Perspectives
“JERUSALEM :
CAPITAL OF THE JEWS”:1 THE JEWISH IDENTITY OF JERUSALEM
IN GREEK AND ROMAN SOURCES*
Rivkah Fishman-Duker
For ancient Greek
and Roman pagan authors, Jerusalem Jerusalem Jerusalem Temple Jerusalem Jerusalem Temple Jerusalem Temple Jerusalem
Jewish Political Studies Review 20:3–4 (Fall 2008)
119
120 Rivkah Fishman-Duker
The Jewish identity of Jerusalem
as recorded in the writings of Greek and Roman authors of classical antiquity
is a subject worthy of study in its own right. This article draws on references
to Jerusalem in nearly twenty
different sources dating from the third century BCE to the third century CE,
roughly six centuries.
An examination of the sources indicates their authors’
complete and unanimous agreement that Jerusalem
was Jewish by virtue of the fact that it was founded by Jews, that its
inhabitants were Jews and that the Temple ,
located in Jerusalem , was the
center of the Jewish religion. Despite the fact that some of these authors had
distinctly negative views about Jews and Judaism, they were all in agreement
about the Jewish identity of the city. These texts possess an importance which
transcends their purely academic and cultural content. Newcomers to the
historical stage and their apologists have based their political claims upon
historical accounts which they have fabricated. For example, in his lengthy
account of the Camp David Summit of July 2000, chief American negotiator Dennis
Ross attributes much of its failure to the late Palestinian Authority Chairman
Yasir Arafat who not only repeated “old mythologies” but invented “a new one …
[that] the Temple did not exist in Jerusalem
but in Nablus .
”2 While one may dismiss Arafat’s outrageous statement as a
fabrication invented to promote his political agenda, this lie and similar
assertions make up part of ongoing Muslim efforts to negate Israel’s claim to
Jerusalem, challenge an essential element of the Jewish faith and attack
historical truth.3 Scholarly refutations of such false historical claims have
usually drawn upon ancient and medieval Jewish and Christian sources, modern
scholarship and archeological excavations.4 Despite the fact that the ancient
pagan Greek and Roman sources have been known for centuries, they have not
received a level of attention commensurate with their importance. The
references to Jerusalem in these
classical texts not only demonstrate the historical attachment of the Jewish
people to Jerusalem , but also
contribute to our knowledge of Jews and Judaism in the ancient world. It should
be noted that such information, particularly of the negative variety regarding
Jewish history, society and religion influenced later Christian and Western
views of the Jews.5
The Sources
The major source for most of the Greek views on the Jews is
the treatise Against Apion written by the Jewish historian Josephus some time
after 93CE in Rome.6 Apion, a Greek grammarian and intellectual in Alexandria,
was active in the mid-first century CE in the struggle against The Jewish
Identity of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman Sources 121 the civic rights of Jews
in his city, and a notorious defamer of Jews and Judaism. In Against Apion,
Josephus presents lengthy citations from the works of numerous Greek writers
and intellectuals from the third century BCE through the first century CE. In
several instances, such writings are extant only in Josephus’ work.
While several sources are neutral or even positive toward
Jews, many accounts portray the Jews and the Jewish religion negatively and are
replete with lies and calumnies. Josephus meticulously and successfully debunks
these anti-Jewish tracts and provides a vigorous defense of Judaism, pointing
out its strength and greatness in contrast to Greek and Roman pagan beliefs and
life style.7
Selections from other Greek and Latin works which are no
longer extant may be found in other pagan anthologies, in the writings of
Church Fathers such as Origen or Eusebius of Caesarea, and in later Byzantine
texts. In addition, the writings of major authors, such as the Roman orator
Cicero and the historian Tacitus exist independently and provide information on
the Jews.8
The entire corpus of texts in their original languages and
English translation, with learned introductions, commentaries and explanations
is available to the public in the form of the excellent comprehensive
three-volume collection by Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and
Judaism. 9 The texts used in this article, quoted in English translation, come
from Professor Stern’s magnum opus, which includes 554 selections of varying
length and content, dating from the fifth century BCE to the sixth century CE.
