The Title Ethnarch in Second Temple Period Judea

Journal for the Study of Judaism Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 brill.nl/jsj he Title Ethnarch in Second Temple Period Judea Nadav Sharon Department of Jewish History,he Hebrew University, Mt. Scopus, Jerusalem 91905, Israel Nadav.sharon@mail.huji.ac.il Abstract he title ethnarch appears in Second Temple sources in reference to four Judean rulers: Simon the Hasmonean, John Hyrcanus, Hyrcanus II, and Archelaus, son of Herod. his evidence is usually taken for granted. However, a meticulous analysis of the sources shows that we should not rely on the evidence pertaining to the early Hasmoneans (Simon and John Hyrcanus), and it rather seems that the title was irst employed only by the Romans (probably Julius Caesar) for Hyrcanus II. he paper further asserts that this title exempliies a unique perception of the Jewish people by the Romans. Additionally, the paper notes some ramiications that this understanding of the title ethnarch and the view which it exempliies may have on certain issues of the Second Temple period.* Keywords Ethnarch, Hyrcanus II, territoriality, ethnicity, early Roman period, 1 Maccabees 1. Introduction he subject of this paper is somewhat limited, as it relates to one single, not too common, term. However, as I hope to demonstrate, I believe its consequences are signiicant. *) A shorter version of this paper was delivered at the Fifteenth World Congress of Jewish Studies in Jerusalem on Aug. 2, 2009. I would like to thank Prof. Daniel R. Schwartz for his helpful suggestions and instruction throughout the process of completing this paper. Two abbreviations used in this paper are: GLAJJ = Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 19761984); rev. Schürer= Emil Schürer, he History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ (175 B.C.-A.D. 135) (rev. and ed. by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1973-1987). © Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, 2010 DOI: 10.1163/157006310X529254 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 473 he title ethnarch, which historically irst appears in our sources in relation to Hasmonean Judea, appears more often in relation to the early Roman era. he aim of this paper is to examine closely this term’s meaning and signiicance, and then to conclude when, and under what circumstances, it may have come into use in Judea, which Judean leaders in fact held it, and what the ramiications of its implementation are. For the sake of this study I have examined all occurrences of this term, of which I am aware, from the relevant period.1 Although some scholarly studies have touched upon this subject, some more extensively than others, I have not found a single study devoted to it. Two studies must be noted: First, David Solomon’s study of Philo’s use of the related term genarch,2 and second, Ephrat Habas Rubin’s Ph.D. dissertation on the Nasi in the Roman-Byzantine Era.3 However, the former deals with a diferent term, and is only dedicated to a single ancient author, and the latter examines the term ethnarch only with the goal of uncovering the roots of the Patriarchate. Neither is dedicated to the understanding of this term itself. 2. Origin and signiicance of the use of Ethnarch in Judea When discussing this title in its Judean setting it is important to note that it is not merely a Judean term; it appears in additional sources as well. However all, but one of those sources, are later than the appearance of the term in Judea. he one exception, an inscription of Antiochus I, king of Commagene, is dated by its editors, with no explicit evidence, to the years 66-64 B.C.E.4 Two points, whose relevance will become clear later on, need mentioning: (1) this inscription is from a period after the Romans had de facto made Commagene a client kingdom; (2) we should note that 1) his was done by using the TLG website. Naturally, the bulk of the discussion will be of the Judean sources, but all other sources are mentioned as well. Byzantine sources are not mentioned in this study, as they are relatively late, and many of them are related to the occurrence in 2 Cor 11:32, for which see n. 53. 2) David Solomon, “Philo’s Use of ΓΕΝΑΡΧ Σ in In Flaccum,” JQR 61 (1970): 119-31. 3) Ephrat Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch in the Roman-Byzantine Era: he Making of a Dynasty” (Ph.D. diss., Tel-Aviv University, 1991 [Hebrew]). he studies mentioned in n. 53 below mainly deal with the Damascene episode to which Paul alludes in 2 Cor 11:3233, not with the earlier usage of the term in Judea. 4) Jörg Wagner and Georg Petzl, “Eine neue Temenos-Stele des König Antiochos I. von Kommagene,” ZPE 20 (1976): 201-23. 474 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 the ethnarchs are mentioned at the end of a list of oicials which seems to be in descending order of importance: kings, dynatoi, strategoi, and inally ethnarchs. his illustrates the diminished importance of these oicials in Commagene. Nevertheless, the exact meaning of the term in this inscription is unclear. Be that as it may, my aim is the signiicance of this term as it is used in relation to Judea and the Jews. We irst ind this term (in sources addressed below) used of Simon the Hasmonean, and possibly also of his son, John Hyrcanus. But, how should this term be deined in relation to these Hasmoneans? he Hasmonean revolt was a national revolt, and the end result was that the Hasmoneans gained rule over territory. his territory was occupied by Jews/Judeans as well as gentiles. However, the term ethnarch, which is built from the words ethnos and arche, literally denotes an ethnically, not territorially, deined form of leadership or rule. Moreover, it seems peculiar that this very unique and uncommon term, which, as we shall see, apart from the few references to these early Hasmoneans, is found only after the Roman conquest, would be used to deine such an ordinary form of rule which was regularly deined by any one of a few common Greek words—arche, archon, hegemon, hegoumenos, etc.—words that are indeed often used in reference to the Hasmoneans. With this in mind, we should now evaluate the integrity of the evidence attributing this title to them. he possibility that John Hyrcanus was termed “ethnarch”5 derives from the widespread hypothesis that Josephus erred when he related two documents which speak of “Hyrcanus the High-priest and Ethnarch” to Hyrcanus II; rather, it is argued, they in fact apply to John Hyrcanus. However, the irst (A.J. 14.145-148) does not itself mention within it any Judean leader.6 Rather, it is dated by Josephus, or his source, to the “ninth year of Hyrcanus the high priest and ethnarch” (§148b).7 While “high priest” 5) E.g., Israel Shatzman, “he Integration of Judaea into the Roman Empire,” SCI 18 (1999): 49-84, at 77 n. 106. 6) Contra Jonathan A. Goldstein, “he Hasmonean Revolt and the Hasmonean Dynasty,” in he Cambridge History of Judaism. Volume Two: he Hellenistic Age (ed. W. D. Davies and L. Finkelstein; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 292-351, at 322. See Tal Ilan, “A Pattern of Historical Errors in the Writings of Josephus,” Zion 51 (1986): 357-60, at 357 [Hebrew]. 