought to be Roman recognition of the patriarchate, the formal installation of the leader of the Jews of Palestine by Rome. That now appears unlikely. The authority Gamaliel sought was perhaps to set the calendar for Jewish holy days, such that his decision may have carried some clout with Jews who rejected him, as many would continue to do.231 The power of the calendar was no small thing in Jewish life because all holy days were on set days of the lunar months, requiring integration of the moon cycle with the solar year and the stars. The authority had lain with the temple high priest, but after the destruction, the absence of a clear authority was merely part of the chaos of Jewish life. Surviving priests expected to retain the authority, while surviving Essenes may have sought to establish a solar calendar. Who would declare the new moon or the necessary intercalation of the thirteenth month? When would Pesach or Yom Kippur be held? The sages thought they should decide, and Gamaliel would represent them. At this stage there is no indication what authority Yavneh may have carried with the Diaspora Jews who had customarily depended on the temple pronouncements, but Gamaliel’s journey to Syria may have been the first attempt to wield his influence in the Diaspora as well. During the reign of Trajan, the sages of Yavneh probably made some advances in persuading other Jews in Judaea to follow their leadership. The few legal cases that came before the rabbis were minor matters of ritual law, the sorts of questions that would concern only Jews such as former Pharisees.232 Gamaliel II is remembered as an effective and forceful leader, and there is no reason to doubt the tradition. He settled in Lydda (Lud), where he maintained a school.233 He also traveled around Palestine, exerting whatever influence the people granted him. One result of the destruction of the temple was the sudden abundance of small cattle, sheep, and goats, which formerly would have been purchased for sacrifices. Now they ravaged the hillsides and destroyed the plots of farmers. The sages came to their aid: “They may not rear small cattle in the Land of Israel, but they may rear them in Syria or in the wilderness that are in the Land of Israel.”234 The ruling, however, was an unenforceable suggestion. Even some rabbis are known to have ignored it.



Jews and Christians without a Temple   263

Purity laws invariably distinguished the sages from the amme ha-aretz, the common people of the land, a distinction that may have enhanced their reputation and helped them appropriate the authority of the former priesthood. They also discussed theoretical questions on how the land of Israel ought to function. But the rabbinic movement was still in its infancy. A majority decision did not always come easily. What little can be gleaned from the rabbinic memory is gilded in legend, but it is clear that Gamaliel exercised his leadership forcefully, even on the powerful disciples of Ben Zakkai, Eliezer b. Hyrcanus and Joshua b. Hananiah. A famous legend set in the first quarter of the second century reveals an important development in the struggle for a unified rabbinic voice, the essence of leadership. The key figures were the two disciples of Ben Zakkai, Eliezer and Joshua. The rabbis were in a school house debating whether a certain type of outdoor oven was susceptible to uncleanness; that is, for example, if a dead lizard fell on the oven and rendered it unclean, would the bread within also become unclean and have to be tossed out? Rabbi Eliezer declared the oven clean, but the rest of the sages, led by Rabbi Joshua, declared it unclean. On that day R. Eliezer brought forward every imaginable legal argument, but the Sages rejected them. Said R. Eliezer in exasperation: “If the law agrees with me, let this carobtree prove it!” Thereupon the carobtree was torn from its place and cast a hundred cubits—others say, four hundred cubits. The Sages cried, “No proof can be brought from a carobtree.” Again he said to them: “If the law agrees with me, let the stream prove it!” Whereupon the stream flowed backwards. The Sages cried, “No proof can be brought from a stream of water.” Again he urged: “If the law agrees with me, let the walls of the schoolhouse prove it.” And the walls inclined to fall. But R. Joshua rebuked them, saying: “When scholars are engaged in a legal dispute, what business is it of yours?” Hence, in honor of R. Joshua, the walls did not fall, nor did they stand upright, in honor of R. Eliezer; and to this day they are standing thus inclined. Again R. Eliezer said to them: “If the law agrees with me, let Heaven prove it!” Whereupon a Heavenly Voice cried out: “Why do ye dispute with R. Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the law agrees with him!” But R. Joshua arose and exclaimed: “It is not in heaven.”

Since the Torah had already been given at Mount Sinai, the narrative explains, sages should pay no attention to a heavenly voice, because Torah had already declared, “After the majority must one incline.” The legend continues briefly, invoking an appearance of the prophet Elijah, who often comes down from heaven to converse with the rabbis. “R. Nathan met Elijah and asked him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do in that hour when R. Joshua defied the Heavenly Voice? Said Elijah, He laughed with joy, and he said, ‘My sons have defeated Me, My sons have defeated Me.’ ”235 Rabbi Joshua quoted Deut 30:12, where God says to the Israelites that his laws are “not in heaven” that they should be hard to understand, but in their mouths and hearts, easy to follow. Rabbi Jeremiah explains that even at Sinai, God had given his people the mandate to make decisions by majority vote, referring to Exod 23:2. God laughed because the sages had used his own words to “defeat” him; for he had been training his people to think for themselves, to participate in the covenant relationship, guided by a consensus of the sages. The point is that despite the

264   Vines Intertwined

wrong decision of the majority, the Holy One, Blessed be He, endorsed it. The story is notable as a refreshing admission of the reality of religious establishment. Appeals to the voice of God or the direction of the Holy Spirit, both examples of the ancient prophetic office, have been replaced by the interpretation of holy Writ as determined by a majority of scholars. This decision by council and majority vote was, in fact, what Jews had long done. Christians were already doing it as well. Gamaliel and his council excommunicated Eliezer when he would not give in to the majority vote, and tradition says he died in a state of humiliation. Gamaliel sought to establish uniform practice in the calendar and prayer. The calendar remained a vexed calculation, and Joshua famously challenged Gamaliel and the court when he rejected the new moon decision of Gamaliel. When the Day of Atonement came, according to the calculation of Joshua, Gamaliel ordered Joshua to appear at his court, staff and purse in hand, which constituted a transgression of the sabbath law on the holiest day of the year. Joshua appeared as commanded, thereby acknowledging the authority of Gamaliel.236 In a second tradition, Gamaliel ruled that saying the Amidah prayer thrice daily, morning, afternoon, and evening, was compulsory. Joshua agreed on the morning and afternoon prayers but held that the evening prayer was optional. Gamaliel not only rejected the opinion of Joshua but also insulted him publically in the process. At this, we are told, the sages rose up and deposed Gamaliel. They installed Eleazar b. Azariah in his place. Eleazar, though young, is said to have been able to trace his lineage ten generations back to Ezra and was a man of considerable wealth, therefore able to bring the required distinction to the position of leadership. In due course, Gamaliel apologized, and Joshua, along with Akiba, convinced the sages to reinstate Gamaliel. Eleazar b. Azariah was made head of the court (Av Bet Din) and shared the preaching honors one sabbath a month.237 The little revolt against the overbearing Gamaliel, though reported much later in rabbinic tradition, shows the keen awareness of the early sages that, besides the required ancestral lineage and one learned in Torah, a leader must be sufficiently wealthy to rub shoulders among the elite class and serve Caesar if called upon. Gamaliel certainly knew that power lay in the backing of Rome, so he and his descendants would have to demonstrate loyalty to Rome, just as the reigning high priests had done in the past. This would lead to an overbearing patriarchate with royal trappings, and conflicts with the rabbis, but there was no way around leadership. Rome did not deal with riffraff. The authority of Gamaliel may have been enhanced when Agrippa II died around 93. It may have been at the death of Agrippa that, if historical, Gamaliel, Eleazar ben Azariah, and Akiba made a voyage to Rome.238 Because Rome required Jewish leaders in Palestine, some of the influential Jews in Rome may have advised Roman officials to begin dealings with Gamaliel as a leading figure in Palestine. The steps to the rise of the patriarchate, however small, must have begun in this generation. In due course, the sages of Yavneh and their heirs through the third century will be remembered as the Tannaim (singular Tanna), the “teachers” of oral Torah. Another significant event has traditionally been assigned to the sages at Yavneh in this generation. At the Council of Yavneh, it was believed that the sages gathered to determine the final canon of the Hebrew Scriptures.



Jews and Christians without a Temple   265 Rabbi Simeon ben Azzai said: I have heard a tradition from the seventy-two elders on the day when they made R. Eleazar b. Azariah head of the college of Sages, that the Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes both render the hands unclean.239

Akiba objected that the sacred status of the Song of Songs was never questioned in Israel and only the book of Ecclesiastes was disputed, but another sage affirmed the memory of Simeon b. Azzai. The Mishnah passage further tells of earlier debates between the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel concerning the status of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes, implying that the ongoing controversy was finally settled at Yavneh. Although Torah and the Prophets were perhaps universally accepted as Scripture among the Jews, the books later known as the Writings were still unsettled, and the sages finalized a closed canon of such works. It is now generally conceded that the so-called council of Yavneh cannot be sustained on so thin a tradition.240 The very word “council” is an anachronism colored by the history of Christianity. The canonical process would continue into the second century, spurred on no doubt by Christians who embraced not only the Torah and Prophets but also most of the Writings and many books now classified as the Apocrypha. The rabbis may have settled the acceptance of the scriptural authority of Song of Songs and Ecclesiastes among themselves, but whatever discussion they held at Yavneh, it made no official list of sacred writings for the vast majority of the Jews at that time. Josephus, who does mention 22 sacred books of Scripture in three groups of Moses, Prophets, and poetry, knows nothing of the Yavnean sages or a council.241 Around the same time, at the turn of the century, the author of 4 Ezra mentions 94 sacred books that the scribe Ezra received by divine revelation and were written down over 40 days. The Most High then instructed Ezra: “Make public the twenty-four books that you wrote first and let the worthy and the unworthy read them; but keep the seventy that were written last, in order to give them to the wise among your people.” For the author, Scripture was a group of 24 books that were clearly well known.242 We may assume the rabbis accepted the books that were widely held in reverence by Jews. A rabbinic canonical list shows up in the Talmud some four centuries later, though it comes in a baraita and may represent a view held in the second or third century.243

13.2.4 Jews of Babylonia Around this time Hananiah (Hanina), a young rabbi of some repute and the nephew of Rabbi Joshua ben Hananiah, went to Babylonia, but only because Joshua urged him to depart Palestine.244 According to a tradition that must be judged early, though not therefore true, Hananiah fell in with some Jewish believers (i.e., heretics) in Capernaum. They induced him (by magic, says the text) to ride a donkey on the sabbath, perhaps in imitation of “the wicked one” (Jesus). When word of this apostasy reached Joshua, he came and anointed Hananiah with oil, breaking the spell, and told his nephew that he could not remain in Palestine. Hananiah followed his uncle’s advice and went to Babylonia, where he established a school in Nehar Pekod, west of Nehardea, which became a leading school in Babylonia, and thereby

266   Vines Intertwined

the influence of the early sages was sown among Babylonian Jews.245 Whether Hananiah momentarily accepted the teachings of Jewish believers, or whether the story is a later fabrication to slander him when he confronted the sages in Palestine over the right to intercalate the year, we cannot say. But it survives as the reason he went to Babylonia.

13.3 Christians The name Christians (Christianoi) probably gained a fairly wide currency by the end of the first century, and although it remained a derogatory epithet, some followers of Jesus began to wear it with defiant pride. Christian communities continued to spread across the empire through merchants and travelers, as well as a few dedicated missionaries. The basic thrust of mission given in Acts pressed on, though the names changed, and the varieties of Christian community flourished.

13.3.1 Eastern Congregations In the eastern edge of the Roman Empire, Antioch in Syria was the hub of Christian expansion, led by its bishop, Ignatius, and perhaps a separate community of Jewish believers, under the guidance of the author of the Gospel of Matthew. The congregation at Ephesus was nearly as old as Antioch and is one of the seven churches addressed in the Revelation of John: Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea.246 Congregations were also to be found at other cities in western Asia Minor, Tralles, Magnesia on the Maeander, and at Hieropolis in Phrygia, a city in central Asia Minor rebuilt on a grand scale by Domitian after it was destroyed by an earthquake in 60. Christians sprang up along the shores of the Black Sea in Bithynia and Pontus. After the war, a small group of Jewish believers returned to Jerusalem or its environs, and they were possibly led by the aging Jude, brother of Jesus. In Egypt, the first Christians were undoubtedly Jewish and dwelt among the Jews of Alexandria. A telltale sign may come from the abbreviations of sacred names (nomina sacra) in the earliest Christian manuscripts, a scribal practice inherited from the Jews.247 The land of the Nile was a fertile land, however, and Christian seed would sprout in a variety of clandestine ways during the next generation. There were certainly congregations in Cyprus.

13.3.2 Clement of Rome and the West The congregation in Rome was led by an elder called Clement ( fl. 90–96). The faithful probably met in a network of small house groups, but perhaps they occasionally came together for baptisms and the Lord’s Supper at a single place similar to the dominant Jewish synagogues. Clement exercised his oversight not only over the Christians in Rome but also wrote a letter to the ever volatile congregation



Jews and Christians without a Temple   267

of Corinth urging them to reinstate their own elders whom they had removed from leadership. In the absence of the apostles with their charisma and authority, the Christians of this generation struggled to establish recognized leadership that would sustain the common bond between them. The letter, which survives as 1 Clement, is a plea, not a decree, to fellow believers, and invokes only the authority of God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. There is no hint of any primacy for the church of Rome, only the pastoral care of a stable congregation to an unstable one. The congregation in Rome included members of some social status, and as citizens of the imperial city, they assumed a natural leadership. Just as embassies from Rome settled disputes around the empire, so the congregation of Rome felt the same obligation. And the Christians in Corinth followed Clement’s advice, so that the natural leadership from Rome was strengthened.248

13.3.3 Persecution of Christians It is during the Flavian dynasty that the Gospels and most of the non-Pauline books of the New Testament were written, and some of Paul’s letters were being circulated. Although Paul and other missionaries had preached their gospels, drawing disciples to a faith in Christ, much effort was given to teaching the faithful, which began as catechisms of the faith, memorized and repeated by Christians. In due course, there were standard collections of the teachings of Jesus, and perhaps a basic narrative of the ministry of Jesus, which satisfied the needs of Christians to know the life of their Lord, to defend their belief that his ignoble crucifixion was the work of God. The oral and early written catechisms spread widely, providing a basic and somewhat standardized teaching, upon which the written documents built. Many of the writings refer to persecution, either directly as in Revelation and 1 Peter, or subtly as warnings in the Gospels. “Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles.”249 Conflicts in the synagogues where followers of Jesus sought to worship, and perhaps proselytize, were undoubtedly increasing, and such tension surely lies behind the prediction: “They will put you out of the synagogues; indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God.”250 Both verses could apply to Paul, but the authors have other Christians in mind. The book of Revelation was also written because of times of trouble, probably at the end of the reign of Domitian. We have specific persecution of Christians during the reigns of Nero and Trajan, and it seems likely that the conflicts between Christians and Jews increased at this time, as well as pressure from the imperial government. According to Eusebius, who preserved testimony of Hegesippus, Domitian ordered the execution of all descendants of David, apparently over some danger of another Jewish uprising, or as Hegesippus states, the “coming of Christ [i.e. the Messiah].” At this time, he says, the grandsons of Judas (Jude), the brother of Jesus, were accused of being descendants of the line of David and brought before Domitian. During the inquest,