General Background
The Greeks probably were the first to record information
about the customs, life styles and societies of the different peoples they
encountered or heard about during their travels in various parts of the world.
Jews were one of the many peoples they met and observed.10 The “father of
history,” Herodotus, who visited Egypt under Persian rule in the 450s BCE,
wrote extensively about the Egyptians and referred to the “Syrians of
Palestine” who were circumcised and were assumed to be the Jews.11 In fact, it
is likely that it was Herodotus who coined the name “Palestine;” namely, the
area of the Land of Israel, as his encounter was with the descendants of the
Philistines who inhabited the coastal towns of Gaza, Ashdod, and Ashkelon. The
Jews inhabited the landlocked region of Jerusalem
and its surrounding hills, known as Judea.12
During the decades and centuries following the conquest of
the Near East by Alexander the Great in the 330s and 320s BCE, Greek soldiers
122 Rivkah Fishman-Duker and civilians populated and colonized the entire area,
established major cities such as Alexandria in Egypt, and spread their system
of local government, language, culture, art, religion, and way of life
throughout the region. The Greeks promoted and advocated the adoption of their
life style and mores; namely, Hellenization, which in contemporary parlance may
be termed the first manifestation of “globalization.” All the peoples they
ruled and amongst whom they lived, including the Jews in the Land
of Israel
In the late fourth century BCE, several texts portray Jews
in a complimentary fashion, as philosophers.14 Throughout the third century
BCE, however, less favorable comments about the Jews circulated throughout
Ptolemaic Egypt, which had undergone rapid Hellenization. Outstanding among the
anti-Jewish accusations was an alternative to the Biblical narrative of the
Exodus.15 One of the anti-Exodus tales, presented by the Egyptian priest
Manetho (mid-third century BCE) portrayed the Jews as foreigners, descendants
of shepherd-kings who had taken over Egypt and had joined with others who were
ridden with disease and killed the animals which the Egyptians venerated as
gods.16 Subsequently, they were expelled from Egypt and established their own
polity under their leader Moses who gave them a way of life which differed from
that of the rest of mankind. Hence, the Jews were accused of xenophobia and
disrespect for the gods of other nations and were viewed as practitioners of a
strange way of life.17
Some writers recall distinctive Jewish customs, such as the
absence of representations of the deity, male circumcision, dietary laws and
the observance of the weekly day of rest, the Sabbath. Indeed, in 167 BCE, the
Greek Seleucid King Antiochus IV ordered Jews to place an idol of Zeus in the
Temple, outlawed circumcision, demanded the sacrifice of swine and forbade
Sabbath observance (I Maccabees 1:41–50). He thus wanted to eliminate those
unique features of the Jewish religion which had been noted by pagan writers.
Anti-Exodus narratives and accusations of Jewish sacrilege
against other nations’ gods emerged in times of political and cultural crises
and may have been a reaction to the fact that Judaism was attractive to many
Greeks and Romans.18 By the middle to late first century BCE, the Romans dominated
much of the known world west of the Euphrates, with its large Greek and Jewish
populations. The Romans adopted many of the Greek charges against the Jews, to
which they added accusations of insubordination to Roman rule.
So embedded were the Greek libels that, even several decades
after the brutal suppression of the Jewish revolt against Rome (66–70 CE) and
the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem (70 CE), the Roman The Jewish
Identity of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman Sources 123 historian Tacitus repeated
the standard anti-Exodus canard and expressed himself as though the Jews were
still a major threat to Imperial world domination, as follows: “… Moses
introduced new religious practices, quite opposed to those of all other
religions. The Jews regard as profane all that we hold sacred; on the other
hand, they permit all that we abhor.”19
Most Greek and Roman items on Jerusalem ,
therefore, must be viewed within the context of the general background
described above. This applies to the texts quoted in Josephus’ Against Apion
and in later works and to the books which survived as independent works, such
as the Histories of Tacitus.