7) See Marcus’ note in the LCL edition immediately prior to the document, which claims that this document should in fact be attributed to Simon, since it is similar to the decree cited in 1 Macc 15:16-21 (see also rev. Schürer, 1:195-97). he note on §148 claims that N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 475 applies to all of the Hasmonean rulers, the use of “ethnarch”, by Josephus or his source, could well be an anachronism, deriving from the basic mistake of applying the document to Hyrcanus II, who, as we shall see, was indeed an ethnarch. Neither can the second document (A.J. 14.149-155) serve as evidence that John Hyrcanus was an ethnarch. his document mentions: “Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, the high priest and ethnarch” (§151). herefore, either the statement is correct, and it does belong to the days of Hyrcanus II (who was Alexander’s son),8 or, if the scholarly consensus that John Hyrcanus is meant is correct,9 the statement that he is the son of Alexander must be an interpolation,10 by Josephus or his source,11 and consequently the term ethnarch should be suspect as a part of this mistaken attribution as well.12 We cannot, therefore, substantiate that John Hyrcanus held the title ethnarch by any evidence related directly to him. But we would assume that he was indeed an ethnarch if in fact his father, Simon, held that title.13 So let us now evaluate the evidence pertaining to Simon. It is found in three closely grouped verses in 1 Maccabees, and also once in Josephus. Beginning with the latter (A.J. 13.214), it should irst be noticed that this is Josephus’ rewriting of 1 Macc 13:42, where the term ethnarch does not appear, but rather “high priest, strategos, and hegoumenos.” Since that is the source it is to be preferred;14 we may imagine that Josephus, in using it here, was possibly inluenced by the attribution of this title to Simon later the dating to the ninth year actually refers to the following document, but see Menahem Stern, he Documents on the History of the Hasmonaean Revolt (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1965), 146-48, 157-59 [Hebrew] who rejects this view and dates the document to the time of John Hyrcanus. See also James C. VanderKam, From Joshua to Caiaphas: High Priests after the Exile (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004), 354-55; Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights in the Roman World: he Greek and Roman Documents Quoted by Josephus Flavius (TSAJ 74; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998), 359. Cf. David Goodblatt, he Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (TSAJ 38; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994), 54-55. 8) See VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 355. 9) For that consensus see Stern, Documents, 147-48. 10) Marcus in LCL, n. d. 11) See Ilan, “Pattern,” 357. 12) Marcus’ n. e in LCL. See also Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch,” 46-47. 13) See 1 Macc 14:49, which seems to imply that Simon’s titles were to pass on to his heirs; Uriel Rappaport, he First Book of Maccabees: Introduction, Hebrew Translation, and Commentary (Between Bible and Mishnah; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 2004), 327 [Hebrew]. 14) Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch,” 40. 476 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 on in 1 Maccabees,15 to which we shall turn shortly. Secondly, it should be noted that the reading ethnarch here in Josephus is far from certain, as some manuscripts have the word eparchos.16 he three verses in 1 Maccabees (14:47; 15:1, 2) are, in contrast, seemingly more conclusive evidence for Simon holding this title.17 However, it is critical to take into account that all we have is the Greek translation of the original Hebrew version of this book. Since this is the case, it is often virtually impossible to know what the original Hebrew word underlying any Greek term in the book was.18 Moreover, even if the original Hebrew version of the book were extant, it would be impossible to derive oicial Greek terms used during that period. he unique title ethnarch is not found in other sources in relation to the early Hasmoneans, including other oicial documents, and, in fact, is not attested to in any other sources for this period outside Judea as well. herefore, these verses should not be taken at face value as evidence that Simon held this Greek title.19 15) Cf. Hugo Willrich, Judaica: Forschungen zur hellenistisch-jüdischen Geschichte und Litteratur (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1900), 84; Harry W. Ettelson, “he Integrity of I Maccabees,” Transactions of the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences 27 (1925): 249-384, at 278. 16) Manuscripts A, M, W, E according to LCL. 17) And many scholars indeed assume he held this title: rev. Schürer, 1:193, 333-34 n. 12; Solomon Zeitlin, “he Political Synedrion and the Religious Sanhedrin,” JQR 36 (1945): 109-40, at 120-21; Samuel Sandmel, “Ethnarch,” in he Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (ed. G. A. Buttrick et al.; New York: Abingdon, 1962), 2:178-79; Stern, Documents, 139-40; Solomon, “Philo’s Use,” 125; E. Mary Smallwood, he Jews Under Roman Rule From Pompey to Diocletian: A Study in Political Relations (SJLA 20; Leiden: Brill, 1981), 4; Martin Goodman, he Ruling Class of Judaea: he Origins of the Jewish Revolt Against Rome A.D. 66-70 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 31; Daniela Piattelli, “An Enquiry into the Political Relations Between Rome and Judaea from 161 to 4 B.C.E.,” Israel Law Review 14 (1979): 195-236, at 209, 213, 214, 219-20; Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle , 101; Shatzman, “Integration,” 77 n. 106; VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 282. Cf. Doron Mendels, he Rise and Fall of Jewish Nationalism (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), 211. 18) Rappaport, First Book of Maccabees, 2. 19) In this context we should mention the suggestion that the incomprehensible and much debated ἐ α α αμ of 1 Macc 14:27 be understood as transliteration of the Hebrew term ‫ שר עם אל‬which, in turn, should be understood as the Hebrew equivalent to ethnarch (David Flusser, “he Connection Between the Apocryphal Execusio Isaiae and the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Bulletin of the Israel Exploration Society 17 [1952]: 28-46, at 32 n. 12 [Hebrew]). However, as Yigael Yadin (he Scroll of the War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1962], 44 n. 6) notes, ‫ שר עם אל‬would better it the military title strategos (14:47). Furthermore, I would add that since the translator used the term ethnarch elsewhere it is odd that he would have failed to do so in 14:27. Yadin (ibid.) N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 477 his is true also in relation to the last occurrence of the title ethnarch, which is found in an oicial letter of Antiochus VII to Simon (15:2). In his convincing rebuttal of the suggestion that the letters, treaties etc. of 1 Maccabees are interpolations, Harry Ettelson has demonstrated that these documents show linguistic and other relationships to the narrative parts of the book, a fact that conirms “the thesis that they are not and could not be later interpolations, but are instead . . . free reproductions of underlying documentary material, given by the author of 1 Macc largely in his own language.”20 If this is so, then even the Hebrew original was not a trustworthy relection of oicial Greek terms. Alternatively, even if this thesis is rejected, and we assume that the Hebrew original was indeed a more trustworthy relection of the original Greek documents, still the Greek text which we now have is, as Uriel Rappaport writes, only a translation from the Hebrew and not a reconstruction of the original Greek documents.21 We should immediately deny the possibility that the term was used here in Hebrew as a loan-word, for loan-words have to irst be absorbed in the adopting language, while the term ethnarch is not found in any Hebrew texts. Moreover, as mentioned, this term is not even attested anywhere else until the mid-irst century B.C.E., and we should also note the minimal penetration of Greek in Hebrew literature at this time.22 Furthermore, although one might possibly suggest that the word ethnarch was written rather suggests reading α( ) α αμ = nasi and ‫שר עם אל‬, which would then, together with the title high-priest, correspond to all three of Simon’s titles. However, as Habas Rubin notes, Yadin’s suggestion entails serious emendation, such as the addition of ; Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch,” 42-44; see also her nn. 35-36 on 239. I would add that if the Hebrew text used by the translator had the word ‫נשיא‬, we would expect him not to have much trouble in its understanding. At any rate, Yadin’s suggestion is no more than conjecture (see also David Goodblatt, “he Title Nasiʾ and the Ideological Background of the Second Revolt,” in he Bar-Kokhva Revolt: A New Approach [ed. A. Oppenheimer and U. Rappaport; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 1984], 113-32, at 117 [Hebrew]), and the debate about this phrase is far from any conclusion. For the numerous suggestions proposed for its understanding see Abraham Schalit, King Herod: Portrait of a Ruler (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1960), 416 [Hebrew], and Rappaport, First Book of Maccabees, 315-16. 