268   Vines Intertwined

they admitted their heritage but said they were only poor farmers and showed their calloused hands in evidence. When asked about Christ and his kingdom, they explained that “it was neither of the world nor earthly, but heavenly and angelic, and it would be at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the living and the dead and to reward every man according to his deeds.” Domitian probably did not take them seriously and is said to have dismissed them as simple folk, and thereafter he ended his persecution against the church. The fact, however, that his father Vespasian had relied on the Jewish oracle that foretold his rise to the throne, as well as the prediction of Josephus, supports the report that Domitian feared the messianic hopes of Christians and sought to confirm the Flavian fulfillment of Jewish prophecy.251 Domitian’s desire to be worshiped as a god provided the grounds for any who wished to denounce Christians. In the address to the seven churches, John refers to “the slander of those who call themselves Jews but are not, but are of the synagogue of Satan.”252 Those who call themselves Jews but are not have been understood as Gentiles enamored of Jewish practice or ethnic Jews to whom John denies the identity. The “synagogue of Satan” means those who oppose, or slander, the saints as adversaries, like Satan. Their slander may refer to denunciations to Roman officials of Christians who are hiding from the requirement of emperor worship. During the reign of Trajan, a conservative estimate on the number of Christians in the Roman Empire ranges between 7000 and 10,000.253 Bishops presided over the congregations in the major cities of Caesarea Maritima, Damascus, Antioch, Salamis on Cyprus, Alexandria, Ephesus, Sardis, Smyrna, Pergamum, Athens, Corinth, Thessalonika, and Rome, as well as many lesser cities, such as Jerusalem. Despite the Christian presence, there is little, if any, evidence they were involved in the Diaspora Revolt. The leading Christian known to history during the reign of Trajan is Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, also called Theophoros, “bearer of God.” We know little about him, except that he was probably of Syrian extraction, and he was familiar with Paul’s letters. Our knowledge of Christianity at this stage is enhanced by letters he wrote while traveling from Antioch to his martyrdom in Rome. He was able to rest at cities along the way and was received with great honor in Smyrna by its bishop, Polycarp, who would later collect the letters of Ignatius for sharing among the churches, just as Christians had done for Paul. In his letters, Ignatius dwelt on various concerns that were already apparent to Paul and others of the apostolic generation: the need for unity in the church, obedience to the leaders, various beliefs about Jesus now called heresy, and the attraction of Jewish customs, including sabbath rest. Like other Christian leaders, Ignatius urged Christians to obey their bishops in all things. The Eucharist was invalid unless given by the bishop. Another view of Jesus already apparent when the Gospel of John insisted that “the Word became flesh” was that Jesus only appeared to be human, a view called docetism, from the Greek dokēsis (“appearance”). Some could not accept that the Redeemer would take on that which would not be redeemed, namely, perishable flesh. Rather, God made Jesus appear in flesh, like angels, and Jesus appeared mortal and mildly ignorant of things, but that was for the benefit



Jews and Christians without a Temple   269

of a humanity that could not handle the divine Man. Ignatius stresses those points under attack in his early formulation of later doctrine of Jesus Christ: who was from the race of David and from Mary, who was truly born, both ate and drank, was truly persecuted at the time of Pontius Pilate, was truly crucified and died, while those in heaven and on earth and under the earth looked on. He was also truly raised from the dead, his Father having raised him.254

Tradition has it that Ignatius was martyred in the Colosseum. Whether true or not, he went to his death like an athlete to the Olympic Games and was applauded by Christians along the way. Having been chosen by God for martyrdom, he pleads in his letter to the Roman Christians that they not interfere with his death but allow him the honor of dying for his Lord. He was aware, it appears, that the influential church in Rome probably could have arranged his release. “Grant me nothing more,” he writes, “than to be poured out as a libation to God while there is still an altar at hand.” Ignatius saw his death as the prefect imitation of the life of his Lord, the answer to the call “Follow me!” that all the apostles had taken up. The life of Jesus was still fresh in the minds of his followers. Ignatius has taken the name Christian upon himself, the first to do so as a badge of honor, “that I not only be called a Christian but also be found one.” Christianity is at its greatest, he said, “when it is hated by the world.”255 A few years later, Trajan sent his friend Pliny the Younger to restore the financially troubled province of Bithynia (northern Turkey along the Black Sea). During his administration, Pliny wrote letters to Trajan reporting on his administration and seeking advice. One such report written in 112 tells of the arrest, prosecution, and execution of Christians. This was an ongoing legal matter that he inherited, and he sought the emperor’s advice. He described the Christian offense: that it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and to meet again to take food, but ordinary and harmless food; and even this (they said) they had given up doing after the issue of my edict, by which in accordance with your commands I had forbidden the existence of clubs.256

Despite the innocuous description, and the impression that he thought Christians were harmless enough, the legal precedent Pliny had inherited condemned Christians for identity alone. Therefore, he had followed a simplified trial procedure to determine guilt. Pliny asked each person if he or she was a Christian, warning them of the death penalty for such an admission. He asked them three times, and if they declared for Christ each time, “I am a Christian” (Christianus sum), he sent them off to execution. If they recanted, they were let go. The problem he faced, however, was that some might recant but then resume their Christian allegiance; therefore he devised a simple test. He erected statues of Trajan and lesser gods and required Christians to pour out a wine libation, or burn incense, to the statues. This ritual, called supplications, had become a popular inexpensive way to show devotion

270   Vines Intertwined

to the gods, a god, or a hero, and it readily became an act of loyalty to the emperor. On the evidence available, Pliny’s use of this ritual as a test of religious allegiance marks its origin in the history of Rome. Trajan wrote back, confirming the policy of Pliny, to which he added: They are not to be sought out; but if they are accused and convicted, they must be punished—yet on this condition, that whoso denies himself to be a Christian, and makes the fact plain by his action, that is, by worshiping our gods, shall obtain pardon on his repentance, however suspicious his past conduct may be. Papers, however, which are presented unsigned ought not to be admitted in any charge, for they are a very bad example and unworthy of our time.257

While it is clear the simple identification of Christian was punishable by death, whether or not it was associated with crimes under Roman law, it is not clear why the Christian identity was criminal. The cause may have come from complaints of lost revenues in temples and shrines, as had formerly been the cause for riots in Ephesus, a problem that certainly brought Christianity to the concern of Pliny. Or it may have been the continued associations of rebellion in the Christian expectation of a conquering messiah. Trajan’s response seeks to maintain Roman justice, protect people against slander, and in no way suggests this policy was empire wide.

Chapter 14

Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War (117–138 c.e.) 14.1 Rome 14.1.1 Hadrian The two disasters of Hadrian’s reign, said Cornelius Fronto (ca. 95–166), orator and tutor to Marcus Aurelius, were the wars in Judaea and Britain. Since then, Hadrian is most remembered for his wall to keep the Scottish barbarians out of Roman Britain and for building the city of Aelia Capitolina on the ruins of Jerusalem. In general, he reverted to the defensive posture set up by Augustus Caesar and preferred the royal hobby of building cities to expanding territory by war. A philhellene from his youth, he was nicknamed Graeculus (“little Greek”) for his devotion to Greek studies, and he engaged in rhetoric and the arts, much as Nero had done. He rebuilt the Pantheon of Agrippa and constructed the elegant Athenaeum, in imitation of the Museum of Alexandria, where he paid scholars well and encouraged the pursuit of literature and the arts. One story tells of a debate between Hadrian and Favorinus of Gaul, in which the latter yielded the point, and when chided by the philosophic court, replied that the commander of thirty legions must be right.258 He grew a beard to hide a natural blemish, and beards came to fashion again in Rome, reversing the trend set by Alexander the Great for a clean-shaven face.259 In later years, his passion for Hellenism extended to a boy, Antinous, and often to the embarrassment of his Roman entourage. Hadrian (117–138) had never thought the military expansion of Trajan a good idea. Despite the desires of his generals for their own bit of glory, he abandoned Trajan’s annexations of Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria. According to his biographer, Spartianius, a rebellion simmered in Palestine, but Hadrian seems to have restored order on his return.260 It was probably at this time that he received ambassadors from the Jewish and Greek communities of Alexandria who accused each other of continuing the conflict of the recent war.261 While Hadrian was still on the Danube, four of the generals who opposed his policy were executed without a trial; whether at Hadrian’s command or not is unknown. The senate was angry, and Hadrian hurried to Rome in June of 118, protesting his innocence. He spent 2 years in establishing his rapport with the senate, alleviating various financial burdens, and for public approval, hosting gladiatorial games.

272   Vines Intertwined

By 120, Hadrian inaugurated a major reconstruction of cities in the East. The following year he went to Upper Germany and Raetia, where he constructed the first limes, a frontier barrier (when not following a river), in this case a timbered palisade symbolizing his defensive posture and desire for peace. He then crossed over into Britain and commissioned another limes in the form of a stone wall of 73 (80 Roman) miles between Wallsend-on-Tyne to Bowness-on-Solway, with an average height of 15 to 20 feet. Hadrian spent most of his reign traveling the empire. After wintering in Spain, he visited Ephesus and other eastern cities. During his two visits to the eastern provinces he founded or renovated numerous cities and continued the policy of urbanization, the attempt to organize districts around cities with local oversight, called colonies. The province of Judaea under the Flavians, and after the death of Agrippa II, had returned to the basic geographic kingdom of Herod the Great. Many cities were given autonomy so that the province of Judaea was conforming to the status of a “Confederation of Municipalities” like most provinces of the empire.262 Tax collection, formerly done by the companies of publicani, was now given to individual collectors (conductores) under municipal supervision. The autonomous cities were Jamnia, Azotus, Antipatris, Apollonia, Gabaa, Joppa, Tiberias, and Sepphoris. Hadrian expanded the municipal territory of Tiberias and of Sepphoris, which he renamed Diocaesarea (Divine Caesar), so they covered all of lower Galilee. The district of Samaria had already been renamed Flavia Neapolis. The city Neapolis (modern Nablus) was founded on ancient Shechem, and together with Sebaste, the two cities controlled all of Samaria. It is within the Roman reorganization of the province of Judaea that the final war against Rome is set. By 130, on the second visit to the East, Hadrian secured the peace with Parthia by returning to King Osroes I a daughter captured by Trajan in Ctesiphon. He also promised to restore the royal golden throne that had been removed to Antioch. Hadrian then visited Jerusalem. Either at this time, or previously, he outlined his plan to make the district (toparchy) of Judaea proper into the city district of a new polis, Aelia Capitolina, so named for the Hadrian’s family Aelius, and Jupiter Capitolinus. (Jericho and its lucrative balsam groves remained personal imperial property.) The emperor is supposed to have commissioned Aquila, a Jewish proselyte associated with Akiba, perhaps as a disciple, to oversee the rebuilding of the city.263 There are scattered statements among the later historians, as well as rabbinic tradition, that Hadrian agreed to rebuild the temple of the Jews.264 If this is a reliable tradition, it will have raised the hopes of Jews across the empire. The temple project, however, is likely baseless, and even according to the legend it was rescinded due to pressure from the Samaritans. Other sources suggest the Jews intended to rebuild it themselves, and it is possible an attempt was made while Jews controlled the area, but this too is improbable. It is conceivable that Trajan had made an offer to rebuild the temple, then changed his mind, perhaps due to the Jewish uprising. This would account for the unrest in Palestine at the start of Hadrian’s reign as well as the garbled rabbinic traditions, including the note of “Trajan Day” on the twelfth day of Adar, which was declared and later abolished.265 Most likely Hadrian intended a new temple to Zeus, and with that, the entire plan of Hadrian became anathema



Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War   273

to most Jews. In this context, the Christian Epistle of Barnabas cites Isa 49:17, “See, those who have destroyed this temple will themselves build it,” and says, “This is happening. For because of their war, it was destroyed by their enemies. And now the servants of the enemies will themselves rebuild it.”266 While this has been taken to mean the temple of the Jews, it probably means the temple to Zeus. As long as Hadrian was in the area the land remained calm, but when he went to Egypt in 132, the revolt broke out.

14.1.2 Bar Kokhba Revolt This generation endured the last great Jewish war. The cause for the revolt, says Dio, was the foundation of the new city of Aelia Capitolina, with its temple to Jupiter Capitolina, on the ruins of Jerusalem.267 Most histories, dictionaries, and encyclopedias customarily attribute Hadrian’s “ban on circumcision” among the Jews as the cause of the war. This verdict depends exclusively on a statement by Aelius (Pseudo) Spartianus, author of the “Life of Hadrian” in the late-fourth century Historia Augusta, where he states: “In their impetuosity the Jews also began a war, as they had been forbidden to mutilate their genitals.”268 Greek culture had long frowned on the practice of castration, and many likened Jewish circumcision to such barbaric mutilation of the genitalia. Domitian and Nerva had already banned castration, a practice of aspiring eunuch imperial ministers as well as singers, and Hadrian made it a capital offense. While it is possible that he extended this ban to Jewish circumcision as part of his neo-Hellenistic program, the Jews had always been exempt from the restrictions on castration, and Hadrian knew this. He also would have known the response of Jews to such a ban, and as a political pragmatist, it made no sense. Rabbinic sources admit that Hadrian issued many restrictions on Jews, including a ban on circumcision after the war, but it is doubtful he did so before the war, thereby making it a cause of the war.269 Recent scholarship argues persuasively that the rabbinic discussion speaks to Hadrian’s “repressive legislation following the Bar Kokhba Revolt and has no connection with the cause or causes of the revolt.”270 Even the postwar ban on circumcision may have been issued not by Hadrian but on a local level by Tineius Rufus, governor of Judaea during the revolt.271 The primary cause of the revolt, then, was the new city of Aelia Capitolina. Although the Jews of Judaea were accustomed to Hellenic temples, including those built by Hadrian in Sepphoris and Tiberias, Hadrian’s intention to adorn Jerusalem as a Hellenistic jewel brought on the dire shadows of Antiochus IV and the Maccabean revolt. In fact, Hadrian may well have held a longer range and darker view of the whole affair. The Diaspora Revolt was fresh in his memory, and as long as the temple site lay bare, Jews would look to rebuild. Besides the Jews of Persia, who were decidedly against Roman dominion, the Jews in all lands on the eastern frontier were of dubious loyalty, as Trajan had discovered. Hadrian may have intended the new city to seal the coffin on any Jewish hopes for the rebuilding of their temple. Whatever his intention, the result was war, and the preparations for war began in Judaea as soon as Hadrian’s plans were known.

274   Vines Intertwined

The leader of this uprising was Simon Bar Kosiba, known from coins and letters issued during his rebellion. Two versions of a pun on this name were given him, one positive, the other negative: Bar Kokhba, “Son of the Star,” and Bar Koziba, “Son of the Lie.” History has retained the positive, Bar Kokhba, but it was the overall negative verdict of rabbinic tradition that called him “The Liar.” There is no evidence that Bar Kokhba ever claimed to be the Messiah; rather, he claimed to be the prince of Israel, Nasi Israel, as found on coins and letters. Like Jesus, however, others apparently saw him as a messiah, and according to rabbinic tradition, no less a figure than the Rabbi Akiba. When Akiba saw Bar Kosiba, the Palestinian Talmud tells us, he proclaimed, “This is King Messiah.” To which, his colleague Johanan ben Torta replied, “Akiba, grass will grow on your cheeks, and still the Son of David will not have come.” Later, Simeon ben Yohai, a disciple of Akiba, explained the scriptural justification: “Akiba my master used to explain A Star shall step forth from Jacob (Num 24:17) thus: Koz’ba shall step forth from Jacob.” Later still, the fourth-century Rabbi Johanan cited an earlier authority: “Rabbi would expound A Star shall step forth from Jacob thus: do not read “star” (kokhav) but “liar” (kozav).”272 The entire tradition, however, is fraught with textual difficulties, a mixture of Aramaic and Hebrew, and the otherwise nearly unknown rabbi, Johanan ben Torta, so that it is possible the initial acclamation of Bar Kokhba as Messiah goes back to an anonymous source at the time of the revolt, and Akiba himself never made the association.273 There is little doubt, however, that Bar Kosiba assumed the epithet Kokhba as “Son of a Star.” Support may come from an opponent, Aristo of Pella (ca. 140), perhaps a Jewish believer, who is reported to have said: The Command of the Jews at that time was a man named Bar Kokhba, which means a star. He was nothing but an assassin and a robber; nevertheless he used his name to impress his servile followers with the belief that he was in truth a luminary come down from heaven to shine upon their evil plight.274

It is certain that Simon Bar Kokhba had considerable support among the Jews of Judaea and that he was the dominant force during the war, able to lease statecontrolled land and mint coins. Nevertheless, and despite his heroic status in modern times, it is unlikely that he had strong support of the rabbis, who themselves as yet had no great influence on the people. In the rabbinic legends he soon became a false messiah. Christian statements assert he claimed to have come down from heaven or used to convince people he could breathe fire by holding a lit straw in his mouth. A late rabbinic tradition claims Bar Kokhba declared himself Messiah, and for that, he was tried, found wanting, and executed; all of which is a historical verdict, but not history.275 In any case, the Jewish memory of Bar Kokhba no doubt soured after his defeat, but the dispute between Akiba and Ben Torta reflects the divided views of the Jewish people at the time, just as they had been divided in the days of the Maccabees. The revolt began in a small way, like the revolt of Mattathias and his sons. And like the Maccabees, the revolt began in response to a defilement of Jerusalem and only became a bid for independence after early victories promised final triumph. The rebels, however many there were, engaged the Roman forces in raids



Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War   275

and skirmishes, a form of conflict that goes by the diminutive of the Spanish guerra, guerrilla war, since the Spanish resistance to Napoleon. The rebels hid in cave networks with elaborate passageways until they were able to seize and hold small fortifications or towns, and they proved a formidable foe for the two legions stationed in Judaea under Tineius Rufus. The legions were incapable of stopping Bar Kokhba, and two additional legions were brought in, plus auxiliaries, and the governor of Syria intervened as well. But even this was insufficient, and Hadrian summoned his best general from Britain, Julius Severus, to take command of the war. Though few details are recorded by historians, Dio says, “Jews throughout the Diaspora grew agitated, plotted secretly or joined the war openly, and many outside nations, too, were joining them [the Jews] through eagerness for gain.”276 We have little evidence that many non-Jews joined the revolt, though it is certainly possible some may have participated in the general anarchy of a peasant uprising against the rich Roman dominion. Samaritans joined in the rebellion, but whether with Bar Kokhba or independently is not clear. Nabataeans fought alongside Bar Kokhba’s forces in Judaea, and it appears the uprising spread to the Jewish communities neighboring Peraea and parts of Arabia. Jews in Syria and Mesopotamia had already sided with the Persians against Trajan, and many may have joined in the new insurrection. Ironically, there is no archaeological evidence the fighting extended to the Galilee, even though some cave networks were prepared in anticipation of the war. It is unlikely many, if any, Christians joined Bar Kokhba, because they awaited a different messiah. One reference to the Christians in Judaea, written not long after the war, claims that Bar Kokba, “the leader of the revolt of the Jews, gave orders that Christians alone should be led to cruel punishments, unless they would deny Jesus Christ and utter blasphemy.”277 There is nothing incredible about the report. The Ethiopic Apocalypse of Peter expands on the fig tree as a sign of the end times.278 It speaks of the false messiahs who will arise, lead away many Jews, and persecute Christians (2.7–13). This appears to be a reference to Bar Kokhba’s revolt, and the implied persecution of Christian Jews who did not follow him. Because the document does not describe the end of Bar Kokhba, it is dated just prior to 135. Jewish believers who refused to aid in the war effort, regardless of possible messianic overtones, would have been opponents of Bar Kokhba.279 Archaeologists have uncovered coins, letters from Bar Kokhba, phylacteries, and other items hidden in caves by the rebels, as well as bodies. The remains of the rebels declare the strong resurgence of nationalism. Bar Kokhba tried to revive Hebrew as the official language. Various coins were minted with inscriptions: “Year One of the Redemption of Israel” or “Year Two of the Liberation of Israel,” while some coins simply have “Jerusalem” or “For the Liberation of Jerusalem.” A few coins contain a star above a figure of the temple, which supports his acceptance of the epithet “Son of a Star.” One of the letters requests that wands and citrons be sent to the camp of the Jews, which were the palm fronds and etrogs (citron fruit) necessary for the Feast of Sukkot. But most the of the letters written by Bar Kokhba use coarse language and contain threats of punishment, evidence of his character and perhaps his desperation, especially toward the end.

276   Vines Intertwined

The war dragged on for three and a half years, perhaps four, into 136. Bar Kokhba’s initial success permitted him to control Judaea, but when Severus adopted the same guerilla tactics and hunted them down by small groups of highly mobile soldiers, the legions gained the upper hand. Bar Kokhba may have held Jerusalem for a while, but not sufficiently to have built up defenses or to have begun work on the temple. His death came in the battle of Bethar. The probable site of Bethar/ Betar is an enclave 6 miles southwest of Jerusalem (modern Bittir), and its fall to the Romans marks the defeat of the Bar Kokhba forces. Rabbinic tradition recalls the defeat with apocalyptic imagery: the Romans “kept slaughtering until a horse sunk into blood up to his nose,” and “they found three hundred babies’ skulls on a single rock.”280 Dio Cassius, with significant numerical inflation, states: Fifty of their most important outposts and nine hundred and eighty-five of their most famous villages were razed to the ground. Five hundred and eighty thousand men were slain in the various raids and battles, and the number of those that perished by famine, disease and fire was past finding out. Thus nearly the whole of Judaea was made desolate, a result of which the people had had forewarning before the war. For the tomb of Solomon, which the Jews regard as an object of veneration, fell to pieces of itself and collapsed, and many wolves and hyenas rushed howling into their cities.281

In the end, the Roman legions also lost a great many soldiers. Hadrian was sufficiently shaken over the revolt that in his communiqué to the senate, he omitted the customary phrase affected by the emperors, “all is well with me and the legions.”282 According to Eusebius, Hadrian forbade Jews on pain of death from entering the district surrounding Jerusalem so they might not even see it from a distance.283 The ban on Jewish movement, however, could not have been easily enforced, and rabbinic tradition knows nothing about it. The city Colonia Aelia Capitolina was rebuilt on a small scale, approximately 75 to 125 acres, with an arched gate but no wall. A statue of Hadrian was placed in the central forum of the city and a temple of Venus (Aphrodite) nearby. According to Dio, Hadrian built a temple to Jupiter Capitolinus on the old temple mount, but no remains have been identified.284 Without the spiritual center of the Jewish temple, the remote and difficult location doomed Aelia Capitolina from the start, and for the next two centuries, it would languish, sustained only by memories of a glorious past. Hadrian upgraded the province to the consular rank and added a second legion stationed near Megiddo, with the Valley of Jezreel as the legion’s estate. The new province gradually came to be called Syria Palaestina, though Vespasian had already minted coins inscribed with Palaestina and meant to include Judaea. Palestine, a name derived from that of the ancient Philistines, was the Greek geographical designation for the land south of Syria, at least since Herodotus. It now became the political name as well.285 The rabbinic tradition on Hadrian’s infamous oppression of Jews and the practice of their faith is difficult to assess. He is accused of banning the study of Torah, at least in public, celebration of sabbath and festivals, and circumcision. The blood of the martyrs is laid at his feet, foremost among them Rabbi Akiba, and his name in rabbinic lore is followed by the curse “May his bones be crushed.” Curiously, the Diaspora Jewish Sibyl praises Hadrian, “a most excellent man.”286



Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War   277

14.2 Jews The fledgling leadership of the future rabbinic movement remains something of a mystery at this stage. Rabban Gamaliel II disappears from the record sometime before the Bar Kokhba revolt. He may have survived into the early years of Hadrian’s reign, or died as early as 115. After his death, the leadership of the rabbis is unknown. Some scholars have proposed that Rabbi Eleazar b. Azariah assumed leadership, others Rabbi Tarfon, but none is ever known as a patriarch. Another possibility, recently defended, is that an elder son, Rabbi Hanina b. Gamaliel, was being groomed to succeed his father, but that he too died, or was otherwise incapacitated shortly after his father and was never able to take the leadership. The second son, Simeon, was too young, and as yet unordained, but his presence was sufficient to sustain the establishment of the Gamalielan family in the absence of a leader until after the war.287

14.2.1 The Sages The sages of the Bar Kokhba revolt generation became legends not only for their halakhah but also for enduring the last great Jewish war of antiquity. They are among the third generation of Tannaim ( fl.120–140), but several of them had been involved from the first years at Yavneh, and most were born when the temple still stood. The most prominent for the development of oral Torah were Akiba b. Joseph, Tarfon, Ishmael b. Elisha, and Johanan b. Nuri. Also important were Judah b. Baba, Hananiah b. Teradion, and Jose the Galilean. Two men who were never ordained as rabbi yet received great honor were known as Ben Azzai and Ben Zoma. And a description of this generation is not complete without the enigmatic Elisha b. Abuya. Tradition tells us that Akiba (ca. 50–135) came from peasant stock, a true am-ha-aretz (uncouth man of the land), probably a despised shepherd. As he later admitted, he loathed the scholars. “I wished to have a scholar before me so I might beat him like an ass.”288 Of this, we are reasonably certain. And there is no doubt that he became the greatest rabbi of his generation. Thereafter, legend has shrouded his frame, so that the historical Akiba must be pried from his garments. The shepherd Akiba married a peasant woman named Rachel, daughter of Joshua.289 Akiba and Rachel were poor and slept on straw. Legend tells us that one night a beggar in the street (Elisha in disguise) asked Akiba to spare him some straw for his sick wife. Akiba explained the need to his wife, and she replied, “Go and become a scholar.” Thus Akiba went off to study under the disciples of Johanan b. Zakkai, Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Joshua. After 12 years, he returned, and from the back of his house he heard a man taunting his wife as a widow abandoned in her poverty. Rachel replied, “Were Akiba to hear my desires, he would be absent another twelve years.” Thereupon he returned to study and came back to his wife only after 24 years, but he came as a revered scholar with 24,000 disciples.290 The legend encapsulates the dedication and hardship of Akiba, and no doubt of many a Tanna “in the days of the giants.” After studying under Joshua b. Hananiah and

278   Vines Intertwined

Nahum of Gimzo, but primarily under Eliezer b. Hyrcanus, whom alone he called his rabbi, Akiba was ordained around 95 and began taking disciples himself. He probably taught in Lydda until the death of Eliezer and then set up his own school in Bene Berak, 5 miles east of Joppa.291 The greatest rabbis of the next generation came from his study house: Meir, Judah ben Ilai, Simeon ben Yohai, Jose ben Halafta, and Eleazar ben Shammua. Tradition recalls a number of Akiba’s journeys. He visited Rome around 96, and later he traveled to Nehardea in Babylonia. 292 He no doubt visited many other Jewish communities en route, and although the purpose of his travels later in life may have been to garner support for the revolt, the primary reason will have been his desire to spread his teachings among Jewish communities and keep the lines of communication open. Akiba is credited with developing a hermeneutic by which anything deemed necessary for applying Jewish law and custom to daily life could be derived from the written Torah. In a sense, Akiba resumed for nascent rabbinic Judaism what Philo had developed for Hellenistic Judaism; that is, a means to seek the deeper and relevant meaning from the ancient text. One sage declared, “Things which had not been revealed even to Moses were revealed to R. Akiba.”293 Where Philo had sought to extract moral principles from Torah, a spiritualization that would appeal to Greeks and the moral philosophy of his day, Akiba confronted the challenge of Christianity, which claimed the same sacred Scriptures for their own. The ingenuity of Akiba is preserved in a famous legend that tells of the day Moses ascended to heaven. There he found God affixing the coronets to the Hebrew letters of the alphabet. Moses asked why God did this and received the reply that one day a man, Akiba ben Joseph by name, will deduce heaps of laws from the coronets. Moses asked to see such a man and was ushered into a classroom where Akiba was teaching. Moses listened but grew dismayed when he failed to understand anything of the argument. A disciple, however, challenged the master, “How do you know this?” Akiba replied, “It is a law given unto Moses at Sinai,” Moses, we are told, was comforted by the admission of Akiba.294 Behind the magnificent exegetical stature of Akiba lies the second-century contest between Palestinian Judaism and the Hellenistic Judaism of the Diaspora, and perhaps more dangerous, Hellenistic Christianity. His interpretation of a Scripture now appropriated by Christians was designed to distinguish Jews from Christians. The goal of Akiba seems to have been to separate traditional Jewish practice and beliefs from the encroaching Hellenistic philosophical speculations, such as Gnostic theologies, and Christian practices and beliefs. Accordingly, Akiba said, “Tradition (masoret) is a fence around Torah.”295 At some point during this generation, Akiba also prevailed upon the Greek proselyte, Aquila, to translate the Hebrew books into Greek in order to replace the Septuagint. According to one tradition, Aquila had initially converted to Christianity while engaged in the rebuilding of Jerusalem as Aelia Capitolina, but because he refused to abandon his astrology, he was excommunicated and was taken in by the Jews. He mastered Hebrew and produced an accurate, if wooden, Greek translation from the Hebrew. Aquila took special care to avoid Greek words that had become Christianized. The most important change from the Septuagint was his choice of another word for



Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War   279

“anointed one” (christos), preferring the more literal ēleimmenos, which even the Septuagint used for Aaron and his sons as “anointed priests” (Num 3:3), and the verb was used in several places in the New Testament for anointing with oil or perfume.296 Aquila’s translation became the standard for Greek-speaking Jews, replacing the ancient Septuagint, which now became the Bible of the Christians. Only fragments of Aquila’s work remain, but the translation was valued by later Christian scholars capable of appreciating its faithfulness to the Hebrew, and they used it like a Hebrew-Greek dictionary. The brilliant mind of Akiba was not confined to deducing heaps and heaps of laws from the Scripture. Akiba dwelt on the perennial theological dilemmas of monotheism. He seems to have held a dialectic position on divine sovereignty and human freedom, for he declared: All is foreseen, yet freedom of choice [to do good or evil] is given; and the world is judged by grace (or mercy), yet all is according to the excess of works [that be good or evil].297

He also held an anthropology similar to that of Philo of Alexandria. The divine image in which humanity was created was “an image” of primordial man (Adam Kadmon), or as Philo put it, “the first heavenly man,” which was the divine idea of humankind, not the Adam and Eve of flesh. Humankind did not bear the image of God. Akiba may have had in mind some Christian views that Jesus was in the “form of God” or “the image of the invisible God.”298 Rabbi Tarfon was of priestly descent and had served in the temple before its destruction. He maintained a residence at Yavneh and at Lydda. He was remembered for the high honor he paid to his mother and his generosity to the poor. Although Tarfon had been an adherent of the House of Shammai, later he inclined toward leniency when possible, and occasionally opposed decisions of Bet Shammai. He was a strong opponent of the death penalty and would have abolished it had he been able. Tarfon was also an early opponent of Jewish believers. Concerning the books of the heretics, likely the Gospels, which though heretical contain the name of God, Tarfon reputedly said, “May I bury my sons, if such things come into my hands and I do not burn them, and even the references to the divine Name which are in them. And if someone was running after me, I should go into a temple of idolatry, but I should not go into their houses [of worship = churches]. For idolaters do not recognize the divinity in denying him, but these [Jewish believers] recognize the Divinity and deny him.”299 Rabbi Ishmael b. Elisha was of priestly descent from a family in Galilee, and perhaps the grandson of the high priest Ishmael ben Phiabi (served 59–61). During his youth he was captured by the Romans, but later Rabbi Joshua b. Hananiah ransomed him. He is said to have responded to friends and foes alike with the words “Your reward has been predicted” on the basis of Gen 27:29, “Cursed be everyone who curses you, and blessed be everyone who blesses you!” Rabbi Ishmael often opposed the scriptural interpretations of Akiba, preferring a literal reading when possible. To him is attributed the development of 13 principles of exegesis, which incorporate the 7 principles established by Hillel. He is also the supposed author of

280   Vines Intertwined

the original collection of halakhic midrashim (scriptural commentary) on Exodus, the Mekilta, as well as much of the Sifre, midrashim on Numbers. He taught that at the resurrection, body and soul would be united.300 Johanan ben Nuri was later called a “bundle of halakhot,” or more prosaically, “a basket of fancy goods” for his abundance of legal decisions. He was poor and remembered for his frugality, such that he would gather the gleanings of the field at harvest time and support himself for a year. When Tarfon once proposed that only olive oil be used for the Sabbath lamp, Johanan rejected the idea, since not everyone could afford it, and in any case, Jews in the Diaspora did not have it available. Johanan claimed to have received from an old man of the family of Abtinas the secret formula for the incense burned in the temple. Senior to Akiba, he often conflicted with Akiba over matters of halakhah. And late in life, he confessed: “I call heaven and earth to witness for myself that often was Akiba punished through me because I used to complain against him before our Rabban Gamaliel, and all the more he showered love upon me, to make true what has been said: ‘Reprove not a scorner, lest he hate thee; reprove a wise man and he will love thee.’ ”301 Jose the Galilean is reckoned among the major sages of this generation. He was known by his place of origin, Galilee, because it was rare a scholar would come from there, and in fact, he suffered abuse because of it. Even the wife of one rabbi called him a “stupid Galilean.” Nevertheless, he distinguished himself in the school at Yavneh and was not afraid to take on Akiba. He once told Akiba that even if he were to argue the rest of the day, “I will not listen to you.” According to tradition, Akiba often submitted to the interpretations of Jose. Tarfon compared Akiba and Jose the Galilean with the beasts of Dan 8:4–7: Akiba was the “ram charging westward and northward and southward. All beasts were powerless to withstand it, and no one could rescue from its power; it did as it pleased and became strong,” while Jose the Galilean was the he-goat who “came from the west across the face of the whole earth . . . and there was no power in the ram to stand before him; but he cast him down to the ground, and trampled upon him; and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand.”302 Simeon ben Azzai, known simply as Ben Azzai, was one of the exalted students of the rabbis, who despite never being ordained, was so honored that some of his decisions were accepted. He chose to remain celibate, yet he taught that men should marry and reproduce children. When Eleazar b. Azariah accused him of not practicing what he preached, Ben Azzai said, “What shall I do? My soul thirsts after Torah. Let other people keep the world going.” One teaching of Ben Azzai from the book of Lamentations may have been directed against Christians. He expounded the first word, How (ekah = aleph, kaf, yod, heh), by the numerical value of the letters 1, 10, 20, 5; accordingly: Israel did not go into exile until they had repudiated the unity of God (aleph), the law of circumcision given in the twentieth (kaf) generation (Abraham) after Adam, the ten (yod) commandments, and the five (heh) books of Moses.303 Simeon Ben Zoma, known as Ben Zoma, also never was ordained, but he was honored for his erudite exegesis of Scripture: “With Ben Zoma died the last of the exegetes.” Among his most enduring expositions, Ben Zoma proved that the third



Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War   281

part of the Shema, the going forth from Egypt (Num 15:37–41), should be recited in the evening as well as the morning by expounding Deut 16:3: “that all the days of your life you may remember the day when you came out of the land of Egypt.” He explained, “The ‘days of your life’ would mean the days only; but ‘all the days of your life’ means the nights also.” Ben Zoma devoted himself to understanding the first chapter of Genesis, and he raised a commotion among the sages over the discrepancy between Gen 1:7 and Ps 33:6. According to the psalm, “By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host by the breath of his mouth.” But in Genesis, “And God made the firmament” implies work, not simply speaking it into existence.304

14.2.2 Rabbinic Martyrs Judah b. Baba, a disciple of Akiba, is remembered for blessing because he defied a ban on rabbinic ordination (semikah). He gathered five disciples in a place between two villages, so that neither place would be punished, and there he ordained them. When they were detected, he urged the disciples to flee without him, while he remained to receive the Roman javelins. He was later called “the Hasid” (saint) and many legends were attached to his name, but there is no reason to doubt the nature of his death. The five disciples he gathered and ordained will be known as the restorers of the law in the next generation.305 Eliezer b. Hyrcanus also died before or during the revolt.306 Rabbi Joshua immediately lifted the ban upon him, and Akiba is said to have beat his chest bloody while following the funeral bier.307 Hananiah b. Teradion lived and taught disciples in the town of Siknin (Sogdana) in northern Galilee.308 He was known for his charity to the poor and his high reputation among the sages. When the public teaching of Torah was prohibited, he defied the ban and held his normal assemblies. A colleague, Jose b. Kisma, advised him to submit to the ban, arguing that God had ordained the supremacy of Roman rule, for despite all that Rome had done against Israel, it was still in power. Hananiah replied, “Heaven will show mercy.” Jose said in exasperation, “I am telling you the plain facts, and you say ‘Heaven will show mercy’! I will not be surprised if they burn both you and your scroll of law.” Soon after, Hananiah was arrested and sentenced to die by the flame. They wrapped him in his scroll of Torah and placed tufts of wool soaked in water around his chest to keep him alive as long as possible. When the flames began to consume him, his disciples called out, “Rabbi, what do you see?” He said, “I see the parchment burnt, but the letters are soaring on high [the body may perish, but the spirit is immortal]”. They urged Hananiah to open his mouth so the fire would kill him, but he would not, lest he, rather than God, take his life. The executioner then offered to remove the wool and increase the fire, if Hananiah would bring him into the world to come. Hananiah swore he would, so the executioner removed the wool and increased the fire. As soon as Hananiah expired, the executioner jumped into the flames and perished. A heavenly voice exclaimed: “Hananiah b. Teradion and the executioner have been assigned to the world to come.”309 The deaths of the sages, however they occurred, were sanctified in legends of martyrdom by the later generations.

282   Vines Intertwined

Early in the Bar Kokhba revolt, or even before it, Akiba was arrested for violating a ban on teaching Torah, perhaps in the schools or other public places. In any case, Akiba was by then an old man, an octogenarian with few years left. He had lived his life and left his mark upon the heads of his disciples. When R. Akiba was taken out for execution, it was the hour for the recital of the Shema: Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. And while they combed his flesh with iron combs, he was accepting upon himself the kingship of heaven. His disciples said to him: Our teacher, even to this point [you acknowledge the sovereignty of God]? He said to them: All my days I have been troubled by this verse, with all thy soul, [which I interpret] ‘even if He takes thy soul’. I said: When shall I have the opportunity of fulfilling this? Now that I have the opportunity shall I not fulfil it? He prolonged the word ehad [one] until he expired while saying it. A bath kol [heavenly voice] went forth and proclaimed: Happy art thou, Akiba, that thy soul has departed with the word ehad!310

14.2.3 The Other One Elisha ben Abuya is the most enigmatic sage of the Mishnaic era, known generally in the Babylonian tradition as Aher, “the Other One.” According to tradition, both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua were present at his circumcision, for his father, Abuya, was a wealthy and prominent Jew of Jerusalem. Elisha studied both the Torah and Greek writings. In due course, he was ordained a rabbi and took on his own pupils, the most prominent of whom was the proselyte Meir. At some point, Elisha abandoned enough of his rabbinic faith that his colleagues were forced to abandon him, although Meir never did.311 Neither the cause nor the nature of his heresy is known with certainty, though a number of different legends sprouted up to explain it. The perennial problem of the justice of God is one cause that rings true to the modern as well as the ancient mind. It is said that he observed a man climb a tree and retrieve from a nest the eggs along with the mother bird, an act forbidden in Torah, and depart safely. Later, another man climbed a tree and after shooing the mother away, took only the eggs, as required by Torah. As the man descended, he was bitten by a snake and died. The Torah in question: “If you come on a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings or eggs, with the mother sitting on the fledglings or on the eggs, you shall not take the mother with the young. Let the mother go, taking only the young for yourself, in order that it may go well with you and you may live long.”312 Elisha asked, where is the going well, where is the long life, for this man? Then he went out and sinned. Another story claims he saw the tongue of a sage who had expounded Torah being chewed on by a dog after the sage had been executed by Rome during the Bar Kokhba revolt. Elisha reached the same conclusion: God does not reward righteousness. Another tradition from the Babylonian Talmud suggested that in a moment of mystical meditation Elisha saw the archangel Metatron seated beside God in the heavenly chambers and wondered, “Perhaps there are two divinities?” From this it is supposed he may have gone over to Gnosticism or to Christianity. Various older interpretations argued Elisha merely took up the Sadducee position that rejected



Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War   283

oral Torah and resurrection of the dead. In fact, all the stories of Elisha ben Abuya are late, and most attempt to deal with the threat to Rabbinic Judaism that one of their own, so well grounded in Torah, could defect. It is even argued that Elisha did not leave Judaism, but due to some calamity associated with him, he became an example of the arch-sinner.313 Elisha’s only voice lies in a lone halakhic ruling in the Babylonian Talmud, and the one saying preserved in the Mishnah: “He that learns as a child, to what is he like? To ink written on new paper. He that learns as an old man, to what is he like? To ink written on paper that has been blotted out.”314 There is nothing heretical in his saying; rather, Elisha merely adds his nuance to the central concern of the sages, the study of Torah. The base narrative for Elisha’s apostasy, if indeed he is to be viewed as an apostate, is an early Tannaitic tradition of four sages who entered Paradise. Four entered the garden: Ben Azzai, Ben Zoma, the Other (“Aher”), and Akiba. One gazed and perished, one gazed and was smitten, one gazed and cut down sprouts, and one went up whole and came down whole. Ben Azzai gazed and perished. Concerning him Scripture says: Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of His saints (Ps 116:15). Ben Zoma gazed and was smitten [with dementia]. Concerning him Scripture says: If you have found honey, eat only enough for you, lest you be sated with it and vomit it. Elisha gazed and cut down sprouts. Concerning him Scripture says: Let not your mouth lead you into sin (Eccl 5:5). R. Akiba went up whole and came down whole. Concerning him Scripture says: Draw me after you, let us make haste. The king has brought me into his chambers (Song of Songs 1:4).315

The “garden” is a Persian word (pardes) for a garden, or enclosure, that was appropriated by Jews for Paradise. What this represents in this case, however, is not clear. Some say it signified the study of theosophy, possibly Jewish Gnosticism, or more generally the dangers of ecstatic mysticism, or simply the right and wrong exposition of Scripture dealing with the divine realm, especially the creation narrative of Gen 1 and the divine throne-chariot of Ezekiel 1. One sage died in the process; another went insane. Elisha b. Abuya (Aher) destroyed part of the Garden. Only Akiba came away from the study safely. Whatever, if any, historical kernel lies behind the tradition, it reveals the struggle of sages to deal with the rampant philosophical speculations among the intellectuals of the early second century. Johanan ben Zakkai had studied the throne chariot, and Ben Zoma elsewhere is said to be “already on the outside” because of his musings on the distance between the upper firmament and the lower firmament, which he deduced was but a handbreadth. It was an age of speculation that gave birth to Gnosticism. The rabbis were not immune.

14.3 Christians Hadrian followed the policy of Trajan concerning the status of Christians. In response to a query by the Roman legate in the province of Asia (124–25),

284   Vines Intertwined

Hadrian ruled against testimony of informers. “If then anyone accuses them, and shows that they are acting illegally, decide the point according to the nature of the offence, but by Hercules, if anyone brings the matter forward for the purpose of blackmail, investigate strenuously and be careful to inflict penalties adequate to the crime [of slander?].”316 Eusebius says of this generation, “Like brilliant lamps the churches were now shining throughout the world, and faith in our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ was flourishing among all mankind, when the devil who hates what is good, as the enemy of truth, ever most hostile to man’s salvation, turned all his devices against the church.”317 Apart from his verdict, however, information on Christians remains scant. We are told that in Jerusalem, there had been fifteen bishops of the church up until the war, and all of them were “Hebrew” by origin, and indeed, the whole congregation of Jerusalem were Jews. The Letter of James addressed “To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion” undoubtedly reflects their principal statement of faith, whether written by the first leader, James the brother of Jesus, or by a later disciple. During Hadrian’s reign the earliest Christian apologists appeared. A certain Quadratus, thought to be the bishop of Athens, wrote a treatise defending the faith to Hadrian around 124. In the preserved fragment, he made the remarkable claim that some of the people Jesus had cured and raised from the dead were alive to his day.318 The context of the quote was probably Gentile accusations that Jesus was just another charlatan magician. Another apologist was Aristides, a Christian philosopher of Athens. Like Philo, he uses Middle Platonism to argue for the one true God against traditional mythologies. He heaps scorn upon the Egyptians, who are more base and stupid than every people that is on the earth, for they worship animals.319 In his praise of monotheism, he lauds the Jews who gave to the world true worship and the best way of the virtuous life, including sexual morality. He finds the only fault of the Jews is that they have failed to accept Christ. The most important, if little known, church father of this generation is Papias (ca. 60–130), bishop of Hieropolis in Asia Minor. Papias was a younger companion of Polycarp and knew many disciples of the apostles; that is, he was a third generation witness to the origins of Christianity. As he said, “I inquired into the words of the presbyters, what Andrew or Peter or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples, had said. . . .” He preferred the oral witness of living tradition to written documents. Nevertheless, he wrote five treatises under the title “Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord,” which was known to Eusebius but has not survived. He is most famous for his explanation on the origins of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew. He claimed to have gotten his information on Mark from John the Presbyter, presumed author of the book of Revelation. Papias says: Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said or done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had he followed him, but later on, as I said, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord’s oracles. . . . Matthew collected the oracles in the Hebrew language, and each interpreted them as best he could.320



Farewell Jerusalem: The Last Jewish War   285

14.4 The Early Syncretistic Milieu Jews, Christians, or Gentiles attracted to monotheism, had other options beyond the established faiths in the highly syncretistic milieu of Syria-Palestine. In this generation, a certain Menander, reputedly a Samaritan disciple of Simon Magnus of Samaria (Acts 8:9–24), came to Antioch preaching the doctrine of the highest God, who though unknown had sent a savior, and this salvation was available through a revelation known to him. Another man, known as Satornilus or Saturninus, followed Menander with a similar message: a basic Gnostic doctrine that posits an unknown God who created a hierarchy of divine beings, one of whom was the god of the Jews. These beings, particularly the god of the Jews, in turn created humans, although humans were initially like worms wriggling on the ground until infused by a divine spark. The human worm then stood on his feet. The unknown God of all then sent Jesus to destroy the creator god of the Jews and to redeem those humans who contained the divine spark. Out of the same circle of disciples of Simon Magus, another named Cerdo taught in Rome, and a Basilides taught in Alexandria. Another charismatic preacher, Elkesai (Elxai), and his followers emerged around this time in the Transjordan and reached as far as Antioch. The Elkesaites practiced circumcision and baptism (though only fully dressed) and held certain Gnostic beliefs. They kept the sabbath, but more for astrological reasons than obedience to Torah. This hodgepodge would qualify them as heretics among Jews as well as Christians.

Synthesis of Part Three

Jews and Christians I (14–138 c.e.)

S3.1 Kingdom of God: Theocracy The covenant between God and his people is quintessential to Judaism and Christianity. The rule of God, the kingdom of God, are ways of describing the covenant relationship. In writing to his Greco-Roman audience, Josephus felt obliged to coin a Greek word to describe the divine constitution established under Moses and by which all Jews are governed. There is endless variety in the details of the customs and laws which prevail in the world at large. To give but a summary enumeration: some peoples have entrusted the supreme political power to monarchies, others to oligarchies, yet others to the masses. Our lawgiver, however, was attracted by none of these forms of polity, but gave to his constitution the form of what—if a forced expression be permitted—may be termed a “theocracy,” placing all sovereignty and authority in the hands of God. To Him he persuaded all to look, as the author of all blessings, both those which are common to all mankind, and those which they had won for themselves by prayer in the crises of their history. He convinced them that no single action, no secret thought, could be hid from Him. He represented Him as One, uncreated and immutable to all eternity; in beauty surpassing all mortal thought, made known to us by His power, although the nature of His real being passes knowledge.321

As far as can be determined from extant Greek literature, Josephus not only coined the word “theocracy” but also was the only one to use it for the next millennium.322 His word, however, described a government that had been developing for more than a millennium, and one that had produced a large corpus of literature gathered up in the Hebrew canon and beyond. Because this word has entered modern parlance, it is heavily laden with modern understanding and needs the appropriate qualifications. God holds all sovereignty and authority, but he rules through the laws and its administrators. The administrators of the highest affairs, says Josephus, are the priests. But he is aware of the lower affairs, the administration of commerce, roads, and protecting the border, the tasks with which kings and ministers occupy themselves. In his history of the Jews, Josephus described the Jewish constitution as an aristocracy with the potential to include a king when he paraphrased the Mosaic government described in Deut 16–18. Moses said:



Jews and Christians I   287 Aristocracy, with the life that is lived thereunder, is indeed the best: let no craving possess you for another polity, but be content with this, having the laws for your masters and governing all your actions by them; for God suffices as a ruler. But should you become enamored of a king, let him be of your own race and let him have perpetual care for justice and virtue in every other form. Let him concede to the laws and to God the possession of superior wisdom, and let him do nothing without the high priest and the counsel of his senators.323

Here, God ideally rules his people through a select group of aristocrats but permits the Jews to have a king, if they so desire. The king, however, must listen to the high priest and the council. In the same Mosaic speech based on Deuteronomy, Josephus also acknowledges the role of the prophet in the divine government: “But if the judges see not how to pronounce upon the matters set before them—and with men such things aft befall—let them send up the case entire to the holy city and let the high priest and the prophet and the council of elders meet and pronounce as they think fit.” Theocracy, then, is the rule of God as the “platonic idea” behind the forms of Jewish government through its history. Jews and Christians describe the ideal in various ways, such as the yoke of the kingdom of heaven or the kingdom of God. The Hebrew Scriptures provide an inexhaustible source of authority for every conceivable expression. The changing times required adaptation of the rule of God to changing circumstances, but the offices of king, priest, and prophet were filled, and done so under the Gentile rule of empire. This tension gave rise to the separation of temporal powers, priest and king, or temple and throne, or church and state, but in all cases, the sovereignty of God was maintained in theology. If God is not sovereign, there is no theocracy, and therefore, God, as understood by Jews and Christians, does not exist, and there is no raison d’être for either people of God. The main components of theocracy are the acknowledgment of Divine Rule (worship), the acceptance of divine laws (obedience), the divinely appointed leadership in the offices of king, high priest, and prophet (divine government), the identity of the people of God (true Israel), and the sanctity of the land of Israel (boundaries).