Mention of Jerusalem
occurs in several contexts. First, it is the climax of the largely pejorative
foundation narratives of Judea and the Jewish people,
which begins with the expulsion from Egypt .
Second, Jerusalem is associated
with the construction and the existence of the Jewish Temple and the Temple
cult and practices, which Greeks and Romans viewed with fascination, despite
the fact that they may have found them highly distasteful and offensive.
Josephus devotes much attention to presenting and refuting the foundation
narratives and the calumnies against Judaism and Temple
practices.
Third, depending on the date of their works, several authors
record historical events, namely invasions of Jerusalem
by Greeks or Romans. The major captures of the city were the seizure of the Temple
by the Seleucid monarch Antiochus IV in 167 BCE, the invasion of Jerusalem
and entry into the Temple by the
Roman general Pompey the Great in 63 BCE, and the destruction of Jerusalem
and the Temple by Titus during the
Great Revolt against Rome in 70 CE.
Fourth, physical descriptions of Jerusalem
appear in geographical and ethnographical works, with or without the occasional
historical fact. Finally, in several Roman sources the term “Solyma” (Jerusalem )
appears as part of an insult. Some authors combine several of the features
listed above: foundation narratives focus on the Temple ,
historical events, physical descriptions and use of name of the city in an
demeaning manner.
The Greeks and Romans explored their own origins and the
beginnings of the peoples, countries and cities which they conquered and ruled.
124 Rivkah Fishman-Duker
Furthermore, they attempted to explain to their readers how
existing locations, shrines and customs came into being and to answer possible
queries as to when and under what circumstances contemporary events and customs
began. Therefore, they presented and repeated foundation narratives. The
earliest Greek material on the construction of Jerusalem
appears as part of the conclusion of the anti-Exodus narratives mentioned
above.
According to Manetho, for example, after Pharaoh expelled
the sacrilegious Jews, a tribe of the usurper shepherd-kings called “Hyksos”
dominated the land. They were joined by others who were afflicted with leprosy
and diseases. “They journeyed over the desert ... they built in the land now
called Judaea a city large enough to hold all those thousands of people and
gave it the name of Jerusalem.” In a subsequent section, Josephus again quotes
Manetho as stating that after the Jews “were driven out of the country, [they]
occupied what is now Judea , founded Jerusalem ,
and built the temple.” While Josephus wrongly cites Manetho’s history as
attributing to Moses the building of the Temple ,
he mentions that Manetho notes that Moses “who framed their [the Jews’]
constitution and their laws” was a native Egyptian.20
In an account by Hecataeus of Abdera (c. 300 BCE), Jerusalem
appears toward the conclusion of his anti-Exodus account and before his
description of Jewish society and practices. He attributes the expulsion of the
Jews to the pestilence which the Egyptians blamed upon the presence of
foreigners, not only Jews, who caused the natives to falter in religious
observance. “Therefore, the aliens were driven from the country.” While some
went to Greece ,
most “were driven into what is now called Judea … at
that time utterly uninhabited … on taking possession of the land, he [Moses]
founded, besides other cities, one that is the most renowned of all, called Jerusalem .
In addition, he established the temple that they hold in chief veneration,
instituted their forms of worship and ritual, drew up their laws and ordered
their political institutions.”21
Hecataeus and other writers designate Moses as the founder
of Jerusalem , builder of the Temple ,
and architect of the Jewish religion. This point differs substantially from the
Hebrew Bible which names King David as the conqueror and builder of the city
and his son King Solomon as the builder of the Temple (II Samuel 5:6–12; I
Chronicles 11:4–9; I Kings 6:1–38; 7:15–51; II Chronicles 2:1–5:2). For a Greek,
however, it would make sense that Moses built the Temple .