20) For the full discussion see Ettelson, “he Integrity,” 342-75, esp. 370-75. he quote is from 370; emphasis mine. 21) Rappaport, First Book of Maccabees, 38; Menahem Stern, “he Documents in the Jewish Literature of the Second Temple,” in he Seleucid Period in Eretz Israel: Studies on the Persecutions of Antiochus Epiphanes and the Hasmonean Revolt (ed. B. Bar-Kochva; Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad, 1980), 49-63, at 51 [Hebrew]. 22) Elisha Qimron, “he Language and Linguistic Background of the Qumran Compositions,” in he Qumran Scrolls and heir World (ed. M. Kister; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 2009), 551-60, at 552 [Hebrew]. 478 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 in transliteration in the original Hebrew, and therefore is in fact evidence of the speciic Greek term, in the absence of any other evidence that would be an unwarranted assumption. Emanuel Tov describes the common denominator of Hebrew words that where transliterated in the Septuagint as cases where “no Greek equivalent could be found or needed to be found.”23 If this logical rule is correct regarding translations, it should be all the more so regarding original compositions. Hence, even if the Hebrew author of 1 Maccabees used transliteration for very speciic and common technical terms which did not have close Hebrew equivalents such as Bezalel Bar-Kochva suggests,24 it seems to me to be improbable when dealing with the term ethnarch, which is not only unique but, as mentioned, is not attested elsewhere in contemporary sources, and the author had many diferent Hebrew terms at his disposal to describe Simon’s role in leadership. his seems to me even more unlikely considering the nationalistic character of 1 Maccabees. his conclusion is reinforced if we consider the fact that the irst occurrence is either in the oicial proclamation of Simon’s leadership by the “great assembly” or in the author’s summary or paraphrase of that proclamation.25 It is very unlikely that in such a document proclaiming Judean independence a foreign, Greek, term would be used for the leader’s title. But if, in fact, the title ethnarch was introduced in this instance by the translator we may assume that that is the case in the two adjacent occurrences as well. In conclusion of this discussion of the evidence from 1 Maccabees, accepting the translation’s Greek wording as evidence of the use of an oicial Greek title, when it is the only existing evidence, is methodologically problematic. I will now turn to examine the more irmly based evidence for the title ethnarch, so as to understand its meaning and signiicance, and towards the end of this paper I will return to the early Hasmoneans and 1 Maccabees. he evidence pertaining to the last two Judean leaders who are said to have held the title ethnarch is much more irmly established. hese are 23) Emanuel Tov, “Loan-words, Homophony and Transliterations in the Septuagint,” Bib 60 (1979): 216-36, at 227. 24) Bar Kochva suggests this for the terms gymnasium, phalanx and helepolis. See Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus: he Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 169, and 432-37 for a lengthier discussion of the term phalanx. 25) For the debate as to where the document actually ends, in verse 45, 47, or 49, see Rappaport, First Book of Maccabees, 327 and Stern, Documents, 139-40. N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 479 Hyrcanus II, the Hasmonean leader of Judea immediately after the Roman conquest of 63 B.C.E., and Herod’s son Archelaus (4 B.C.E.-6 C.E.). he evidence for the latter seems to be well established since it appears in various scattered passages in Josephus (B.J. 2.93//A.J. 17.317; B.J. 2.96; 111; 115; 167; A.J. 17.339), in one extant fragment of Nicolaus of Damascus,26 who, admittedly, was probably Josephus’ source for this part of his narrative on Archelaus, and possibly also on a coin (see below). However, for our quest to understand the nature of the title ethnarch the most we can derive from the evidence about Archelaus is that ethnarchs are not kings, but are, rather, lower than kings (B.J. 2.93//A.J. 17.317).27 In contrast, the evidence pertaining to Hyrcanus II may serve our purposes better, not only because it is more abundant, but because it is found in oicial documents which are more trustworthy, and which elaborate more on Hyrcanus II’s—that is, the ethnarch’s—authorities. However, before probing into these documents, we should try to determine when Hyrcanus II became an ethnarch. Hyrcanus began his public career as high priest in 76 B.C.E. when, after his father, Alexander Jannaeus, died, his mother, who could not be high priest, became queen (B.J. 1.106-109; A.J. 13.398-408). When Queen Alexandra died in 67 B.C.E. he inherited the kingship (B.J. 1.119-120; A.J. 14.4), but was ousted from it and from the high priesthood shortly thereafter28 by his younger brother, Aristobulus II (B.J. 1.120-122; A.J. 14.4-7). Hyrcanus regained the leadership in Judea by the grace of Pompey after the conquest of 63 B.C.E. Obviously he was not ethnarch until this time, but many scholars hold the view that at this point in time he was made ethnarch by Pompey.29 Others, however, have pointed instead to 26) GLAJJ 1:252, ll. 73-74. A similar picture of the title ethnarch, as being just lower than king, is also relected in (pseudo?) Lucian’s Macrobii, 17. 28) A.J. 15.180 says he held the kingship for only three months. 29) Piattelli, “Enquiry,” 219 and n. 17 on 217-19; Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, 27, 35; David Braund, Rome and the Friendly King: he Character of the Client Kingship (New York: St. Martins Press, 1984), 65, 142, and 161 n. 65; Isaiah Gafni, “he Historical Background,” in Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period (ed. M. E. Stone; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984), 1-31, at 17; Alfredo M. Rabello, “Civil Justice in Palestine from 63 BCE to 70 CE,” in Greece and Rome in Eretz-Israel: Collected Essays (ed. A. Kasher et al.; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 1989), 131-40, at 132 [Hebrew]; Goodblatt, Monarchic Principle, 26; Menahem Stern, Hasmonaean Judaea in the Hellenistic World: Chapters in Political History (ed. D. R. Schwartz; Jerusalem: Shazar, 1995), 213 [Hebrew]; Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 49; Shatzman, “Integration,” 77; Margaret H. Williams, “Rome,” in Encyclopedia of the Dead 27) 480 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 Caesar’s arrangements in favor of the Jews following the aid they provided him in Egypt in 47 B.C.E.30 It seems to me that the evidence points in the latter direction. Although Josephus’ narrative is detailed, there are no occurrences of the term ethnarch pertaining to Hyrcanus II prior to Caesar’s arrangements. Subsequent to Pompey’s conquest of Jerusalem all Josephus says is that he “reinstated Hyrcanus as high priest” (B.J. 1.153 [hackeray, LCL]; A.J. 14.73), whereas the supreme secular power over Judea seems to have been in the hands of Scaurus, the Roman governor of Syria appointed by Pompey (B.J. 1.157; cf. A.J. 14.79). Strabo too refers to the high priesthood alone (Geogr. 