S3.1.1 Theocracy among Jews S3.1.1.1 God: Theology and Worship For most Jews, monotheism was no longer in doubt, but the elaboration of heavenly hosts and various ways of expressing the agents of God had blurred the concept. How was one to think of the angel of YWHW (Iaeio), or Metatron? Elisha b. Abuya may have struggled over the notion of two powers in heaven. Certainly the study of the divine chariot (merkabah) and the halls (hekhalot) of the dwelling of the Most High drew Jewish thinkers into dangerous realms, and they knew it. Gnosticism is thought to have Jewish roots.324 Philo’s conception of God begins with the necessity of existence, the foundation for all existence, for which he uses the Platonic “that which exists” (Greek to ōn). Of this existential essence, humans can know nothing. We know God through the manifestation of his powers, Theos (“God”), which refers to God’s creative

288   Vines Intertwined

action, and Kyrios (“Lord”), God’s governing action in the world. God’s activity is visible to all, but on the intellectual level, God also communicates with humankind through his Logos (“Reason,” “Word”). The Logos of God is the point of contact between the transcendent God and finite humanity. As the human reaches up with his logos, he makes contact with the Logos of God reaching down. But at the day-to-day level of human existence, one approached God humbly, seeking divine aid. Speculation on the essence of God was an idle pursuit, and indeed, ultimately a futile one: better to concentrate on terms of relationship. Worship had been formalized in the temple services, but individual prayer was largely spontaneous, though some basic prayers had been standardized. In worship, God was addressed as King, Master, and Father, among other titles. Ben Sira prayed, “O Lord, Father and Master of my life.” Akiba is said to have ended a drought by the prayer address: “Our Father, our King, we have no King but Thee; our Father, our King, for Thy sake have mercy upon us.”325 This is considered to be the origin of the formal prayer Avinu malkenu. Our Father, our King, we have sinned before Thee. Our Father, our King, we have no king but Thee. Our Father, our King, have mercy upon us.

S3.1.1.2 Laws Jews honored their ancestral customs, but allegory permitted Jews to dispense with them while still claiming the spirit of the law, or a good Jewish conscience. As a rule, Jews followed the traditional way of life, and renegades or apostates are occasionally mentioned as exceptions to the rule. Josephus describes, for a Gentile audience, how the Jews ought to follow their ideal constitution in terms that reflect their appreciation for Jeremiah’s new covenant, with the laws written on the heart.326 All Jews know their laws, for ignorance is neither a pretext nor an excuse for disobedience. There is a single creed, hence a unity and identity of religious belief that leads to uniform customs and “a very beautiful concord in human character.” And because the Law accords to the will of God, “it would be rank impiety not to observe it.” The first commandment prohibits images of God because no image can do God justice or even begin to declare his majesty. There is “one temple for the one God (for like ever loveth like), common to all as God is common to all.” Family law revolves around the principle of a natural union between a man and a woman for the purpose of procreation; all other unions are illicit. The woman is to be “submissive, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed; for authority has been given by God to the man. The husband must have union with his wife alone; it is impious to assault the wife of another.” For the crime of adultery, the penalty is death. Abortion is prohibited, for it “destroys the soul, and diminishes the race.” After legitimate intercourse, ritual ablutions are required because the Law regards procreation; because of the partition of the soul (part of it departs from the father into the child). Children are educated in the laws and customs of their ancestors. Burials are performed by near kin, and ritual purification must follow. “Honor to



Jews and Christians I   289

parents the Law ranks second only to honor to God,” and the son who does not render due honor may be stoned. All respect their elders. Judges who accept bribes are executed. Those who have the power to help a neighbor but do not are liable to judgment. “These and many similar regulations are the ties which bind us together.” The punishments mentioned by Josephus were rarely inflicted, and the uniformity of Jewish life he describes is exaggerated and may be balanced by the disputes between the houses of Hillel and Shammai. According to the traditional count, there are 316 disputes preserved in the Talmuds, and of these, about one sixth present the House of Shammai in a “lenient” interpretation of the law, while the House of Hillel is considered the more lenient in all the others; hence the enduring reputation that Shammai was the strict interpreter and Hillel the lenient one. But upon scrutiny, the traditions are not at all so obvious, and the Talmudic evidence may be a much later attempt to simply organize traditions back to their legendary past.327 We can be confident that both the Pharisees and the sages of Yavneh disputed Torah and its interpretations, but the link between the two remains an assumption vigorously disputed among the scholars of our generation. The principle of halakhah developed at Yavneh, if not earlier. The word may derive from the Persian land tax, in Aramaic halkha, in which case it follows a development like rule from the Latin regula, but a more widely accepted view is that it stems from the Hebrew root “to walk” (halakh) and indicates how Jews ought to conduct themselves as members of the covenant.328 Halakhah appears in the Mishnah either as accepted customs or as interpretations of Torah. It remains a point of debate whether halakhah came from biblical exegesis or from the common acceptance of customs independent of Torah. Rabbinic awareness of the independence of the halakhah from Scripture is evident in this passage: “the halakhot about the sabbath, Festal-offerings, and sacrilege are like mountains hanging by a hair, for teaching of Scripture thereon is scanty and the halakhot are many.”329 Other rules have strong support from Scripture, and the need for authority of the scantily supported halakhot contributed to the concept of oral Torah as a later development. In this context, a distinction between halakhah and haggadah (aggadah), or between law and lore, developed. Halakhah regulated the actions of daily Jewish life. Haggadah comprised the stories, parables, legends, and explanations that either buttressed the observance of halakhah or explored the theological implications of the covenant with God. In the rabbinic system, halakhah was mandatory, whereas haggadah was largely exhortation and entertainment, an opinion that was not binding. The Pharisees, and later sages, were known for their halakhic innovation. Hillel’s prozbul (prosbul) was an effort to keep the spirit and letter of Mosaic law alive and valid. Torah required the debt of loans made between Israelites be remitted at the start of a Sabbatical Year. The good intentions of Moses notwithstanding, a natural consequence of this law is that lenders were tight with their money as the Sabbatical Year approached, and poor farmers suffered for it. Moses had warned against this tightfistedness (Deut 15:9–10), but while the law to cancel debts could be legally enforced, the injunction to lend freely could not. Hillel introduced the prosbol, derived from the Greek pros boulē (“before the assembly”), which permitted a lender to place his debt with the court, and because the court was exempt

290   Vines Intertwined

from the law, the debt remained valid through the Sabbatical Year, to the advantage of both lender and borrower.330 Similarly, once the prohibition against work and carrying loads on the sabbath was widely observed, it was found that the rules were preventing full communal activity on the sabbath, and joy was diminished, so the principle of eruvin was invented. Some object was placed between dwellings, thereby linking them into a single larger domain in which people could carry items. A tractate in the Mishnah is devoted to the concept. One of the most enduring inventions, and one that was in the process of development during the first century, is the prohibition against mixing milk and meat, for which there is no biblical commandment. The law behind it is “You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk.”331 The original intent was apparently to foster the humane treatment of animals, similar to the prohibition against taking the eggs from a nest and killing the mother bird.332 But among the sages, and perhaps the Houses of Hillel and Shammai, the law came to be: No flesh may be cooked in milk excepting the flesh of fish and locusts; and no flesh may be served up on the table together with cheese excepting the flesh of fish and locusts. A fowl may be served up on the table together with cheese, but may not be eaten with it.333

Sages debated the inclusion of birds in the prohibition, since, as Jose the Galilean pointed out, birds cannot give milk, but no one seems to have questioned the extension of the biblical law to the principle of mixing milk and meat in a single meal. Across the sea, Philo appears unaware of a prohibition against milk and meat. He knew the law of Torah and explained the prohibition on humanitarian grounds: God “looked upon it as a very terrible thing for the nourishment of the living to be the seasoning and sauce of the dead animal.”334 He allows one to boil a baby goat in the milk of a cow, but to be safe, not in the milk of a goat since it might have come from the mother. The rationale of the sages may come from the fact that the law is given three times, suggesting that additional principles were to be derived from it in due course. The ruling further constrained table fellowship among Jews. Another feature of rabbinic law that emerges in the second century is the concept of the Noachian (or Noachide) laws applicable to Gentiles, and therefore particularly important to Gentile Christians. The fact that God had commanded Adam and Noah to follow certain laws meant that all humanity was under divine guidance and constraint.335 Already by the first century b.c.e., in the book of Jubilees, Noah gives his sons the ordinances, commandments, and the judgments he knew that were to be observed by all nations of the earth: that they might do justice and cover the shame of their flesh and bless the one who created them and honor father and mother, and each one love his neighbor and preserve themselves from fornication and pollution and from all injustice. . . . And no man who eats blood or sheds the blood of man will remain upon the earth.336

Josephus, in retelling the story of Noah and the flood, explains that the prohibition against blood is because of the life in the blood.337 In his elaboration of the moral laws of the Jews, mentioned above, Josephus equates them with the ideal law of the Greeks, invites all Gentiles to follow them, and declares the reward for those who



Jews and Christians I   291

do live by the law to be eternal life, without suggesting a Gentile must be circumcised and become a Jew.338 A generation after Josephus, probably during the reign of Hadrian, the Tannaim codified the Noachian laws into seven: courts of justice, idolatry, blasphemy, fornication (and incest), bloodshed, theft, and eating a limb cut from a living beast (blood).339 The Noachian Septalogue provided the Tannaim, whose abiding interest was in observing the law, a basis for their endorsement of a righteous Gentile who has a share in the world to come because of obedience, without entering fully into the covenant of the Jews. Rabbinic tradition reports that Rabbi Meir used to say: Whence do we know that even a Gentile who studies the Torah is equal to a High Priest? From the following verse: Ye shall therefore keep My statutes and My ordinances which, if a man do, he shall live by them (Lev 18:5). It does not say “If a Priest, Levite, or Israelite do, he shall live by them,” but “a man”; here, then, you can learn that even a Gentile who studies the Torah is equal to a High Priest.340

The Talmud comments that “Torah” refers to the seven laws. Around the same time, a group of sages declared that all the laws of Torah may be broken in order to save one’s life, except three: idolatry, fornication (adultery and incest), and bloodshed. Rather than violate these laws, included among the Noachian rule, a Jew should prefer death.341 S3.1.1.3 Leaders S3.1.1.3.1 Kingship For the vast majority of Jews in the West, the emperor of Rome was the legitimate ruler, and by his leave, descendants of Herod the Great held various forms of vice-kingship in Judaea. Augustus Caesar had set the model for the ideal king, and Jews hoped each new emperor would imitate him. Philo and Josephus praised Augustus to the highest heaven for the good reason that he represented the best they could realistically hope for. This ideology of empire governed the daily life of Jews. A similar version of this existed in the East under the Parthians. The only alternative to the reality of imperial rule was a Jewish king independent of Roman rule, but the Jewish record on that count, the Hasmoneans, did not fill hearts with confidence. The descendants of Herod were an uneven lot, a focal point for the normal ruling aristocracy. Agrippa I had been remarkably popular, and he had given his all to persuade Caligula not to desecrate the temple. His son Agrippa II was also popular, but a true puppet king whose powerlessness over his kingdom became apparent when the revolt against Rome began. We have no record of what the Zealots really thought about winning a war against Rome and how they expected to rule the kingdom of Judaea if they succeeded. Perhaps a few Zealot leaders held such hopes for themselves, but realistically, they could only expect some Jew who could reach an agreement with Rome to take over the kingship, like Herod the Great had done. After the death of Agrippa II around 100, the office of vice-kingship again lay vacant. The only meaningful alternative to Roman rule was the messiah: a royal figure backed by sufficient power to crush Rome and all other enemies. It is a matter of

292   Vines Intertwined

speculation as to how realistic the expectation of a messiah was in the minds of most Jews. The name never escapes the pen of Philo, and in all his writings, Josephus mentions the word “messiah” but once or twice, and it refers to “Jesus who was called the Messiah.” The only other time a real human being is called the Messiah is from the mouth of Akiba, referring to Simon Bar Kosiba (Kokhba), but this tradition is also suspect. Bar Kosiba called himself ha-Nasi, “the Prince,” and while he may have meant the title in keeping with the ideal king of Ezekiel’s visions, he did not presume to be the Messiah.342 Nor did Josephus deign to call the several small-time rebels who gathered a following during his life as even “false messiahs.” Josephus does say some of the rebels who rose up after the death of Herod displayed royal aspirations, but that was just when there was no puppet king in Judaea, and we are left to imagine how the aspirants and their followers thought of themselves and their chances of success. Did any of them use the title Messiah, and Josephus suppressed it? We do not know, but since Josephus was willing to admit Jesus was “called the Messiah” we may suppose none of the others were widely hailed as a messiah. In the Jewish literature of this era, the few mentions of the messiah are in the context of the end times (Greek eschaton). In that context, the coming of the messiah was no more realistic than the end of the world as they knew it. The messiah was not only the ideal king but also brought with him the ideal world. The messiahs of the Psalms of Solomon and the Qumran scrolls remained the basic concept of messiah, found also in 4 Ezra and the ambiguous Sibylline Oracles. It is possible that some people expected an all-powerful messiah to set up a real kingdom in defiance of Rome, without the cataclysmic reordering of the world, but evidence for such hopes is scarce indeed. It may be that most Jews prayed for the coming of the messiah. The fourteenth benediction of the Palestinian Amidah seeks God’s mercy toward “the kingdom of the house of David, Thy righteous anointed one.” The impression given by the evidence is that most Jews hoped for the messiah but expected him to be so obviously accompanied by divine power that few could doubt it, rather than the few credulous souls who accepted it. Johanan ben Zakkai probably spoke for the majority of Jewish leaders when he said, “If you have a sapling tree in your hand, and they say to you, ‘Look, the Messiah has come’—go and plant your sapling, then go and greet the Messiah.”343 During the second century, if not the first, the concept of the messiah, despite the association with Bar Kokhba, is largely removed from the category of human leaders to that of divine agents over which God alone has control. S3.1.1.3.2 Priesthood The high-priestly families led the sacrificial cult in Jerusalem for all Jews everywhere. That the high priest was appointed by Herodians or Roman governors was a blight on its reputation, but the golden age of the Zadokite high priests had become a faint memory. During the earlier era of the Hasmoneans, the Jews who separated themselves from the temple cult and the illegitimate high priest had begun an alternate community exemplified by the Covenanters of Qumran. During the Herodian era, the Pharisees may have imitated this as well by their own priestly



Jews and Christians I   293

purity. Although there is very little evidence the Pharisees, or the Sages who followed, applied Exod 19:5–6 as their governing principle, the extension of priestly purity to their meals and fellowship implies a priesthood of Israelites. After the destruction of the temple, some priests became prominent sages, but in general the priests seem to have retained their previous organization in 24 courses (detachments) by which they had served in the temple and gradually congregated in various cities and towns. Priests also took up specific duties in the evolving synagogue liturgy, particularly in reading the Torah and delivering the priestly blessings.344 Johanan b. Zakkai decreed that priests should deliver their blessings barefoot, as they had done in the temple.345 Priests who had been among the wealthy elite prior to the war no doubt found a way to retain much of their wealth thereafter and remained among the upper classes. S3.1.1.3.3 Prophet The office of prophet could be filled by any Israelite, and it is no surprise that some of the charismatic leaders who gathered followers in support of their cause were seen as prophets. This category of leadership required only a proclamation: the claim to speak for God. John the Baptist was among the more well known, and Jesus followed him, then Theudas and others. Prophets were not a threat to the political order per se, but the call for righteousness did tend to upset the stratification and privileges of society. Prophets were inherently annoying and dangerous. The more subtle office of prophet was the interpreter of the word of God, the Torah. Both Qumran Covenanters and Pharisees had vied with priests and Sadducees for this office. After 70, the rabbis appropriated it and established their claim through a chain of authority going back to Moses. He who controlled Torah controlled the kingdom. The opening statement of the Mishnah tractate Avot (Sayings of the Fathers) was probably formulated before the Bar Kokhba revolt, even though the tractate was compiled a century later and provides a basis for the prophetic office of Torah interpretation. Moses received the Torah from Sinai and committed it to Joshua, and Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the Prophets; and the Prophets committed it to the men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise up many disciples, and make a fence around Torah.