Logically speaking, the first major leader of people, conqueror of its land and
creator of its laws and social norms had to be regarded as the founder of its
most important city and shrine. It is noteworthy that Moses “the Lawgiver”
figures prominently as the founder of Judaism both in Greek The Jewish Identity
of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman Sources 125 and Roman writings and in Josephus’
defense of Judaism in the second half of his Against Apion. 22
The link between the expulsion from Egypt
and the building of Jerusalem
appears in later sources which have a more negative view of the Jews and
Judaism. This change took place after the invasion of Jerusalem
and desecration of the Temple by
Antiochus IV and his subsequent defeat by the Jews. For example, in his
Bibliotheca Historica, the compiler Diodorus Siculus (first century BCE)
recycles the essential anti-Exodus plot of Manetho. Here, the Jews were driven
out of Egypt
because they “were impious and detested by the gods.” They were joined by
others “with leprous marks on their bodies... The refugees occupied the
territory round about Jerusalem ,
and having organized the nation of the Jews had made their hatred of mankind
into a tradition, and on this account, had introduced utterly outlandish laws…”
Later on, Diodorus refers to “Moses, the founder of Jerusalem .”23
In a similar vein, Josephus includes an excerpt from
Lysimachus (possibly first century BCE), whose work exhibits an anti-Jewish
bias close to that of Apion. Lysimachus relates that after the leprous Jews
were expelled from the Egyptian temples, where they took refuge, “a certain
Moses” taught them “to show goodwill to no man” and “to overthrow any temples
and altars of the gods…” They eventually “came to the country now called Judaea
where they built a city in which they settled. This town was called Hierosyla
because of their sacrilegious propensities. At a later date … they altered the
name to avoid the disgraceful imputation and called the city Hierosolyma and
themselves Hierosolymites.”24
In circa 110 CE, several decades after the defeat of the
Jews by the Romans in 70 CE, the Roman historian Tacitus included a brief
excursus on the Jews in his Histories. The Great Revolt against Rome
and the siege and destruction of Jerusalem
by Titus, which make up the major part of this section of Tacitus’ work, appear
in the context of his extensive treatment of the Flavian dynasty, the theme of
his work. Tacitus openly declares that Jerusalem
is “the capital of the Jews.” Before his description of its devastation, he
gives a terse account of its origins and some of its history. Tacitus refers to
the origin of the Jews as either from “Ida” in Crete or
from Ethiopia
or Assyria and their leaders as “Hierosolymus and Iuda.”
He adds that “others say that the Jews are of illustrious origin, being the
Solymi, a people celebrated in Homer’s poems, who founded a city and gave it
the name Hierosolyma.”25
A version of the Greek anti-Exodus story follows in which
Tacitus notes that Moses, with his fellow exiles, seized a country, expelled
the former inhabitants, founded a city and dedicated a temple. Afterwards, he
launches a vicious attack against Moses’ xenophobic laws and way of life which
persisted even to his own times.26 A brief geographical 126 Rivkah
Fishman-Duker description of the country and of Jerusalem precedes a terse
summary of the history of Judea, its domination by Rome and the events leading
up to the Great Revolt, the defeat of the Jews and the destruction of
Jerusalem.27
In conclusion, Jerusalem
clearly is the major city of the Jews, founded by a people expelled from Egypt
under inauspicious circumstances. The Jews were either oppressive foreigners or
carriers of a plague or leprosy or both. Their leader Moses turned them against
humanity with strange customs and laws, founded a city, Jerusalem ,
and built a Temple . Its interior
and cultic practices will be discussed below. By the early second century CE,
when Tacitus wrote his history, it is clear that this narrative of the
circumstances of Jerusalem ’s
foundation had become a standard depiction among Greeks and Roman writers.