16.2.46).31 It seems that those who point to Pompey base their conclusion on what Josephus says in his summary of the history of the high priesthood, towards the end of his magnum opus. here he says that “Pompey also restored the high priesthood to Hyrcanus and permitted him to have the prostasia of the ethnos, but forbade him to wear a diadem” (A.J. 20.244).32 However, if the speciic term ethnarch were meant here, why wasn’t it used? Moreover, as Daniel Schwartz has shown, Josephus regularly associates the prostasia with high-priests (for example note just a few lines earlier, at A.J. 20.138, where it is associated with Jonathan the Hasmonean, who was deinitely not an ethnarch); “it is notoriously diicult to designate any real or legal content of the high-priestly prostasia”; and it seems likely that Josephus invented this concept, or, at least developed it considerably.33 Sea Scrolls (ed. L. H. Schifman and J. C. VanderKam; 2 vols.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 2:787-90, at 787; Daniel R. Schwartz, “Herodians and Ioudaioi in Flavian Rome,” in Flavius Josephus and Flavian Rome (ed. J. Edmondson et al.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005), 63-78, at 68. 30) Rev. Schürer, 1:334 (n. 12); A. Gilboa, “On the Trial of Herod,” in Jerusalem in the Second Temple Period: Abraham Shalit Memorial Volume (ed. A. Oppenheimer et al.; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi, 1980), 98-107, at 102 [Hebrew]; Michael Avi-Yonah, he Holy Land: A Historical Geography from the Persian to the Arab Conquest (536 B.C.-A.D. 640) (rev. by A. F. Rainey; Jerusalem: Carta, 2002), 84; Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch,” 48 and 246 n. 74; Yaʿakov Meshorer, A Treasury of Jewish Coins: From the Persian Period to Bar Kokhba (trans. R. Amoils; Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi; Nyack, N.Y.: Amphora, 2001), 32, 58; cf. Jean Juster, Les Juifs dans L’Empire romain (2 vols.; Paris: Geuthner, 1914), 1:216-17, and n. 3. 31) GLAJJ 1:299, 304. Note, though, that Strabo here erroneously substitutes Herod for Hyrcanus (see Stern’s note ibid., 310 and VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 346 n. 275). 32) Trans. based on Feldman, LCL. See Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, 27 n. 22; Gafni, “Historical Background,” 17; Braund, Rome and the Friendly King, 161 n. 65. 33) Daniel R. Schwartz, “Josephus on the Jewish Constitutions and Community,” Scripta Classica Israelica 7 (1983/84): 30-52 (quotation from 44). Goodblatt (Monarchic Principle, 40-43) rejects the conclusion that Josephus invented the high-priestly prostasia, and rather N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 481 Hence, there is no evidence for Hyrcanus being ethnarch before Caesar’s arrangements. On the other hand, Caesar’s decree quoted in the document in Ant. 14.190-19534 seems clearly to announce the grant of this title to Hyrcanus: “it is my wish that Hyrcanus, son of Alexander, and his children shall be ethnarchs of the Jews” (§194).35 It seems, therefore, that Caesar, not Pompey, granted the title ethnarch to Hyrcanus II, as part of his policy of beneiting the Jews and reversing Pompey’s deeds.36 he document just mentioned brings us back to our main focus—trying to understand the signiicance of the term under discussion. Shortly after Caesar’s grant of the ethnarchy is mentioned we read: “And if . . . any question shall arise concerning the Jews’ manner of life . . . the decision shall rest with them [i.e., Hyrcanus and his children—the ethnarchs]” (§195). If the ethnarchy is just a standard type of rule/leadership of Judea is this not just stating the obvious!? he next document (§§196-198)37 which Josephus quotes may clarify the matter. here we ind: “that the high priest, being also ethnarch, shall be the protector ( ῆ α ) of those Jews who are unjustly treated” (§196). Again, if the nature of the ethnarch’s rule is ordinary territorial rule, what does the phrase “protector of those Jews who are unjustly treated” mean? Who, other than the leader of Judea himself, can views it as further evidence for what he understands as a Judean ideology of “priestly monarchy.” However, this has no repercussions for the matter at hand, since the prostasia is regularly attributed to high-priests, most of whom were deinitely not ethnarchs. Note that in A.J. 15.180 Josephus seems to say that the kingship was restored to Hyrcanus by Pompey. But this understanding, while grammatically preferable, is not required, as the verb may refer back to the high priesthood mentioned earlier. Moreover, note that in Josephus we often ind kingship associated with Hyrcanus II, the ethnarch (e.g. B.J. 1.202; A.J. 14.157 and more). his seems to be a loose usage, such as we also ind later in relation to Archelaus (A.J. 18.93; Vita 5 and also Matt 2:22); and just as we ind in the New Testament in relation to Herod Antipas (Matt 14:9; Mark 6:14), who was merely a tetrarch (e.g. Matt 14:1); perhaps a similar looseness explains why Cassius Dio speaks of the “kingdom” having been given to Hyrcanus by Pompey (37.16.4; see GLAJJ 2:353 and VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 346, and n. 277). On this issue see further below, n. 67. 34) For this document’s authenticity see Miriam Pucci Ben Zeev, “Seleukos of Rhosos and Hyrcanus II,” JSJ 26 (1995): 113-21, and for a detailed analysis of it see eadem, Jewish Rights, 31-53. 35) hose who point to Pompey suggest that Caesar here merely restored to Hyrcanus the title already given him by Pompey (e.g. Smallwood, Jews Under Roman Rule, 38-39), after he had “lost his secular administrative functions as ethnarch” as a result of Gabinius’ reforms of 57 (ibid., 32). 36) Gilboa, “Trial of Herod,” 101-103. 37) Possibly a fragment of the previous document (Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 55, 63). 482 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 unjustly treat the Judeans? herefore, it seems clear that, as previously noted by some, what the decree actually means is that the ethnarch is to be the protector (whatever that means speciically) of Jews living outside of Judea as well, and this may correlate with the grant to decide questions “concerning the Jews’ manner of life.”38 his privilege was indeed utilized by Hyrcanus in his intercessions on behalf of Diaspora Jews39—in Ephesos (§§223-227),40 and Laodicea (§§241-243).41 As mentioned, some studies have noted this non-territorial element in Hyrcanus’ role as ethnarch,42 but it seems to me—and this is my main point—that this non-territoriality is essential to the use of the term ethnarch. As already noted, the use of this term to denote ordinary territorial rule would be most peculiar. We should take into account that the Greek term ethnos is very lexible and has a variety of meanings, many of which are not territorially deined in any way. Indeed, ethnos can denote a social class, a political subdivision, a guild, an order of priests and so forth.43 38) Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 65-66. Cf. Mendels, Rise and Fall, 211. Ibid.; VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 382-85. 40) See Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 137-49. Note that the Jews of Ephesos are referred to here as Hyrcanus’ “citizens (politai)” (§226). here is supposedly a literary precedent to this in the Letter of Aristeas, where Jews/Judeans in Egypt are viewed as the citizens of Eleazar, the high priest of Jerusalem (Let. Aris. 36//A.J. 12.46 and Let. Aris. 44//A.J. 12.54). See Shaye J. D. Cohen, he Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 126. It seems to me, however, that in the case of Aristeas politai is used in a more geographical sense, as it refers to Judeans who had been taken captive in Judea and were then brought to Egypt. On the other hand, Caroline Carlier (La Cité de Moïse: le peuple juif chez Philon d’Alexandrie [Turnhout: Brepols, 2008], 103-106) claims that in Jewish texts of the Second Temple period the term polites refers to the high priest’s fellow-citizens or co-religionists, due to their commitment to the laws of the Torah. hey are not his subjects. 