This is a statement of authority. A chain of named authorities is then given. The sages at Yavneh soon made the formal address of rabbi into a title of distinction. Tradition says every master ordained his own students: Johanan b. Zakkai ordained Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua; Rabbi Joshua ordained Rabbi Akiba, and onward. This traditional view, however, has little external support. During the early years at Yavneh, the recognition of a sage as rabbi was most likely informal, a term of honor given by others. While none of the sages before 70 are called Rabbi, such as Hillel and Shammai, not all of the sages after 70 are called Rabbi. The title Rabbi was not restricted to sages of rabbinic tradition, for it occurs on a number of ossuary and donor inscriptions during this era, none of which can be certainly identified with rabbis of the Mishnah.346 The prohibition in the Gospel of Matthew against

294   Vines Intertwined

accepting the honorific address suggests a more widespread application for scholars, but it does not prove the ordination of rabbis had begun at Yavneh. S3.1.3.3.4 Synagogue Leaders The leaders of the synagogues varied over time and location. Moreover, they were distinct from the community leaders, members of the council of elders in cities, though one person might hold positions in both areas. The well-known Theodotos inscription, dated to the Herodian era, that adorned a synagogue in Jerusalem mentions two leadership positions.347 Theodotos, the son of Vettenos, priest and archisynagogos, son of an archisynagogos, grandson of an archisynagogos, built the synagogue for reading the Law and teaching the commandments, and the guest chamber, the rooms, the water installations as an inn for those in need from foreign lands, which [synagogue] his fathers founded together with the elders and Simonides.

The position of “ruler of the synagogue” (archisynagōgos) is widely attested on inscriptions and in literature. In rabbinic tradition, the rosh keneset (“head of the synagogue”) is likely the equivalent.348 The office, however, is not often explained. Another title is simply archon, and the generic nature of “ruler” or “chief ” is ideal for a variety of responsibilities, both financial and administrative. Elders (presbyteroi) are well attested in the inscriptions, but again, little is known of their responsibilities. The title is traditional and vague, and it may have simply represented the governing board of a synagogue. Various assistant positions in synagogues are known as “attendant,” and one of the early functions may have been caretaker of the Torah scroll and to produce it for sabbath readings, as did the attendant for the synagogue in Nazareth.349 A prominent position in the synagogues of Palestine, judging from rabbinic tradition, was that of hazan, which may have been a minister for the general welfare, comparable to an attendant of a Hellenic temple or a deacon in government affairs. The duties of the synagogue assistants no doubt expanded after 70 to the general supervision of Torah reading, recitation of prayers, and instruction of children.350 Rabbinic tradition tells of a congregation that requested a rabbi to come and serve as a preacher, teacher, judge, and hazan.351 Two honorary positions were the Pater Synagogues and Mater Synagogues, and the titles are equivalent to patron and patroness. Some inscriptions refer to a “father of the people” or an “elder and father of the community.”352 In the Palestine, women played a small role, but in the Roman Diaspora, nearly 30 percent of the named benefactors were women. Even Gentile women benefactresses, who were at least God-fearers, received permanent seats of honor in the synagogue whenever they chose to attend. Synagogue inscriptions also refer to women elders (presbytera). Beyond the honorary positions for women, and the office of elder, women do not appear to have played prominent roles in synagogue leadership, although they undoubtedly lent a good deal of support in community life and participated in synagogue worship. Synagogue inscriptional evidence suggests that Jewish communities conformed to the Gentile society in which they dwelt. Where women played a more prominent role in society, they were given more prominence in the synagogues;



Jews and Christians I   295

and we should not assume the title, which was that of leaders, was honorary simply because it was held by a woman.353 S3.1.1.4 People of God Jewish identity remained primarily an ethnic identity, as it had been for centuries but with an increasingly religious association. The name Jew was used by Jews and Gentiles across the spectrum to refer to people who identified themselves as Jews anywhere in the known world, and going back as far as Abraham. The steady increase of Gentiles sympathetic to Jewish practice and belief, and outright conversion to Judaism, however, broadened the religious identity and increased the need for a conversion process that maintained the identity. Philo, Josephus, and others note the kinship of common devotion to God and welcome any who wish to join them. Abraham became known as the Father of Proselytes, certainly as the first proselyte to accept God, hence the spiritual father of all Gentiles who accept the God of the Jews thereafter, but also as the first to proselytize the Gentiles. Josephus, in retelling the life of Abraham, says he became a “missionary,” for when he went to Egypt during the famine he intended to evaluate the Egyptian religion against his own and conform to their doctrine if it seemed more excellent than his own or to “convert them to a better mind should his own beliefs prove superior.”354 As we have seen, Jews held differing opinions on the necessity of circumcision for Jewish identity, including the acceptance of proselytes. Until the rabbinic era, conversion into the Jewish community was a private affair, without a regulated ceremony, but no doubt guided by the expectations of the local Jewish community. Jews who did not insist on literal circumcision or held differing views on the dietary laws were exceptions that proved the rule. Most men who became Jews undoubtedly were circumcised because they wanted to become Jews, but the surgery could be done by anyone, including a Gentile. Women mostly entered the Jewish community through marriage upon a declaration to become a member, and most intended to keep a kosher home, at least to the extent the husband desired. By the second century, the ritual of immersion (baptism) appears to have become a custom enjoined on male and female converts. It is supposed that women were converting to Judaism independently as well as through marriage, and some ritual was desirable. A passage in the Palestinian Talmud states that R. Eliezer held circumcision was the determining ritual that made a conversion valid, while R. Joshua insisted on both circumcision and immersion.355 At this time, we also see the first evidence for the matrilineal descent principle of Jewish identity, by which a Jewish mother guaranteed the Jewish identity of offspring, but a Jewish father did not. The matrilineal principle was a rabbinic innovation, unknown in biblical and Second Temple times. It was most likely based on the Roman law of status, or possibly extrapolated from the prohibition against the mixture of diverse kinds by which the offspring of a Jew and Gentile follows the mother.356 The name Israel took on different meanings over the centuries since the etymology of the name was first given in the traditions of Genesis to Jacob after he struggled with the “man” at the brook Jabbok.

296   Vines Intertwined And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day. When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and Jacob’s thigh was put out of joint as he wrestled with him. Then he said, “Let me go, for the day is breaking.” But Jacob said, “I will not let you go, unless you bless me.” And he said to him, “What is your name?” And he said, “Jacob.” Then he said, “Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with men, and have prevailed. . . . So Jacob called the name of the place Peniel, saying, “For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved.”357

The Septuagint translated the biblical etymology of the name Israel as “you have prevailed with God and shall be mighty with men,” thereby enabling the Diaspora people of Israel to become God’s powerful agent on earth. The author of Jubilees, during the Hasmonean era, passed over the incident at the brook Jabbok and mentioned only the confirmation of the name change given by God later at Bethel in a dream-vision: “Your name will not be called Jacob, but you will be named Israel.” In the context of the narrative, the name Israel now refers to a priestly and holy people and ignores the etymology of a struggle with God.358 Josephus likewise avoided a certain embarrassing aspect of the Genesis incident in his account of Jewish history. Josephus calls the “man” a phantom. The phantom engages Jacob in the contest, and when Jacob prevails over the phantom, he understands that he has defeated an angel of God and that his victory augurs the assurance that “his race would never be extinguished and that no mortal man would surpass him in strength.” The angel then bade Jacob to take the name Israel, which means “the opponent of an angel of God.” The reputation of having “striven with God” was clearly an onerous burden for postexilic Jews. Josephus, following his central theme to depict the Jews as peaceful and loyal subjects, also omits the biblical verdict that Jacob (Israel) has striven with men (Rome).359 Philo offered a new etymology, even if he did not invent it, to the name Israel as “one who sees God.” This meaning is implied in Jacob’s claim after the struggle with his antagonist that he had seen God. The etymological root in Hebrew, however, comes from the words roeh (“see”) and El (“God”), probably prefaced by the word ish (“man” or “one”), yielding ish roeh El (“one who sees God”) for Israel.360 Although Philo used the name Israel as an identifier of the land as well as the people, the significance of the name was to draw lessons on how to know, that is, see, God. “Now to see the best, that is the truly existing, is the lot of the best of races, Israel, for Israel means seeing God.”361 Philo also allegorized the victory of Jacob in the wrestling match at the brook Jabbok: after Jacob had proven his strength and received the name Israel, he represents the point of contact, the boundary, between heaven and earth. Israel, therefore, is the Logos, who serves as the point of contact between God and humanity.362 The identification of Israel with the Logos is also coupled with the priestly service of the Jews before the one God, to provide a rich description of the ideal Israel as the mediator between God and all the earth. This meaning of Israel opened the door to Gentiles who sought to know God and thereby join Israel, for in that identity, a spiritual kinship of common desire was greater than kinship of ethnic origin. In his allegorical



Jews and Christians I   297

writings, Philo tended to distinguish between “Israel” and the “Jews”; in his historical writing, On the Embassy to Gaius, however, Philo identified the Jewish people as Israel, so it is apparent that Gentiles who accept what is called ethical monotheism and favor the Jews are entitled to enter into Israel, “he that sees God.”363 The relationship of a Gentile who enters Israel with the Jewish nation is not entirely clear, because Jewish definitions of a proselyte and social acceptance of a Gentile God-fearer remained fluid at this stage of history. The Torah designation of the “sojourner” within your gates, or “resident alien” ( ger toshav), prompted Philo to explain the sojourner, the “proselyte,” as not one who circumcises the flesh but one who circumcises the desires and sensual pleasures and passions of the soul and who rejects other gods. He also says that kinship is of two kinds, ancestry and of the soul, among those with a common desire for the one God; and two kinds of circumcision, of the flesh and of the heart. Such a Gentile who rejected polytheism and honored the “one God and father of all,” while remaining uncircumcised, may be called a “monotheistic proselyte.”364 The sages also accepted Gentiles into a category of ethical monotheism, or righteous Gentile. One sage in the third century could state that “anyone who repudiates idolatry is called a Jew.”365 That did not mean, however, that a righteous Gentile was a bona fide member of the Jewish people, nor within the designation of Israel. Later rabbinic tradition adopts a highly exclusive identity of being God’s chosen people, one possessing the intimacy of his monogamous spouse. In their ideal world Israel is the people of God, defined as not Gentile but also as not priests and not Samaritans.366 In some spheres of rabbinic tradition, more prominent in the Babylonian Talmud than in the Palestinian, the sages will distinguish themselves from the common people of the land (amme ha-aretz) and equate them with Gentiles. But it is worth reminding ourselves that the rabbis were not monolithic in their views, and they too change over time. Marriage outside the Jewish community was universally discouraged in the literature of the Second Temple period, and constantly practiced among the people. At one extreme, the prohibition of Ezra to protect the holy seed was advanced by the communities of the Jubilees and the Dead Sea Scrolls. For them, marriage or simple sexual relations outside the Jewish people is fornication, and the penalty is death. Others, like Philo and Josephus, accept the ban but on the grounds that intermarriage will lead to immorality, a dilution of the religion and the ways of their ancestors. However, if a Gentile were to join the Jewish community, marriage is permitted. The acceptance of proselyte marriage was consistent with Torah, which does not prohibit intermarriage, except with the seven (by then extinct) Canaanite peoples, and this had been for fear of being led astray, not to preserve biological purity.367 Luke’s mention (Acts 16:3) en passant of the marriage of the Jewish mother and Greek father of Timothy, companion of Paul, is but one example of the prevalence of Jewish intermarriage throughout antiquity. The early rabbinic position built upon the notion of proselyte marriage, although some sages condemned conversion for the sake of marriage.368 Other sages would view all proselytes in a negative light. Helbo, a late third-century sage in Palestine, compared them to a wound or a scab on Israel.369

298   Vines Intertwined

3.1.1.5 Land of Israel Philo, with a sense of distant nostalgia, spoke of Palestine as the Holy Land and Jerusalem as the Holy City.370 The city and land were holy because of the temple in Jerusalem, the dwelling place of Yahweh. All Jews understood that as one approached the temple of God, higher levels of purity applied. Many Jews in Palestine were very sensitive to the purity of the temple and willing to die for its sanctification. For Bar Kokhba and his followers, the sanctity of the land was probably more intense than others felt for their homeland. But as the Diaspora proved, most Jews chose to live outside the land of Israel and pray toward it. That did not change after the destruction of the temple and the exclusion of Jews from Jerusalem. It only made the nostalgia deeper. For the rabbis, the Land of Israel served as the outer boundary of holiness, the center of which was the Holy of Holies. “There are ten degrees of holiness. The Land of Israel is holier than any other land.”371 The absence of the temple did not lessen the geography of holiness. Jews outside the Land were to pray toward Israel, and those in Israel toward Jerusalem, and those in Jerusalem toward the temple mount, and those on the temple mount toward the Holy of Holies. The Land of Israel was the boundary of many laws dealing with tithe, purity, and the Sabbatical Year. The ideal life of a Jew was to dwell in Israel, but the rabbis were aware of the political and economic realities of the world. Some noted that the presence of God (Shekinah) could be found anywhere on earth.372 And Babylonian sages could insist that “living in Babylon is like living in Palestine.”373

S3.1.2 Theocracy among Christians S3.1.2.1 God: Theology and Worship Jesus distinguished his simple theology by his sense of intimacy with God as Father. The model Lord’s Prayer begins with “Our Father,” and Jesus often invoked God as Father in his parables. In this, Jesus followed late biblical tradition, as well as previous generations of Jews, but he seems to have stressed it more. His use of Abba, once thought to be the equivalent of a child’s “daddy!” has since been soundly rejected, but it testifies to the simplicity of his faith.374 Because Jesus addressed his own people, the existence of God, the rule of God, and Jewish worship of God were assumed, and he made no case for monotheism beyond acceptance of the Shema. Jesus emphasized the parental aspect of God with his people and the individual’s sincere and childlike approach to God the Father. Although Jesus often spoke of the kingdom of God (or heaven), the Gospels never have Jesus refer to God as king, except by allusion in parables. In formal worship, however, God was still king. The Jews who first followed Jesus did not see the elevation of Jesus to the right hand of God the Father as a compromise of monotheism. Different views of divine agency, the personification of Wisdom, Logos, archangels, and the Son of Man in 1 Enoch opened the way for the elevation of Jesus. It is quite possible that the hymn in Paul’s letter to the church at Philippi is among the earliest confessions of faith.



