18.07.2013 Views

historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

historical perspectives: from the hasmoneans to bar kokhba in light ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

ANTIOCHUS IV EPIPHANES IN JERUSALEM<br />

DANIEL R. SCHWARTZ<br />

Hebrew University of Jerusalem<br />

4Q248, published <strong>in</strong> 1997 by Magen Broshi and Es<strong>the</strong>r Eshel, 1 has<br />

been perceived as resolv<strong>in</strong>g two issues, both <strong>in</strong> connection with<br />

1 Macc. 1:20-24. On <strong>the</strong> one hand, Broshi and Eshel <strong>to</strong>ok this tantaliz<strong>in</strong>gly<br />

fragmentary Qumran text <strong>to</strong> confirm 1 Maccabees' s<strong>to</strong>ry,<br />

over aga<strong>in</strong>st that of 2 Maccabees, concern<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> chronology of<br />

Antiochus IV's robbery of <strong>the</strong> Temple of Jerusalem. On <strong>the</strong> o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

hand, Lawrence H. Schiffman <strong>to</strong>ok <strong>the</strong> passage <strong>in</strong> 1 Maccabees <strong>to</strong><br />

show that <strong>the</strong> term used <strong>in</strong> 4Q248, as <strong>in</strong> some o<strong>the</strong>r<br />

Qumran texts, refers <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple complex and not <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> city of<br />

Jerusalem—an oft-debated issue. 2 In this paper, however, I argue that<br />

4Q248 <strong>in</strong> fact supports <strong>the</strong> opposite positions concern<strong>in</strong>g both questions.<br />

I argue that 4Q248 supports 2 Maccabees' date of Antiochus'<br />

robbery of <strong>the</strong> Temple, not that of 1 Maccabees, and that proper<br />

understand<strong>in</strong>g of <strong>the</strong> evidence of 1 and 2 Maccabees, as well as that<br />

of Daniel and Josephus, will demonstrate that refers here,<br />

<strong>in</strong> fact, <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong> whole city of Jerusalem and not specifically <strong>to</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />

Temple complex.<br />

The circumstances of Antiochus IV's visits <strong>to</strong> Jerusalem are an<br />

old question of early Hasmonean his<strong>to</strong>ry but still open <strong>to</strong> debate.<br />

Everyone agrees that Antiochus twice <strong>in</strong>vaded Egypt and withdrew<br />

<strong>from</strong> it, namely <strong>in</strong> 170/169 and <strong>in</strong> 168 BCE, 3 and everyone agrees<br />

that on his way back <strong>from</strong> Egypt <strong>to</strong> Syria he robbed Jerusalem.<br />

However, our two ma<strong>in</strong> sources for Jewish his<strong>to</strong>ry of <strong>the</strong> period,<br />

1 Maccabees and 2 Maccabees, each of which report a visit and<br />

1 M. Broshi and E. Eshel, "The Greek K<strong>in</strong>g Is Antiochus IV (4QHis<strong>to</strong>rical<br />

Text = 4Q248)," JJS 48 (1997): 120-29.<br />

2 See Broshi and Eshel, "Antiochus IV," 128, and L. H. Schiffman, "Ir Ha-<br />

Miqdash and Its Mean<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Temple Scroll and O<strong>the</strong>r Qumran Texts," <strong>in</strong> Sanctity<br />

of Time and Space <strong>in</strong> Tradition and Modernity, ed. A. Houtman, M. J. H. M. Poorthuis,<br />

and J. Schwartz, Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1998),<br />

esp. 107-9.<br />

3 On <strong>the</strong>se campaigns, see O. M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, Classica et Mediaevalia,<br />

Dissertationes 8 (K0benhavn: Gyldendalske-Nordisk, 1966), chapters 4—5.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!