41) For the rejection of the view by which the Hyrcanus mentioned in this document is John Hyrcanus see Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 194, 196-97. For the view that the next document, sent to Miletos (§§244-246), is related to this one, although Hyrcanus is not mentioned in it, see VanderKam, Joshua to Caiaphas, 383. 42) In addition to the studies mentioned in previous footnotes see Adolf Büchler, “he Priestly Dues and the Roman Taxes in the Edicts of Caesar,” in he Adolph Büchler Memorial Volume: Studies in Jewish History (ed. I. Brodie and J. Rabbinowitz; New York: Oxford University Press, 1956), 1-23, at 6-10 (trans. of: “Die priesterlichen Zehnten und die römischen Steuern in den Erlässen Cäsars,” in Festschrift zum achtzigsten Geburtstage Moritz Steinschneider’s [Leipzig: Otto Harrassowitz, 1896], 91-109); Solomon, “Philo’s Use,” 129; Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 49-50, with further references. Cf. Juster, Les Juifs, 1:216-17, and n. 3. 43) Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community (CSJH; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 59-61, 78-81. See also LSJ’s deinition (480), and Hugh J. 39) N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 483 hus, since Hyrcanus’ type of leadership was a new innovation, which seems to have been deined ethnically, not territorially, a unique term had to be used, and the unique title ethnarch—head of the ethnos—obviously suits the role adequately. Consequently ethnarch is not just a title of lesser signiicance than king.44 Rather, it designates authority of a completely different type: whereas kings, by deinition, rule territories,45 as seems to have been obvious in antiquity as well, ethnarchs rule people.46 It seems, therefore, that the use of the title ethnarch signiies an innovative and new view of the Jewish people—not as a people of a certain country, but rather as a non-territorial entity. Obviously, the question arises, if Hyrcanus’ rule was non-territorial, who in fact had authority over the territory of Judea? We might suggest that Hyrcanus had a dual type of rule, as leader of the entire Jewish ethnos and as ruler of the territory of Judea. Alternatively, it seems that Antipater, Herod’s father, was the actual ruler of the territory of Judea. Josephus says explicitly that Caesar appointed Antipater as “procurator of all Judea” (B.J. 1.199: ἐ Ἰ α α ; A.J. 14.143).47 Admittedly, the later ethnarchy of Archelaus seems to deviate from this non-territorial deinition, since in relation to it we read that Augustus appointed ( α α α ) Archelaus as “ethnarch of half the territory that had been subject to Herod” (A.J. 17.317); that “the ethnarchy of Archelaus comprised the whole of Idumaea and Judaea, besides the district of Samaria” (B.J. 2.96); and that when he died his “ethnarchy . . . was turned into a Mason, Greek Terms for Roman Institutions: A Lexicon and Analysis (Toronto: Hakkert, 1974), 40-41. Cf. John H. Hayes and Sara R. Mandell, he Jewish People in Classical Antiquity: From Alexander to Bar Kochba (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998), 11-12; Roger Just, “Triumph of the Ethnos,” in History and Ethnicity (ed. E. Tonkin et al.; London: Routledge, 1989), 71-88, at 72-73. 44) Contra Sandmel, “Ethnarch,” 178-79. 45) See, e.g., the irst deinition of “king” in Webster’s hird New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged (Springield, Mass.: Merriam Company, 1976), 1244. 46) See Schwartz, “Herodians,” 68. Mark Anthony’s letter to the Tyrians, quoted in A.J. 14.314-318, orders them to return to “Hyrcanus, the ethnarch of the Jews,” any places (χ α) they now hold which belonged to him before Cassius invaded the area (§317). However, this may be referring to personal property of Hyrcanus; more likely, though, it actually refers to territory belonging to the Judeans, as is clear from both the beginning of this document (§314: “their territory”), as well as the adjacent documents (§§306-313; §§319-322) which both refer to possessions of the Judeans. herefore, this reference does not attest to a territorial deinition of Hyrcanus’ rule. 47) Piattelli, “Enquiry,” 222. Cf. David Goodblatt, “From Judeans to Israel: Names of Jewish States in Antiquity,” JSJ 29 (1998): 1-36, at 6-7, and n. 9. 484 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 province” (B.J. 2.167).48 So, it seems that the nature of his ethnarchy was indeed territorial.49 Yet this should not be seen as conlicting with our conclusions in relation to Hyrcanus’ ethnarchy. Almost forty years went by between Hyrcanus’ and Archelaus’ ethnarchies, while in the interim Judea was ruled by kings, and, in addition, Archelaus received this title from a new emperor. So it would not be very surprising if the title was now used in a way that deviated from its original obscure meaning. What is crucial for our investigation is the original implementation of this title, not any later deviations. Moreover, we should note that whereas virtually all of the occurrences of the title ethnarch in relation to Hyrcanus II are in oicial documents, those related to Archelaus are in the narrative.50 Additionally, two more factors must be mentioned: (1) he episode of Archelaus’ appointment by Augustus is also reported in an extant fragment of Nicolaus of Damascus, who was probably Josephus’ source. In the present context it is signiicant that, unlike Josephus’ statements, in this fragment the appointment to the ethnarchy is set apart from the distribution of the territory: Caesar settled the question of the whole inheritance, allotting to each of Herod’s children a part of the realm, Archelaus’ share amounting to a half of the whole. And Caesar honoured Nicolaus and appointed ( α ) Archelaus ethnarch. He promised that if he proved himself worthy, he would soon make ( ) him king. His younger brothers Philip and Antipas he appointed (ἀ ) tetrarchs.51 hus, Nicolaus’ fragment implies a distinction between the territorial aspect and the appointment as ethnarch. (2) Most of the rather few additional occurrences of the term ethnarch refer to leaders in essentially non-territorial circumstances, and they are mostly from Archelaus’ time and later. hus we ind an ethnarch of the Jews in Egypt (A.J. 14.117—Strabo quoted by Josephus; 19.283—Claudius’ edict;52 see also Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.13); we ind an “ethnarch of King 48) See also B.J. 2.111//A.J. 17.339. See also Pucci Ben Zeev, Jewish Rights, 49-50. 50) Except for the coins that bear this title (see below). 51) GLAJJ 1, no. 97 (pp. 250-60). Translation based on ibid., 255. his is the only occurrence of the term ethnarch in the fragments of Nicolaus. 52) his ethnarch seems to be identical with the genarch mentioned by Philo, in Flaccum 74. his identiication is conirmed by the synonymous use of these terms by Philo in relation to Abraham in Her. 279. See e.g. Herbert Box, Philonis Alexandrini: In Flaccum (London: 49) N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 485 Aretas” in or near Damascus in the irst century C.E. (2 Cor 11:32);53 and an ethnarch of Arab nomads ( μ ) in the Syrian desert in the second 54 century C.E. —although such tribes had areas within which they generally functioned, in accordance with their nomadic nature their leader would most probably not be deined territorially; and, inally, the term is used by Origen as equivalent to the Jewish Nasi (Princ. 4.3; Ep. Afr., 14),55 although he also uses the term Patriarch once (Sel. Ps. [PG XII, col. 1056]).56 Oxford University Press, 1939), 102-103, and the other studies mentioned in nn. 57 and 59 below. 