Jews and Christians I   299

Paul inserted (or perhaps composed) the hymn after urging his people to adopt the same mind that was in Christ Jesus: who, though he was in the form of God,   did not regard equality with God   as something to be exploited, but emptied himself,   taking the form of a slave,   being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,   he humbled himself   and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross. Therefore God also highly exalted him   and gave him the name   that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus   every knee should bend,   in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess   that Jesus Christ is Lord,   to the glory of God the Father.375

The hymn is interpreted in two basic ways: 1) Jesus is compared with Adam, who was created in the image of God yet rebelled as if equal to God; Jesus, however, accepted his human status and was obedient even to the point of death. 2) Jesus was preexistent and “in the form of God,” yet he accepted the task of becoming human and remained obedient to the point of death. The main question between the two views is whether or not the preexistence and divine status of Jesus can have developed so clearly within the first two decades after his death. In either interpretation, Jesus is highly exalted with the name above every name, and by the time of John’s prologue, the status of Jesus is clear: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Monotheism, however, is carefully sustained, since it is God’s action that exalted Jesus, and the exaltation itself is to the glory of God. By the close of the New Testament era, Jesus had become the divine agent par excellence of God’s activity. Jesus was therefore identified by the existing personifications of divine action, Wisdom or Logos, both of which were pre-existent and agents of creation. Jesus differed from the personifications of God’s activity in that he became flesh, a true human being, and as a man he became the agent of God’s redemption, again identified with an existing biblical figure, the Son of Man. The title Son of God, applicable to many humans, indeed, all who revere God as father, became unique when applied to Jesus: the only begotten Son of God. The title Lord applied to Jesus as the agent of God’s governing of the world. Jesus had become, at least for some of his followers, the full manifestation of the unknowable God. Therefore, Jesus, however his relationship to God may have been perceived, was worthy of worship. Christian theology had become, in some sense, binitarian.376

300   Vines Intertwined

In a similar development, the story of Mary’s virginal conception emerged during the first four decades of the Jesus movement. Neither Paul nor the Gospels of Mark and John mention the tradition, so that if any of them knew of it, they ignored it for their own reasons. Only the Gospels of Matthew and Luke offer a birth narrative of Jesus, and despite considerable historical differences, including distinct genealogies, both declare the miraculous conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit in the womb of Mary. Like all miracles, this lies beyond the reach of historians, but both accounts probably draw on a prior tradition, and do so independent of the other. At one time, it was argued the entire concept of a divine impregnation came from Hellenistic mythology of a “divine man” (theos anēr), such as attributed to Alexander the Great or Augustus, but the earliest record of the virgin birth by the Jewish Gospel of Matthew argues against a Hellenistic divine origin, for which the Messiah of Israel had no need. Matthew seized upon a controversial Greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 as a prophecy: “Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel (which means, God with us).” On the other hand, neither Isaiah 7:14 (ignored by Luke) nor any other biblical verse had established in Jewish tradition an expectation that the messiah would come from a miraculous conception. It appears, therefore, that some question about the birth of Jesus required an explanation; namely, Mary became pregnant after she was betrothed to Joseph, but before she came to live with him. Like the accusation of sorcery leveled against Jesus, the illegitimacy of his birth may go back to his own day—an issue perhaps hinted in the Gospel of Mark where the Nazareth villagers call Jesus the son of Mary (not of Joseph). The mystery was resolved by two competing explanations: a liaison (or rape) between Mary and a Roman soldier, or a miraculous conception by the Spirit of God. Within our sources the miraculous explanation precedes the other by at least a century, and it became a fundamental doctrine in the proclamation of Jesus as the divine Son of God, and in due course the elevation of Mary into the heavenly halls as the Virgin Mother.377 Gentiles who joined the congregation of God did, of course, perceive Jesus in terms they understood, principally the divine man concept, and brought to their thinking the many associations from Hellenistic mythology or mystery religions. Analogy is the basis of understanding and could not be avoided. The earliest artistic portrayals of Jesus, prior to 180, depict him as a young, beardless, semi-clad, itinerant philosopher or wonder worker, like many a wandering teacher and miracle worker of the Greco-Roman world. Indeed, the Judaism of the day, whether in Palestine or the Diaspora, was already infused by Hellenistic concepts. But Hellenistic association is not Hellenistic origins, as scholars used to argue. The Hebrew roots of Christianity are the mark of authenticity. Insofar as we may speak of a protoorthodoxy, or an apostolic Christianity, the “proto” and the “apostolic” are Jewish. S3.1.2.2 Laws The laws of the covenant laid down for the people of God had long been controversial among the Jews and became the first point of controversy among Christians. Obedience to the laws was the mark of loyalty to God; conformity to the customs



Jews and Christians I   301

expressed loyalty to the people. But there was room to maneuver within the bounds of loyalty, and all the diversity of Torah observance to be found among the Jews carried over, it appears, into the first followers of Jesus. While Diaspora Jews debated allegorical versus literal interpretations and the House of Hillel debated the House of Shammai over the finer points, Jewish believers likely debated Torah based on differing recollections of the teaching of Jesus, or how different leaders thought the laws ought to be observed. The allegorical method was not prominent during the early years of Christian deliberation, though it became important in the postapostolic era. But the internal Jewish debate was soon overshadowed by the question of Gentile inclusion into the new covenant. Jesus epitomized the Torah in its two greatest commandments: first love God (Deut 6:5), and then love your neighbor (Lev 19:18). The epitome describes the two tablets of the Decalogue. The one tablet dealt with relations between God and his people; the second tablet dealt with relations among God’s people. The first may be called cultic or worship; the second may be called ethical or moral and was often summarized in the Golden Rule, although Jesus did not originate the Rule and may not even have taught it. What Jesus did teach was, love your enemies.378 Behind the epitome, however, the relationship of the historical Jesus to the Torah has not often been clearly evaluated. Over the past 20 years, several scholars have begun to redress the deficiency. To pass along the mantra of a leading scholar: “The historical Jesus is the halakhic Jesus.”379 Jesus did not oppose Torah. In essence, Jesus taught halakhah in keeping with a restored Israel and a new creation. This may have been in concert with an expectation that the kingdom of God already begun in his ministry would soon be fulfilled in all Israel, but whatever the expectations of Jesus, his teachings abide for what they were, easy or not. As we have seen, the Gospels give considerable space to the conflict stories between Jesus and other Jewish leaders over the interpretation of Torah. At times Jesus appears lenient, at times strict. Occasionally we can identify his views with other groups, Essenes or Pharisees, but some of the judgments of Jesus are unique. Jesus forbade all oaths, because they involved God in petty human efforts to ensure truth when they ought to speak the truth. Jesus prohibited divorce for any reason, but if it occurred, celibacy was the appropriate response of both parties. Jesus offered pragmatic judgments on sabbath rest that facilitated a peasant’s life; doing all sorts of good works was permitted, and he ignored the sabbath limits that one could travel (about a thousand yards). Jesus supported the payment of tithes, offerings, and the temple tax. As far as the sources allow, Jesus ignored ritual purity regulations, a silence that suggests he accepted them as they were, but they were irrelevant to his mission. The high standard of ethical conduct was passed along to his followers, even if many of his halakhic rulings were lost to their memories. Jewish believers in Jesus welcomed Jews into the new covenant and taught the high Torah interpretations of Jesus concerning the laws. Gentiles were also welcomed, as they were welcomed in any Diaspora synagogue, and it was understood they would abide by the laws if they wished to be fully integrated into the Jewish community.

302   Vines Intertwined

Paul’s gospel to the Gentiles, however, changed the rules of entry into the covenant people of God. Because Gentiles, indeed, everyone, entered into the new covenant by the grace of God through faith in Jesus, the distinctive laws that served to mark out the Jews from the rest of humanity were no longer necessary. In some cases, they might even be harmful to the purpose of the new covenant, which was to include all nations in the people of God. Paul, as a Diaspora Jew, observed that circumcision, food restrictions, and the sabbath were the three markers of Jewishness that separated Jews from the Gentiles. But since there was now no distinction between Jews and Gentiles in Christ, he annulled these three laws on the grounds that the death and resurrection of Jesus rendered them obsolete. They had once served a purpose but now became a hindrance. Paul did not object to an individual abiding by these laws, so long as no one insisted they were membership requirements in the new covenant. It is unlikely Paul would have objected to any Jew or Gentile observing the sabbath rest in a most strict manner, or donning tefillin for prayer, or abstaining from pork, or circumcising sons, or facing Jerusalem when in prayer, so long as the activity was considered an act of devotion to God. But if any such action was required in order to enter into the new covenant or claimed to be obedience to God, and therefore a mark of righteousness, Paul would condemn the practice. The reason for a practice became the defining criterion for its validity. After he condemned sabbath observance in his letter to the Galatians because they thought its observance was required, Paul could later say the sabbath law was optional. After condemning the requirement of circumcision to be in the covenant, Paul could counsel the uncircumcised Timothy, who had a Jewish mother, to be circumcised in order to preach the gospel among the Jews. Paul could be Jewish or Gentile as required for his mission of the gospel, and he urged his congregations to imitate him by giving no unnecessary offense to either Jew or Greek.380 The debate among the followers of Jesus, as we saw, was central to the identity of the new movement. The Gospel of Mark, written for a Gentile audience, liberated them from the Jewish marker law of a kosher diet by interpreting the teaching of Jesus on ritual defilement versus spiritual defilement to mean all foods were acceptable. In the Gospel of Matthew, written primarily to Jews, Jesus stresses his compliance with Torah, if only by his own interpretation of halakhah, and ignores the marker laws of circumcision and diet because, we may assume, they were noncontroversial: circumcision was required and swine’s flesh was forbidden. Only sabbath observance required his attention. Jesus had little, if anything, to say about the Torah requirements for Gentiles, a silence that no doubt facilitated Paul’s approach to the Gentiles. However, his brother James, according to Acts, was forced to render judgment on laws required of the Gentiles and essentially put forward a modified Noachian rule: Gentiles were to avoid idolatry, sexual immorality, the eating of meat improperly slaughtered, and blood (or bloodshed). These marker laws were already well known among Gentiles interested in the God of the Jews because, as James points out, for a long time in every city where Gentiles frequent the synagogues, the laws of Moses have been read.381 The prohibitions issued by James conform to the requirements for any resident alien (Gentile) or sojourner in



Jews and Christians I   303

the land of Israel, and the three capital offenses (idolatry, fornication, bloodshed) that the sages declared were forbidden to be broken even on pain of death. A number of the laws mentioned by Josephus in his summary of the Jewish way of life would have been included in the moral code of Jewish believers and pressed upon Gentiles entering the church, such as a prohibition against abortion. The fifth commandment, honoring parents, was not discarded by Paul or any apostle as far as we know. The tenth commandment, “you shall not covet,” was unique in that it was the only law in the Decalogue to constrain human desire. Jesus had applied it to all the other moral commandments, raising the bar of obedience from improper action to improper desire. Paul also used this unique law to argue that the purpose of the laws of God had been to show people how they did not live up to the law of loving your neighbor. There does not seem to have been any dispute among the Jewish believers over the goal of the law to perfect human behavior. Paul followed the epitome of Jesus: “Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore, love is the fulfilling of the law.” James likewise described the command “Love your neighbor as yourself ” as the “royal law.”382 While the temple stood, the laws regulating the temple cult were valid. There is no indication that Jewish believers argued for the abolition of the temple sacrifices. The speech of Stephen in Acts, which appears to condemn the validity of the Torah and temple, is in fact a response to the false charges of attacking Torah and temple.383 The church of Jerusalem, led by James, and all the congregations in Judaea continued to observe the temple cult along with all Torah.384 Jewish believers continued to support the temple cult with their half shekel, as the example of Jesus directed.385 The unique pericope in Matthew of Jesus and the temple tax would have been all the more meaningful after the temple was destroyed when the tax was applied as the fiscus Iudaicus on all Jews who continued to practice Judaism. The tax became an annual payment for Jewish identity. According to Acts, Paul also went up to the temple to purify himself and help others fulfill their Nazarite vows.386 But Paul knew the belief that the death of Jesus was the true sacrifice of the paschal lamb, which became a central theme of the Gospel of John, and this laid the foundation for commemorating Passover after the temple was gone.387 The letter to the Hebrews likewise compensated for the absence of the temple by showing how the sacrifice of Jesus had reconciled God to the world from eternity past, and therefore the loss of the temple was insignificant, a ritual whose time had passed. But while the temple stood, it was the focal point of the worship of Jewish believers, just as among all Jews. The primary distinction in the ritual laws between Christians and Jews was the rite of the Eucharist, or Lord’s Supper. Baptism had replaced circumcision for men, and applied to women as well, but as immersion gained popularity among Jews in a conversion ceremony, baptism/immersion would be a mark of Jewish and Christian monotheism, not a distinction between them, for any Gentile seeking the one true God. Converts were baptized initially “into Christ,” proving that identification with Jesus was the focal point of the rite. Baptism was performed in flowing water (a river) if possible, but according to the early instructions of the Didache (ca. 100–115), if insufficient water was available, one could baptize by pouring water over the head three times; but in all ways it was done “in the name

304   Vines Intertwined

of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”388 The rite of the Eucharist, while innovative to Jewish believers, developed from the Last Supper, itself a Jewish ritual, and therefore was as much a continuation of Judaism as a distinction from it (to be discussed below). S3.1.2.3 Leaders The response to Roman rule noted above among the majority of Jews applies even more so to the Gentiles who followed Jesus. Christians saw the world within the ideology of empire and accepted the legitimacy of imperial rule. For Christians, as for Jews, the alternative was the intervention of God, which for most would usher in the Messianic age, however vague the notion may have been during the first century of the church. Paul and others had to deal with the accusation that by preaching the kingship of Jesus, they were at least challenging the legitimacy of Roman rule, and at most advocating rebellion (Acts 17:6–9). Paul (Rom 13:1–7) and the author of 1 Peter (2:13–17) vigorously defended the followers of Jesus against the charge of sedition by advocating loyal submission to Roman rule. The Gospels are at pains to distinguish Jesus the Messiah from any political pretention. Arguments that the New Testament documents are engaged in a cover-up for a more politically active Jesus and his followers have failed to gain a wide following. That is not to say Jesus, Paul, and others of the apostolic age were not engaged in an egalitarian movement within society and especially in the church, which by its nature undermined the class structure and hierarchy of the empire. Paul’s dictum that there was neither slave nor free in Christ did just that. But judging from our literary remains, Christians had few illusions about trying to impose their egalitarianism or divine justice on the empire, or in any other way overthrow Roman social structure. Paul’s acceptance of slavery is but one of many examples.389 Within the church, leadership imitated the Jewish community. The first Jews who devoted their lives to Jesus are best compared with a community of Essenes or with Pharisees who traversed land and sea for a single convert. They were Jews who never heard the word “Christian,” though they may have embraced the name if it meant more suffering for their master. The Christian community and its leaders over the first hundred years falls into three stages: Jesus and his disciples; the apostolic era (ca. 30–70) of the house church; the postapostolic organization of house churches (ca. 70–140).390 S3.1.2.3.1 Jesus and His Followers He was the master, they were the disciples. Because he spoke with a unique sense of authority, the crowds saw Jesus as a prophet. The dominant model of the Jesus of history was the prophet, one of the anointed offices. Possibly within his life, but certainly within a few years after his resurrection, Jesus was also the anointed king. These two anointed offices were portrayed in the incident known as Peter’s confession: “Who do people say that I am?” And they answered him, “John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.” He asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Messiah.”391



Jews and Christians I   305

The third office of high priest was given later, by applying Ps 110:4: “Thou art a priest for ever, after the order of Melchizedek.”392 In this way, not only was Jesus the supreme agent of God’s salvation but also he was the human agent in all three offices of leadership. S3.1.2.3.2 Apostolic-Era Church After the exaltation of Jesus, the former disciples of Jesus became his apostles, his messengers of the gospel. Soon other leaders were appointed. Every association of people has positions of leadership to be filled regardless of the names used to describe them. The leadership of the churches followed the synagogue model, but just as they chose the name ekklēsia instead of synagōgos to describe their association, they tended to use their own terminology.393 Church organization differed from the synagogue, however, in two important ways. Diaspora communities were well-established and widely recognized by the imperial government, along with privileges and offices of their synagogues. And the Jewish community had its own civic organization, its council ( gerousia) or senate, which governed the entire community in a city, while the synagogue leaders dealt only with their domain. Christians had no such social recognition, and the churches, though modeled on the synagogue, received recognition only so long as they were seen as synagogues or roughly analogous to synagogues. Churches also had to deal with the vitality of charismatic leadership upon which the movement was founded. The church had two types of leader: those who were gifted and therefore accredited to a certain task, and those appointed to fill a specific position associated with a known task. Paul lays out the leadership: “And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues.”394 The apostle, the prophet, and the teacher were among the gifted or charismatic positions in the early church. The helpers and administrators were qualified persons, namely, overseers (bishops), elders (presbyters), and ministers (deacons). The charismatic leaders of the early church are nicely described by Acts 13:1–3: Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers: Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the ruler, and Saul. While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, “Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.” Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off.