The Centrality of the
Temple
The Temple of
the Jews was a famous building, although it was not one of the Seven Wonders of
the ancient world. According to Greek and Roman sources, it definitely was
located in Jerusalem , a city
founded and inhabited by Jews. While the narratives noted above feature Moses
as the founder of the Temple , three
relatively obscure sources of the second century BCE link the Temple
to King Solomon and point out his association with King Hiram of Tyre ,
who assisted in its construction. These sources are brief and contain no
historical background or material on the Jews.28
Several of the selections in Against Apion which include the
antiExodus narrative also provide descriptions of the interior and exterior of
the Temple and some of its rituals.
For example, Hecataeus states that in the center of the city is an enclosure
where there is “a square altar built of heaped up stones, unhewn and
unwrought.” The Temple itself is “a great edifice containing an altar and a
lamp stand, both made of gold ... upon these is a light which is never
extinguished … there is not a single statue or votive offering, no trace of a
plant in the form of a sacred grove, or the like.”29 And in his account of
Titus’ siege of Jerusalem , Tacitus
describes the Temple as “… built
like a citadel, with walls of its own … the very colonnades made a splendid
defense. Within the enclosure is an ever-flowing spring.”30
In addition to physical descriptions, the authors mention
the religious aspect of the Temple
which differed radically from Greek and Roman paganism. In the text preserved
by Diodorus, Hecataeus mentions the priests and their duties in the Temple and
even describes a worship service and sacrifice.31 Similarly, the first century
Roman historian Livy remarks that the Jews do not state “to which deity
pertains the temple The Jewish Identity of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman Sources
127 at Jerusalem, nor is any image found there, since they do not think the God
partakes of any figure.”
In the same vein, Tacitus reports that “there were no
representations of the gods within, but … the place was empty and the secret
shrine contained nothing” and “only a Jew may approach its doors, and that all
save the priests were forbidden to cross its threshold.”32 Cassius Dio (c. 200
CE) recalls that the Jews “never had any statue of him [the deity] even in Jerusalem
itself.” The latter states that their temple “was extremely large and
beautiful, except in so far as it was open and roofless.”33 Hecataeus, Livy,
and Cassius Dio explain the absence of representation as part of Jewish
“otherness” in a factual manner. Several Greek writers, however, interpret the
fact that there were no statues of the gods in the Temple
not only as unusual, but also as barbaric and indicative of Jewish misanthropy.
In their view, it would be inconceivable that a sacred shrine would be empty.
Therefore, several authors offered their versions of what exactly stood in the Temple .
Diodorus (first century BCE) writes that when “Antiochus, called Epiphanes, on
defeating the Jews had entered the innermost sanctuary of the god’s temple,
where it was lawful for the priest alone to enter. Finding there a marble
statue of a heavily bearded man seated on an ass, with a book in his hands, he
supposed it to be an image of Moses, founder of Jerusalem
… who had ordained for the Jews their misanthropic and lawless customs. …
Antiochus … sacrificed before the image of the founder and the openair altar of
the god a great sow.”34 Diodorus asserts that what stood in Judaism’s holiest
place was ridiculous and revolting; namely, the presence of a statue of an ass,
a lowly beast of burden, whose rider had established Jewish xenophobia, and
that Antiochus sacrificed an animal known by all to be forbidden to the Jews in
their holiest shrine.35
Apion (mid-first century CE) conveys a malicious and
defamatory description of the contents of the sanctuary in Jerusalem .