53) his verse, which is the only occurrence of the term ethnarch in the New Testament, has drawn considerable debate; among recent studies, see Justin Taylor, “he Ethnarch of King Aretas at Damascus: A Note on 2 Cor 11, 32-33,” RB 99 (1992): 719-28 and Douglas A. Campbell, “An Anchor for Pauline Chronology: Paul’s Flight from ‘the Ethnarch of King Aretas’ (2 Corinthians 11:32-33),” JBL 121 (2002): 279-302. What is essential, in the present context, is the fact that he is deined as being “the ethnarch of King Aretas,” not of any place, and the place where he is said to have been active is not said to have been his, rather, it was “the city of the Damascenes.” hus, it seems likely to interpret the title in line with the second-century inscription that refers to the ethnarch of a nomadic Arab tribe (see n. 54). Similarly, Taylor explains that ethnarch (or phylarches) designates the role of tribal chief or sheikh, and that some such sheikhs had a dual role—as sheikhs and as strategoi. Paul, therefore, “names one (Greek) title of the Nabataean governor of Damascus, viz. that which referred to his tribal authority (ἐ χ ), while having in mind rather his royal function, for which his other title of α ό would have been more appropriate” (quoted from 724; see 720-24 and Campbell, “Anchor for Pauline Chronology,” 285). Note also that this episode seems to be paralleled in Acts 9:23-25, but there no Nabateans and no ethnarch are mentioned. It is, rather, the Jews who want to apprehend Paul. 54) OGIS 2:312-13. 55) Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch,” 61-71. he term ἐ α χῶ found in a Jewish burial inscription from Argos may possibly also be an allusion to the Nasi. he inscription is found in P. Jean-Baptiste Frey, Corpus of Jewish Inscriptions (New York: KTAV, 1975), 1:518-19. See Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch,” 111-12. 56) Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch,” 71-73. Nicholas R. M. de Lange (Origen and the Jews: Studies in Jewish-Christian Relations in hird-Century Palestine [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976], 34) suggests that the title ethnarch “was the older, Hellenistic, title” which he relates to the title of the Second Temple period, that it was gradually replaced by the title patriarch, and that the transition occurred in Origen’s time (see also GLAJJ 2:564). Elsewhere, however, de Lange (ibid., 24) proposes that where Origen uses the term patriarch he does not refer to the Nasi, but rather to the head of a local community. 486 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 3. A unique Roman view Excluding the three or four occurrences relating to the early Hasmoneans which I have disqualiied, I am aware of one argument which asserts the existence of Jewish ethnarchs prior to the Roman era. hat argument has to do with the Jews of Egypt, and derives from the contradiction between Claudius’ edict as quoted by Josephus (A.J. 19.280-285), which claims that “upon the death of the ethnarch of the Jews” in Alexandria, “Augustus did not prevent the continued appointment of ethnarchs” (§283), on the one hand, and Philo’s statement in reference to approximately the same time that after the death of the genarch Augustus appointed a gerousia to take charge of Jewish afairs (Flacc. 74), on the other. Herbert Box suggested the following solution: he apparent contradiction between Philo and Claudius may be reconciled by supposing that the oice of ethnarch had in the later Ptolemaic period become monarchical in character and that on the death of the ethnarch whom he had found in Alexandria when he annexed Egypt Augustus took the opportunity, presumably in accordance with the wishes of the Alexandrine Jews, to establish a α, of which the ethnarch should be president.57 We have, however, no evidence that the Jews of Alexandria wished to see the ethnarch’s “despotic powers” (as Box speculates)58 diminished. More importantly, Box’s suggestion does not entail the supposition that the oice of Jewish ethnarch was in existence in Alexandria already in the Ptolemaic period. he important element in Box’s suggestion is, rather, his recognition that Philo did not say that the oice of ethnarch was abolished, a point that leaves room for the possibility that all Philo meant is that Augustus included the ethnarch in the new-formed gerousia, as its head.59 he same solution could be ofered even if the oice of ethnarch was established by the Romans; after all, Augustus ruled for more than forty years, and it is entirely likely that he not only replaced an ethnarch but also, earlier in his tenure, founded the oice.60 57) Box, Philonis Alexandrini, 103. Cf. Pieter W. van der Horst, Philo’s Flaccus: he First Pogrom (Philo of Alexandria Commentary Series 2; Leiden: Brill, 2003), 168-69. 58) Box, Philonis Alexandrini, 103. 59) Cf. Aryeh Kasher, he Jews in Hellenistic and Roman Egypt: he Struggle for Equal Rights (TSAJ 7; Tübingen: Mohr, 1985), 254-55. 60) Another point is that we should not make too much out of the supposed contradiction because the text of the edict found in Josephus is a pro-Jewish forgery. See Victor A. Tcherikover, “Prolegomena,” in CPJ, 1:57 n. 22. N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 487 he only possible positive evidence for the existence of Jewish ethnarchs in Ptolemaic Egypt is Strabo’s description of the Jews of Cyrene and Egypt, quoted by Josephus in Ant. 14.117-118, which mentions the Jewish ethnarch in Egypt. Josephus says that Strabo’s testimony refers to the time of Sulla, early in the irst century B.C.E. Nevertheless, it has been noticed that at least the statement about the ethnarch refers to Strabo’s own days, the period of Augustus.61 his conclusion seems to be conirmed by Strabo’s description of Egypt in his Geographica. In a passage, usually overlooked in this context, he says that the Romans, having turned Egypt into a province in the days of Augustus, have “appointed throughout the country oicials called Epistragetai and Nomarchs and Ethnarchs” (Geogr. 17.1.13 [ Jones, LCL]).62 hus, just as we saw regarding Judea, so too regarding the Jews of Egypt the evidence for ethnarchs points us to the early Roman period. Indeed, it seems that such a view of the Jewish people as a non-territorial entity its well with the developments of the early Roman era. By this time the Romans knew Jews who were organized in several communities in Rome, a fact which may well have inluenced their perception of the Jews as a religious entity, not a geographically centered people.63 Signiicantly, Shaye Cohen has shown that in the middle of the irst century B.C.E. Greek and Latin authors start using the term Ioudaioi in reference to Jews/Judeans living outside of Judea.64 And, inally, we should note the Roman system of citizenship, in which a person can receive Roman citizenship despite the 61) See Marcus’ note b on §115 in LCL; GLAJJ 1:280; Habas Rubin, “he Patriarch,” 252 n. 111. 62) Although Strabo does not refer here speciically to the Jews, I think it would be unreasonable not to connect this description to that quoted in Josephus. 63) See Daniel R. Schwartz, “One Temple and Many Synagogues: On Religion and State in Herodian Judaea and Augustan Rome,” in Herod and Augustus: Papers Presented at the IJS Conference, 21st-23rd June 2005 (ed. D. M. Jacobson and N. Kokkinos; IJS Studies in Judaica 6; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 385-98, at 394-96. he unique phenomenon of the Jewish Diaspora had, it seems, a very important impact on Greco-Roman ethnographic descriptions of the Jews, already prior to the Roman era. he Jews were perceived as a people without geography, as illustrated by René S. Bloch, “Geography without Territory: Tacitus’ Digression on the Jews and its Ethnographic Context,” in Internationales JosephusKolloquium, Aarhus 1999 (ed. J. U. Kalms; Münster: LIT, 2000), 38-54. 64) Cohen, Beginnings, 93-94. Although Cohen views the word Ioudaioi as an ethnic-geographic term still in this period (ibid.), elsewhere he writes that “if the geographic meaning of Ioudaios became attenuated in diaspora settings, the ethnic meaning came to the fore” (ibid., 74, and see 74-76). 