The apostle (apostolos) was similar to the messenger (angelos), and apostles, including Paul, were messengers of the gospel, church founders, missionaries, and then guardians of the faith. The designation of apostle was mission specific, and therefore temporary. Besides the initial twelve sent out by Jesus, of which we know very little, supplemented by Paul’s self-designation, other apostles were sent out as messengers of the churches.395 The records leave hints of the conflicts between the apostles, who bore their own authority and that of the sponsoring church, among the different congregations. Paul calls some “false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ,” which tells us there were disagreements

306   Vines Intertwined

among the churches and personality conflicts.396 But the apostolic generation came to an end when the apostles and their designates died out. Later emissaries of the churches would function as ambassadors, or agents, not unlike the rabbinic apostoli (Hebrew, sheliakh), under different names. The leadership position of prophet within the early church, like the apostle, yet more so, derived its authority from heaven. Prophecy was prominent during the first decades of the church and part of the fulfillment of the end times. Prophecy was a gift, closely linked with the phenomenon of glossolalia, or speaking in tongues, along with the gift of healing. Paul encouraged the gift of prophecy during his ministry, ranked it second only to apostle in gifts, and exercised it himself; but he had to restrain the tongues for the edification of everyone in the church. And there was always the problem of false prophecy, which became a plague in the postapostolic generations.397 The position of teacher (didaskalos) required a gift as well as an education. They expounded Scripture and helped formulate beliefs in keeping with the traditions received. Paul could say, “For this gospel I was appointed a herald and an apostle and a teacher.”398 Among the Jews it may be compared with the scribe, but especially the rabbi. Jesus was the exemplar, having taught in the synagogues. But like the other charismatic positions, it was open to abuse of power, and by its very nature, a door to opposing views. As Matthew warns, “But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.” The need to constrain teachers and conform teaching to what had been received began with Paul and gained structure in the postapostolic generation. Teachers were to be evaluated not only by what they taught but also by what they did. A well-ordered and moral life should produce similar teaching.399 With time, the unbridled authority of the Holy Spirit led to an early church in danger of divine anarchy. It was time for sober-minded administrators to take control. From the start there was a clear distinction between apostles, prophets, and leaders of congregations, or clergy proper. The apostles were pillars of the church, not overseers (bishops), elders (presbyters), or ministers (deacons). The tradition that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch and Rome is a late attempt to appropriate an apostolic authority that bishops never received onto the office of overseer that apostles never assumed. Presumably James, after he vouched for his own vision of the resurrected Jesus, became the head of congregation along the lines of synagogue leader and therefore like a bishop. The members awarded it to him because he was the brother of Jesus, who had been their leader. The authority of the assembly of Jerusalem, led by James, extended over all other house churches in Judaea, and James may have been the equivalent of the ruler of the synagogue (archisynagōgos), correctly translated as president of the synagogue, the one who presides over councils and assembly deliberations. The natural leaders of synagogue or church, or any association, were the elders, presbyters (presbyteroi). Elders were a source of authority, able to ground the present in the past and provide the wisdom that comes from many years. According to Acts, the first congregations that broke from synagogues, or formed alongside them, chose elders to lead.400 Paul, however, never addresses his letters to elders,



Jews and Christians I   307

and it is often supposed the earliest churches did not appoint elders, and Acts is anachronistic. But Paul does speak of generic leaders who have charge over the congregation, and in the absence of a specific title, this can only refer to elders.401 Every association also requires people in charge of the member’s welfare. The traditional position of deacon (diakonos) was taken from the Hellenistic world, not the synagogue, and referred to one who serves or waits to serve, hence attendants, servants, or ministers, and even statesmen. According to Acts (6:2–3), the twelve apostles appointed seven ministers to take charge of distributing the food to widows, since it did not seem a good use of time for them “to serve tables” (diakonein), but this is not meant to explain the origin of the office of deacon. In any case, the seven promptly became evangelists. In Corinth, the household of Stephanas devoted themselves to the “deacony” (diakonia), that is, the service of the saints, and the one person identified as a deacon by Paul was his sister in the Lord, Phoebe, at Cenchreae. Deacons no doubt controlled the routine service of the churches, including the welfare of its members and provisions for burial.402 The initial function of bishops (episkopoi) was administrative oversight, that is, supervision including patronage and protection. In Greek tradition, the gods may be called episkopoi, and various state officials were overseers or supervisors. Similarly in the Septuagint, God is the episkopos, and the “officers of the host” under Moses were episkopoi.403 The synagogue did not use the title, but the secular function was appropriated by the early church. Paul refers to deacons and bishops, and his use of the term episkopoi in the plural suggests that from among the elders in a church some were appointed as ministers (deacons) and others as overseers or watchmen (bishops).404 Women were not easily distinguished from men among the gifted leaders during the early decades of the church. The Holy Spirit fell upon them and bestowed the spiritual gifts as readily as upon their brothers. Prophecy and tongues were no respecter of persons, and women had a natural endowment in other areas of service. Some women were educated and could teach. Some women were prominent and wealthy widows, others the wives of such men. The social status of a woman transferred smoothly into the early church structure. Women did whatever they could do for the gospel. Prisca, wife of Aquila, was an early leader in the church at Rome, and together they risked their necks for Paul. Junia and her husband Andronicus were “prominent among the apostles” and had been imprisoned with Paul. In his letter to the church in Rome, Paul also mentions Tryphaena and Tryphosa, two women “workers in the Lord,” Julia, Mary, and Phoebe the deacon at Cenchreae. Elsewhere, Claudia is mentioned among the “brother and sisters,” Apphia, Euodia, and Syntyche at Philippi who struggled with Paul in his work of the gospel.405 S3.1.2.3.3 Postapostolic-Era Church There is no doubt that from the earliest circle of disciples around Jesus and well into the first century, women play vital and prominent roles in the early church. Their roles, however, were mostly as pioneers and charismatic leaders or as the patroness of a house church. When the churches began to organize into more stable and widespread networks during the postapostolic generations, they conformed

308   Vines Intertwined

to the accepted structure of associations. The elders were chosen by the congregation, appointed or elected. The offices of presbyter and bishop were filled almost exclusively by men, whereas the office of deacon was open to women. Pliny (ca. 112) interrogated two women deaconesses. Of necessity, the qualifications for elders, deacons, and overseers were carefully laid out. In time, a head overseer became the bishop. The title was used in conjunction with “shepherd,” and of Christ as the shepherd and episkopos of our souls.406 The churches needed the recognition by imperial government throughout the empire that had long been given to synagogues or that was granted to any authorized association (collegia licita), and the public face had to demonstrate social stability and loyalty. Too many tongue-speaking women in the assemblies did not inspire confidence in social order and may have smacked of subversive cults. The leaders sought to imitate the synagogues rather than the mystery religions. As long as things were done decently and in order, the spiritual gifts of the church ought to be exercised.407 S3.1.2.4 People of God The followers of Jesus took a long and winding road through the landscape of Jewish identity in their walk as the people of God. Initially the question of who they were did not arise. The names that applied to all their people, Hebrew, Jew, and Israel, applied to them without question. They were disciples of Jesus, and then followers of the Way, and perhaps labeled Nazarenes by others, as distinct from Pharisees or Essenes. According to Matthew, Jesus focused his ministry on the “lost sheep of the house of Israel,” but Jesus also associated with Gentiles, and it is hardly conceivable that he thought God did not care about the rest of the earth.408 Luke (10:2) had no hesitation in extending the mission of Jesus to the Gentiles and recorded the commission of “the seventy” disciples as a symbol of this mission. Paul’s revelation of Jesus, as he understood it, was given precisely so that he would take the gospel to all the earth, and therefore he became the “apostle to the Gentiles.”409 The influx of Gentiles into the people of God required a clarification of the designators Jew, Hebrew, and Israel. The term “Jew” predominantly spoke to an ethnic and geographical identity and set the Jews apart from the Gentiles. The name Hebrew was rarely used but kept its hoary ties to antiquity. “Israel” retained the strong spiritual connotations of the people devoted to God. Paul naturally identified himself as an ethnic Jew, but he accepted the ethnicreligious understanding that was prominent in the Diaspora and went one step further by extending the metaphor of circumcision of the heart to a description of the Jew in spiritual terms. Writing to a congregation of Jews and Gentiles, he said: For a person is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is true circumcision something external and physical. Rather, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly, and real circumcision is a matter of the heart—it is spiritual and not literal.410

If they must, Gentiles may think of themselves as Jews in the spiritual sense, but Paul prefers that the distinctions melt away; there is neither Jew nor Greek.411 The



Jews and Christians I   309

absence of a distinction between Jew and Gentile flows naturally to his use of Israel, which resembles that of Philo: those who attended to God, who were listening to God and seeing God. Paul closes his letter to the Galatians, after making his case that the Gentile believers are the spiritual heirs of Abraham, by saying: For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is anything; but a new creation is everything! As for those who will follow this rule—peace be upon them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.412

The phrase “Israel of God” could refer to Jews who agree with him, or the Gentiles who have entered the covenant, or it might be the self-designation of those Jewish believers who are his opponents. But the context prefers that Paul is speaking of both Jews and Gentiles who are part of the new creation.413 Paul also speaks of “Israel after the flesh,” of which he is a part, since it refers to his ancestors, especially the generation of Moses.414 Paul’s most extensive use of Israel is in his discussion of Rom 9–11. Here Paul again identifies himself with the Israelites, his brothers, his kin; but as with his view of Jews, “not all Israelites truly belong to Israel.” Israel has always been more than kinship; it is the response to the activity of God. Israel has been reduced to a remnant in the past.415 As then, so now. Some of Israel have believed in Christ, of which he is a part, but not all. For Paul, Israel is, and will always be, the people of God, and it is a matter of choice who will be included in Israel. It is also conceivable that Josephus may also have had Christians of Rome in mind when he interprets Jacob’s prevailing over the phantom at Jabbok to mean that the race of Jews would never cease; for it appears some Christians were saying the Jews were no longer Israel, against which Paul also reacted in his letter to the church in Rome.416 The identity of the “Jew” among the authors of the rest of the New Testament varies from an ethnic attachment to the Jewish people of history and the land of Judaea to a designation as opponents of Jesus and therefore of God. The John of Revelation accuses certain people in Smyrna and Philadelphia of being “those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan.”417 In keeping with the overall view of the apocalypse, this is a positive use of the label Jew, and the criticism likely refers to Jewish people who have denounced Jewish believers and are therefore not acting as Jews ought to act. “Israel” in the Gospels and the few other occurrences is the biblical people of God, all who are united with them, either in belief or unbelief, and the land in which they dwell. The main difference from Paul’s use is that in the Gospels, Israel of the flesh is seen more negatively. Mark contrasts Israel with one reference in the Shema, “Hear, O Israel,” and a second is in the mouths of the mocking chief priests, “Let the Messiah, the King of Israel, come down from the cross now, so that we may see and believe.”418 Israel is the messianic community.419 Matthew refers to Israel as the people of God, as part of the biblical tradition in the fulfillment of prophecy, and in contrast to the Gentiles.420 Israel includes both those who accept and those who reject Jesus. The Gospel of John, in the first chapter, may be aware of the etymology “one who sees God” for Israel. John insists that no one has seen God, but the Word (Logos), who was God, became flesh. It was Nathaniel, a true “Israelite,” who

310   Vines Intertwined

recognized Jesus as the Son of God and king of Israel; to which Jesus replied, “Very truly, I tell you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.” The response of Jesus alluded to Jacob’s dream of angels descending and ascending on a ladder to heaven, at the place he then named Bethel. John appears to imply that Jesus is, as the Son of Man, the embodiment of Israel, and as the Word (Logos), the point of contact between heaven and earth. If so, he draws on Jewish traditions familiar to Jubilees and Philo.421 The panoramic eschatology of the book of Revelation uses Israel for the people of God through all time, symbolized by the twelve tribes, sealed in the 144,000, whose names are inscribed on the twelve gates of the new Jerusalem, and the twelve apostles, whose names are on the twelve foundations of the new Jerusalem. Around the same time, Clement of Rome (ca. 95) writing from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, assumed both churches were the heirs of ancient Israel, God’s people. Echoing Paul, he notes that from Abraham came the twelve tribes, and from them came the ministers of God, the kings, and the Lord Jesus according to the flesh, and all who are called in Christ Jesus.422 By contrast to Clement, the author of the Epistle of Barnabas, writing around the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt, separates those called Israel, who are the Jews both in the biblical past and present, from “us” (Christians, without using the name). Some things written in Scripture “concern Israel; others concern us.” God has rejected “the city, the temple, and the people of Israel,” and now dwells in the temple of his new people.423 The identity of “Hebrew” remained for Jewish believers what it was for Jews, a hoary honorific of a traditional member of the descendants of Abraham, loyal to the covenant people. Whoever appended the title “Epistle to the Hebrews” to the existing work thought it appropriate to the content: “Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets.” Paul claims he is a “Hebrew of the Hebrews” because he was accused of being an innovator in the faith of his heritage, though he believed he was keeping the faith of his heritage. Gentile Christians do not appear to have appropriated the identity “Hebrew” at this stage. The author of the epistle to the Hebrews (8:8–13) also appropriated the “new covenant” of Jeremiah for the followers of Jesus. After quoting Jer 31:31–34, he says, “In speaking of a new covenant he treats the first as obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.” While this passage has been correctly described as supersession, the belief that the Mosaic covenant had been superseded by Christ, it was hardly a break from Jewish roots; rather, a claim that Jeremiah’s prophecy had been fulfilled and a new covenant established. Jesus may have already done that if the tradition Paul received goes back to Jesus and his disciples at the Last Supper: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”424 The epithet “Christians” (Christianoi) is obscure but probably of Latin origin. The ending -ianus was applied to Christus, meaning adherents or devotees of Christ. If so, and Luke is correct that the disciples were first called Christianoi in Antioch, the name may have been coined by city officials in Antioch as a useful way to distinguish followers of the Christ from followers of the many other mystery cults and from the Jews, or it may have been a satirical designation, “Christ-lackeys,” by



Jews and Christians I   311

fellow Gentiles, not unlike Jesus Freaks. Paul never used the name Christian, and outside the two references in Acts (11:26; 26:28), it occurs in the New Testament only in 1 Peter, which is probably to be dated after the death of Paul—and even then it is merely a name for which people suffered: “if one suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed.”425 As we noted, the first occurrence of anyone calling themselves a Christian with pride is Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (ca. 107–108), though even here it is strongly associated with suffering and martyrdom. He is also the first to use the noun Christianity (christianismos).426 The Didache (12.4) refers to a visitor who identifies himself as a Christian and should be welcomed for two or three days and thereafter given a place to work, or if he prefers idleness, then he is “trading on Christ,” and the community should beware of him. The earliest non-Christian reference comes from Josephus, writing at Rome in the last decade of the century (ca. 95). After mentioning Jesus, Josephus acknowledges “the tribe of Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.”427 The choice of tribe (phylon) to describe the Christians, rather than the sect or school (hairesis), which he applied to the Pharisees and Essenes, may be due to the expansion of Christians into the Diaspora and inclusion of Greeks among the followers. Josephus can use the word for the locusts of the plagues in Egypt, but also of the Parthians and Egyptians, and elsewhere he identifies the Jews as a phylon and quotes Strabo, who refers to the phylon of Jews spread across the habitable earth.428 The word suggests a tightly integrated identity distinct from other identifiable social groups. The Jews of Rome would have been the people most aware of the Christians at this time, though we don’t know whether the Christians were considered outside the Jewish commonwealth by the Jews, let alone Roman officials, or another radical sect within the Jewish commonwealth. Nero’s awareness of Christians, whatever it was, may have been due to his wife Poppaea Sabina (married in 62, died in 65), who was a God-fearer (theosebēs) and sympathetic to the Jewish community.429 Seneca, according to his famous statement, preserved by Augustine, despised the Jews: “Meanwhile the customs of this accursed race have gained such influence that they are now received throughout all the world. The vanquished have given laws to their victors.” He may have encouraged Nero to put Jews in their place by burning a few of their more obnoxious members, but the sentiment attributed to him by Augustine, that “Christians were already most inimical to the Jews,” cannot be taken as evidence of his views or even an awareness of the name Christian.430 In short, we cannot confirm that Roman officials considered the followers of Jesus to be distinct from the Jewish community as early as 64, but by 95, Josephus could expect his readers in Rome to recognize the name Christian. A decade later, Ignatius glories in the martyrdom of the Christian name, and there is a purge of Christians in Asia Minor. On the problem of intermarriage between believers and unbelievers, Paul appeals to the idea of holy seed from Ezra but interpreted holy seed as holy flesh, and the new people to which marriage is restricted is the people of faith. Those who enter into the community of the saints with a nonbelieving spouse may preserve the marriage, for the one sanctifies the other, but no saint should be mismatched

312   Vines Intertwined

to an unbeliever. Paul agreed with the early sages that conversion transforms the outsider into an insider.431 Eventually, all Christians were identified as a universal people of God despite the rejection of some as false or apostate and outside the fold. The word church (ekklēsia) initially referred to a single congregation, but came to mean all Christians everywhere. The sense of a church universal is found in the Pauline tradition letters of Colossians and Ephesians linked to the “body of Christ,” and to some extent in Matthew’s Jesus tradition statement “I will build my church.” By the second century Ignatius applies the term “catholic” (katholikos) to the church, “wherever Jesus Christ is, there also is the universal (catholic) church,” and in so doing, he follows Philo who spoke of all Jews as a universal (katholikos) polity or corporate body.432 S3.1.2.5 Land of Israel Paul no doubt reflected most early followers of Jesus in holding the land of Palestine as elevated above all other lands and Jerusalem as the Holy City. For most Jews, including Jewish followers of Jesus, Palestine remained the motherland, as Philo depicted it. Paul’s effort to take an offering up to Jerusalem for the mother church was his long labor of love, so that the Gentiles in a sense paid a tithe to God. But beyond that, there is no indication that Jerusalem, or the land, was holy because that was