In order to give his anti-Jewish arguments greater authority, Apion attributes
this account to the well known Greek philosopher and ethnographer Posidonius
(c.135–51 BCE) and the rhetorician Apollonius Molon (first century BCE).36 As
in the case of Diodorus, the invasion of Antiochus Epiphanes serves as the
point of departure for the description, as follows: “Within the sanctuary … the
Jews kept an ass’s head [made of gold], worshipping that animal and deeming it
of deepest reverence.”37
The narrative continues with an astonishing calumny. Apion
relates that when Antiochus entered the sanctuary, he discovered a Greek
imprisoned inside, on a couch next to a table laden with excellent food. The
Greek hailed Antiochus as his savior. For, according to Apion, the Jews
kidnapped a Greek annually, brought him to the sanctuary, fattened him up with
sumptuous meals, sacrificed him, ate his flesh and then 128 Rivkah
Fishman-Duker swore an oath of hostility to the Greeks.38 While Josephus dismisses
this canard as malicious rubbish and baseless lies, it is clear that the fact
that Jews had no statues in their Temple in Jerusalem served as the background
for the fabrication of accusations of kidnapping, human sacrifice, cannibalism
and misanthropy on the part of the Jews.39 This libel provided a basis for the
attempts to deprive them of their civic rights which were contested in
Alexandria in the first century CE by figures such as Apion. Hence, the Temple
appears as a salient feature of pagan anti-Judaism.
In addition, the fact that Jews contributed annually to the Temple ,
thereby filling it with silver and gold objects and monies was considered as a
point of contention. In 59 BCE, the great Roman orator Cicero defended Flaccus,
when the latter sought to prevent the Jews of the Empire from sending large
sums of money to Jerusalem . Cicero
describes the collection of vast amounts of gold and calls Judaism a “barbaric
superstition.”40
Tacitus also adds a financial dimension to his critique of
Judaism and the Temple , complaining
that other peoples join the Jews, “renouncing their ancestral religions …
sending tribute and contributing to Jerusalem ,
thereby increasing the wealth of the Jews.”41 While both Cicero and Tacitus
mention Jerusalem as the destination
for the contributions of the Jews, it is clear from the context that their
intention is the Temple , which the
latter describes as “possessing enormous riches.”42
In conclusion,
descriptions of the Temple form
part of the accounts on Jerusalem and
on Judaism. They range from the factual to the libelous and bizarre. For the
Greeks and Romans, Jerusalem was
famous for its Temple which served
as the focal point of the xenophobic, strange and possibly menacing rites of
the Jews whose contributions brought much gold into the city. The latter may
have encouraged a certain amount of envy among Gentiles. After its destruction
in 70 CE, the memory of the Temple
persisted in the retrospective histories by Tacitus and Cassius Dio.
Historical Events
It is noteworthy that an earlier capture of Jerusalem by the
GreekEgyptian King Ptolemy, son of Lagus, provided an opportunity for the
obscure Agatharchides of Cnidus (second century BCE) to remark about the fact
that “the people known as Jews, who inhabited the most strongly fortified of
cities, called by the natives Jerusalem” lost their city because they would not
defend it on the Sabbath. Josephus includes this selection in Against Apion as
one of the early pagan critiques of the Jewish Sabbath which Agatharchides
deemed as “folly,” “dreams,” and “traditional fancies about the law.”44
In this instance, the capture of Jerusalem
serves as background for the author’s unfavorable comments on the Sabbath.
Similarly, Cassius Dio attributes the capture of the Temple by the Roman
general Pompey the Great in 63 BCE to the fact that the Jews, given their
“superstitious awe” did not defend the city on “the day of Saturn” (the
Sabbath).45 Cassius Dio, however, concentrates on Roman victories and
accomplishments and mentions the issue of the Sabbath in passing.
The biographer Plutarch (mid-first-early second century CE)
notes the siege of Jerusalem by the
Seleucid monarch Antiochus VII Sidetes in 133–132 BCE at the time of the Jewish
Feast of Tabernacles. The author describes this festival at length in another
work.46 According to Plutarch, Antiochus VII provided the sacrificial animals
for the Temple and allowed a seven day truce, after which the Jews submitted to
him.47 From this passage, it is clear that the inhabitants of Jerusalem are the
Jews, that their Temple is located there and that their religious practices
affect the outcome of the invasions of Greek rulers.
While Jerusalem
and the Temple are important in
these sections, they serve as the background for praise of the Roman invader.