488 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 fact that neither he nor his ancestors ever set foot in Rome or Italy.65 his too may have inluenced the Roman view of not diferentiating between Judeans and Jews of the Diaspora. It seems, in fact, that already Pompey’s initial arrangement of tearing away from Judea all the gentile areas previously conquered by the Hasmoneans and conining “the nation (ethnos) within its own boundaries” (B.J. 1.155-157; A.J. 14.74-76), thus dividing the country based on ethnicity rather than geography, relects such an ethnical perception. In this context we might add that if indeed the title ethnarch was Caesar’s innovation it may be that the help he received from the Jews, led by Hyrcanus and Antipater, in Egypt was not just a motive for his rewarding Hyrcanus by making him ethnarch, but perhaps this episode, which included Hyrcanus’ direct inluence on Diaspora Jews, prompted his very employment of this title. It is also noteworthy that the period following the Roman conquest of Judea in 63 B.C.E. is also the period in which Doron Mendels has identiied a change in the Jewish concept of the Land towards a more amorphous idea as a result of the foreign occupation.66 4. Some ramiications I shall now turn to the ramiications of the above analysis of the term ethnarch. (1) First, I shall return to the issue which we left of above: the ethnarchy attributed to the early Hasmoneans, Simon and John Hyrcanus. As we have seen the evidence is highly questionable, and the application of this title in relation to their rule would be very peculiar. It seems, rather, that the use of the term ethnarch for Simon in 1 Maccabees is due to the translator’s work67 and relects his world rather than that of the 65) Cf. F. W. Walbank, “Nationality as a Factor in Roman History,” HSCP 76 (1972): 14568, at 153-54. 66) Mendels, Rise and Fall, chapter 9: “From the Territorial to the A-Territorial (after the Roman Occupation)” (243-75). 67) We could, of course, only guess what was the original Hebrew term, but we may assume that a diferent term than those that are found previously in the book was used, and therefore prompted the Greek translator to also use a diferent term. Since we later ind the term ethnarch translating the term Nasi, I think, contra Habas Rubin (“he Patriarch,” 41-43), that we should not exclude the possibility that the original Hebrew term was Nasi. Further support for this possibility may be the fact that both Hyrcanus II and Archelaus, the N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 489 Hasmoneans.68 But what was his world? Given that we do not have the Hebrew original of 1 Maccabees, it is extremely diicult to evaluate the translator’s work, and hence to determine his time. I have not found any thorough research dealing with the time of the translator, although various short scholarly comments place the translation between the end of the second century B.C.E. and the end of the irst century B.C.E.69 Obviously ethnarchs, are sometimes referred to as kings (see above, n. 33). he terms ‫ נשיא‬and ‫מלך‬ sometimes interchange in the book of Ezekiel, and in the Septuagint as well as in the Dead Sea Scrolls; See Alexander Rofé, “Qumranic Paraphrases, the Greek Deuteronomy and the Late History of the Biblical ‫נשיא‬,” Textus 14 (1988): 163-74. Josephus too seems to have exchanged these concepts. Compare, e.g., Gen 34:2 (‫ ;נשיא הארץ‬LXX: archon) with A.J. 1.337, 339, 340 (“king”), and Jud 7:25, 8:3 (where the Hebrew Bible has ‫שרי מדין‬, which the Septuagint translates archontes) with A.J. 5.227 (“kings”). In rabbinic literature we also ind the statement: ““‫( ואיזהו נשיא? זה המלך‬e.g. m. Hor. 3:3). herefore, if the Hebrew term used for ethnarch, once this Greek term came into use, was Nasi, it might explain the appearance of the term “king” in relation to these ethnarchs. hus, perhaps the translator of 1 Maccabees used the term ethnarch because in his day it was the natural equivalent of Nasi. 68) Cf. Willrich, Judaica, 83-84. 69) Henry B. Swete, An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (rev. by R. R. Ottley; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1914), 25; Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 43435; Gilles Dorival, Marguerite Harl, and Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante: Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancien (Paris: Cerf, 1988), 97, 111; Rappaport, First Book of Maccabees, mentions the opinion of Dorival, Harl, and Munnich, according to whom it was translated around the end of the second century or beginning of the irst century B.C.E. (8), but also proposes that it might have been translated as late as the last quarter of the irst century B.C.E. (11-12, and n. 20). Bezalel Bar-Kochva ( Judas Maccabaeus, 189) claims that Nicolaus of Damascus used this translation. See also Tal Ilan, “King David, King Herod and Nicolaus of Damascus,” JSQ 5 (1998): 195-240, at 202, and esp. 222-24. Elias J. Bickerman, (“Some Notes on the Transmission of the Septuagint,” in idem, Studies in Jewish and Christian History [ed. A. Tropper; new ed.; Ancient Judaism and early Christianity 68; 2 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 2007], 1:134-62, at 144) speaks of two translations of 1 Maccabees, the irst around 140 B.C.E. which Josephus used, and the second around the end of the second century (B.C.E.?). hough Bickerman does not explain this conclusion, it seems that he is building upon a theory by which the last three chapters of 1 Maccabees were not included in the original [Hebrew] work, which is why they are not rewritten in Josephus’ Antiquities. his theory also requires the assumption that the original 1 Maccabees, without the last three chapters, was translated into Greek since Josephus supposedly used a Greek translation. According to this theory, the last three chapters were added in a later version of the work which was consequently translated again. However, Harry W. Ettelson (“he Integrity,” 249-341) has, in my view, convincingly shown that 1 Maccabees was originally written as a whole, including the last three chapters. Note, also, that as demonstrated by Daniel R. Schwartz (“he Battles of Judas Maccabaeus: Review of Bezalel Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus: he Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids,” 490 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 one term is not enough to pinpoint the translation’s date beyond doubt, but if my evaluation of the title ethnarch is correct, and, as we have seen, it was probably an invention of the early Roman period, this term may indicate that we should prefer the later terminus. (2) Despite the fact that Hyrcanus’ ethnarchy came to its end in 40 B.C.E. the Roman view of the Jewish people, exempliied by this title, continued to have an impact upon Jewish existence thereafter. We see that subsequent to Hyrcanus Judean leaders, whatever their title, continued to act on behalf of Diaspora Jews (e.g. A.J. 19.287-291).70 his view also stands at the basis of Roman policy towards the Jews in the aftermath of the Great Revolt, when they imposed the “Jewish Tax” ( iscus Judaicus) on all Jews, including Diaspora Jews who had taken no part in the revolt.71 (3) Unlike other Hasmoneans, no coins of Hyrcanus II have been identiied with any certainty. Nevertheless, scholars have usually expected to ind such coins, since he ruled for a rather long time. Indeed, some numismatists in the past have suggested either attributing coins with the name Yehohanan or some of those with the name Yehonathan to Hyrcanus II, but these suggestions have usually been rejected. he leading expert on ancient Jewish numismatics, the late Yaakov Meshorer, suggested at one point that all of the Yehohanan coins should be attributed to Hyrcanus II.72 However, later he retracted this view due to new archaeological evidence (namely, coins from Galilee and the Samaritan city on Mount Gerizim)73 Tarbiz 60 [1991]: 443-50, at 447-48 [Hebrew]), there is still some doubt whether Josephus used (only) the Greek translation of 1 Maccabees or whether he (also) used the original Hebrew text. 70) Cf. Mendels, Rise and Fall, 211-12. 