Similarly, in the works of Tacitus and Cassius Dio, the city of Jerusalem
and its destruction form part of the history of the Roman Empire ,
and in the case of Tacitus, the accomplishments of the Flavian dynasty.50 These
historians assume Roman cultural superiority and political hegemony throughout
the world and the conquest and subjugation of Jerusalem
supported this world-view.
An outstanding example of the role of Jerusalem
as the location for a minor event in the life of an emperor may be found in
Suetonius’ The 130 Rivkah Fishman-Duker Twelve Caesars, a work replete with
intimate details on the public and private lives of the first twelve Roman
emperors. In his biography of Titus, then commander of his father Vespasian’s
Imperial forces and later emperor, Suetonius writes that “in the final attack
on Jerusalem he slew twelve of the defenders with as many arrows; and he took
the city on his daughter’s birthday, so delighting the soldiers and winning
their devotion …”51 In this case, “the personal is political” and Jerusalem
serves as the location for commemorating an event in the private life of Titus.
Finally, Cassius Dio’s indispensable account of the Jewish
revolt against the Emperor Hadrian (132–135 CE) designates the following as a
cause of the revolt: “At Jerusalem he [Hadrian] founded a city in place of the
one which had been razed to the ground, naming it Aelia Capitolina, and on the
site of the temple of the god, he raised a new Temple to Zeus [Jupiter].”52 Dio
then proceeds with his report of the revolt of the Jews and its methodical
suppression by the Romans.
Although the source concentrates on the course of the revolt
against Hadrian, the founding of a pagan city on the ruins of Jerusalem
and a pagan temple on the Temple Mount Jerusalem , the Temple
and the Jews are linked together in the major Roman historical work, written
over more than a century after the destruction of the city and its holiest
place.
Physical Descriptions
Greeks and Romans displayed a keen interest in their own
surroundings, distant lands, natural phenomena and landmarks, among them Jerusalem .
Some of the descriptions of Jerusalem
precede details about the Temple
and Judaism and others occur within the context of historical events, such as
the siege of Titus in 70 CE. Generally speaking, Jerusalem
appears as a strongly fortified city with a temple which is difficult to
capture. A few writers note that it has sources of water and several authors
provide measurements of its area. Despite the tendency in the ancient world to
exaggerate figures, it is clear that Jerusalem
was relatively large and populous.
The selection by Hecataeus, cited in Against Apion,
describes the city as follows: “The Jews have … only one fortified city, which
has a circumference of about fifty stades and some hundred and twenty thousand
inhabitants; they call it Jerusalem .
Nearly in the centre of the city stands a stone wall, enclosing an area about
five plethra long and a hundred cubits broad, approached by a pair of gates.”53
He then proceeds to describe the Temple .
The Jewish Identity of Jerusalem in
Greek and Roman Sources 131
Agatharcides notes that Jerusalem
is “the most strongly fortified of cities.”54 The obscure Greek writer
Timochares (late second century BCE) states that: “Jerusalem
has a circumference of 40 stades. It is hard to capture her, as she is enclosed
on all sides by abrupt ravines. The whole city has a plenitude of running
waters, so that the gardens are also irrigated by the waters streaming from the
city.”55
In the anonymous Schoinometresis Syriae, possibly written by
Xenophon of Lampsacus (c. 100 BCE), the writer notes that: “Jerusalem
is situated on high and rough terrain; some parts of the wall are built of hewn
stone, but most of it consists of gravel. The city has a circumference of 27
stades and in that place there is a fount from which water spouts in
abundance.”56
Similarly, in his famous Natural History, the Roman polymath
Pliny the Elder (d.79 CE) recorded that the Dead Sea “is faced … on the south
by Machaerus, at one time, next to Jerusalem the most important fortress in
Judaea…” and that “Engeda [the oasis of Ein Gedi was] second only to Jerusalem
in the fertility of its land and in its groves of palm-trees, but now like
Jerusalem, [is] a heap of ashes.”57