71) his view may also explain the somewhat peculiar addition to the standard Roman greeting in the opening of Claudius’ letter to the Jews in A.J. 20.11-14. he standard wording is “to the archons, council, and people” of whatever city (e.g. A.J. 14.190; 16.172; and see also Frank F. Abbott and Allan C. Johnson, Municipal Administration in the Roman Empire [Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1926], letters 30, 36, 54, 68 etc.), whereas here we ind the peculiar addition “and to the whole nation of the Jews” (A.J. 20.11). 72) Under the usually accepted theory about Hasmonean names, by which each Greek name that they used had a twin Hebrew name, and therefore Hyrcanus II’s Hebrew name was identical to his grandfather’s Hebrew name, Yehohanan, since they shared the same Greek name. Tal Ilan (“he Greek Names of the Hasmoneans,” JQR 78 [1987]: 1-20, at 8-10) has, however, shown, convincingly in my view, that this theory does not pass critical evaluation. 73) For the coins from Mount Gerizim see Yitzhak Magen, “Mount Gerizim: A Temple Mount,” Qadmoniot 23 (1990): 70-96, at 90, 96 [Hebrew]. N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 491 that proved it impossible, showing that all Yehohanan coins belong to John Hyrcanus. Meshorer then, considering it hard to believe that in twenty-three years of rule Hyrcanus II did not mint any coins, half-heartedly suggested that perhaps Hyrcanus II’s Hebrew name was identical to his father’s Hebrew name, Yehonatan (or Yonatan), and that some of the coins bearing this name, probably those with the spelling ‫( ינתן‬YNTN) rather than ‫( יהונתן‬YHNTN), were minted by him.74 However, if my analysis of the title ethnarch is correct and if we assume that Hyrcanus II did not have time to mint coins during his very short time as king in 67, then we should, I would suggest, not expect to ind any coins minted by him. For if his authority outside of the Temple, as ethnarch, was of non-territorial nature, it seems natural that he would not have had the authority to mint coins.75 After all, we would not expect to ind coins of the Jewish ethnarch in Egypt, of the Arab ethnarch in the Syrian desert (see above, n. 54), nor of the Jewish Nasi, nor of the ethnarch mentioned in 2 Cor 11:32, whoever he may have been (see above, n. 53). he fact that we later ind Archelaus minting coins, which even bear the title “Herod the Ethnarch,” is the exceptional fact that needs explaining, and, as we saw earlier, Archelaus’ ethnarchy might indeed have had at least some territorial aspects. Indeed, even Archelaus’ brothers, who were mere tetrarchs, minted coins. (4) I would like to suggest that the obscurity of this term, together with the fact that, as we have seen above, Hyrcanus’ ethnarchy existed parallel to Antipater being epitropos of Judea, should be seen as the background of Herod’s trial (B.J. 1.204-215; A.J. 14.159-184). I would assume that Herod did not think that he was acting ultra vires when he killed Ezekias the “brigand chief ” together with many other brigands (B.J. 1.204; A.J. 14.159). Rather he must have believed that he was fully within his jurisdiction as the governor (strategos) of Galilee, appointed by his father the epitropos (B.J. 1.203; A.J. 14.158), and he was probably correct. he people in Hyrcanus’ court, and perhaps Hyrcanus himself, may not have fully 74) Meshorer, Treasury, 25-27; VanderKam too ( Joshua to Caiaphas, 374-75) assumes that Hyrcanus II must have minted coins. But see, recently, David Hendin and Shachar Ilan, “he Identity of YNTN on Hasmonean Overstruck Coins and the Chronology of the Alexander Jannaeus Types,” Israel Numismatic Research 3 (2008): 87-94. 75) Note, however, that Meshorer (Treasury, 58) attributes a bulla with what seems to be the letters Ε ΝΑΧ, which he interprets as ethnarch, to Hyrcanus II. If this attribution is correct it still should not have any bearing on the issue of minting coins—anyone can have a bulla. It would, though, prove that this title was in actual use. 492 N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 grasped (or accepted) the signiicance of his obscure ethnarchy and the fact that Caesar had made Antipater epitropos, and may have still thought of Hyrcanus in terms of kingship (e.g. B.J. 1.209; A.J. 14.165-166). (5) Whether or not there is a direct link between the ethnarch of the Second Temple period and the Nasi of the post-Destruction era, as I proposed elsewhere,76 I believe the innovation of the term ethnarch and the view which it exempliies, conform to a Diaspora setting, or a state-less setting, and its implementation set the stage in Judea for post-destruction existence. (6) he conclusion arrived at here concerning the title ethnarch and the view of Jews and Judaism which it suggests should have some bearing on the hot debate in contemporary research on how to translate Ioudaioi: Jews or Judeans.77 he fact we ascertained that in the Roman era the Jews were perceived, at least by the Romans, as a non-territorial people, might bring us closer to the meaning “Jews” at least after the Roman conquest of 63 B.C.E., and at least when the sources speak from a Roman standpoint. We should also note that Hyrcanus’ authority over the Jews living outside Judea seems to be mainly in issues that have to do with religion—“manner of life” (A.J. 14.195)78—a point which will, again, lead us to speak of “Jews” and “Judaism.” 5. Conclusion In this paper I tried to show the importance of the seemingly insigniicant title ethnarch, not only for a better understanding of the type of leadership 76) Nadav Sharon, “Setting the Stage: he Efects of the Roman Conquest and the Loss of Sovereignty,” in the Proceedings of the 2009 Scholion Conference: “Was 70 C.E. Really a Watershed? On Jews and Judaism before and after the Destruction of the Second Temple” (Leiden: Brill, forthcoming). 77) Here is a brief selection: Ross S. Kraemer, “On the Meaning of the Term “Jew” in Greco-Roman Inscriptions,” HTR 82 (1989): 35-53; Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Ioudaios: “Judaean” and “Jew” in Susanna, First Maccabees, and Second Macabees,” in Geschichte— Tradition—Relexion: Festschrift für Martin Hengel zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. H. Cancik et al.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1996), 1:211-20; idem, Beginnings, 69-106; Steve Mason, “Jews, Judaeans, Judaizing, Judaism: Problems of Categorization in Ancient History,” JSJ 38 (2007): 457-512; Daniel R. Schwartz, “‘Judaean’ or ‘Jew’? How Should We Translate Ioudaios in Josephus?” in Jewish Identity in the Greco-Roman World (ed. J. Frey; AJEC 71; Leiden: Brill, 2007), 3-27. 78) See Piattelli, “Enquiry,” 224-25, and also 220. N. Sharon / Journal for the Study of Judaism 41 (2010) 472-493 493 of those who held this title, but also for other essential issues of the Second Temple period. he evidence for this title in Judea is found in three corpora. he irst relates to the early Hasmoneans, Simon and John Hyrcanus. As we have seen, the evidence for John seems to derive from erroneous attributions and the evidence for Simon relies solely on an originally Hebrew text, now found only in its later Greek translation. he third relates to Archelaus, Herod’s heir. Although this evidence is well established, it is not derived from oicial documents and is later than the original implementation of the term in Judea. he second corpus, referring to Hyrcanus II, is most important, since, not only is it found in numerous oicial documents, but it seems to testify to the initial implementation of the title in Judea. My conclusion is that this title does not denote ordinary rule, but rather exempliies a unique Roman view of Jewish existence as a territory-less people, a view which was to persist throughout the remainder of the Second Temple era, following the Roman conquest, and would eventually also help set the stage for post-Destruction Jewish existence. hus, this title played a role in allowing, perhaps for the irst time in their history, the Jews of the Diaspora and the Judeans of Palestine to be perceived as one entity, united for a short while, at least in some aspects of their existence, under a single leadership.