Both Tacitus and Cassius Dio provide details about Jerusalem
in their accounts of Roman conquests of the city. Despite the fact that the
city had been destroyed, Tacitus uses the present tense as if it were still
standing. Prior to his lengthy section on the Great Revolt, he gives a brief
summary of the history of the city which he introduces as follows: “…The first
line of fortifications protected the city, next the palace, and the innermost
wall the temple.”58 At the time of Titus’ siege of Jerusalem ,
Tacitus describes its defenses:
…the city stands on an eminence;… the two
hills that rise to a great height had been included within walls that had been
skillfully built … The rocks terminated in sheer cliffs and towers rose to a
height of sixty feet where the hill assisted the fortifications, and in the
valleys they reached one hundred and twenty; they presented a wonderful sight …
An inner line of walls had been built around the palace, and on a conspicuous
height stands Antony’s tower ... in the hills are subterraneous excavations,
with pools and cisterns for holding rain-water.59
Cassius Dio briefly states that at the time of Titus’ siege,
some Romans thought that the city was impregnable and went over to the other
side. Its strength lay in the fact that it “had three walls, including one that
surrounded the temple” and that the Jews “had tunnels dug from inside the city
and extending out under the walls”, from which they attacked the Roman water
carriers.60 Both Tacitus and Cassius Dio emphasize the fortifications of the
city and thus show the great achievement of the Romans in capturing and
devastating Jerusalem. The physical descriptions clearly are subordinated to
the aggrandizement of the Roman Empire . 132 Rivkah
Fishman-Duker
The Use of the Term
“Solyma”
Several Roman writers after 70 CE use the term “Solyma” (Jerusalem )
in a derogatory manner. As discussed above, the explanation for the etymology
of the name of the city was part of the foundation narratives of Lysimachus,
Plutarch and Tacitus. After the destruction of Jerusalem ,
the term “Solyma” seems to have acquired a pejorative meaning used in personal
insults and accusations and not associated with its etymology. This use of the
term connotes both the derision of Judaism and a link with a defeated people
and a destroyed city, whose capture was difficult for the Romans.
Apparently, despite the fact that Jerusalem
was in ruins and its inhabitants killed, exiled or sold into slavery, Judaism
continued to be a source of attraction for the Romans. In the late first
century CE, both Valerius Flaccus and Martial, the well-known coiner of
epigrams, insult their non-Jewish rivals and opponents by linking them with
“Solyma.” In his diatribe against Domitian, the brother of Titus, the former
notes that he is “foul with the dust of Solyma.” The latter contemptuously
likens his rival to one who “comes from Solyma now consumed by fire, and is
lately condemned to tribute.”61
The term appears in the Satires of Juvenal (60–130 CE), who
penned several barbs against Judaism, which he viewed as superstitious nonsense
and as destructive to Roman society and family life because of its widespread
popularity. He labels Jews as false prophets and beggars and ridicules “a palsied
Jewess” who is “an interpreter of the laws of Jerusalem ”
(Latin, legum Solymarum).62 In this instance, “Solyma” or “Jerusalem ”
means the despised religion of Judaism.
Conclusion
For ancient Greek and Roman pagan writers, Jerusalem
was a Jewish city and the site of the Temple ,
the holy place of the Jews. It was founded in the remote past by ancient Jews,
possibly by Moses, who led a pariah people, expelled from Egypt ,
and established its theology, laws and customs, which were and continued to be
inimical to most of humanity.
The Temple was
the religious center of the Jews where their hostility to others was
reinforced. Jerusalem was a
strongly fortified and fertile city, attacked on several occasions by Greeks
and Romans. Although difficult to capture, because of its natural circumstances
and its fortifications, the Romans invaded it and later destroyed both the city
and the Temple . All Jews were
linked to Jerusalem , through
historical origins, financial contributions to the Temple ,
or religious observances which derived from that city and its founder.
The Jewish Identity of Jerusalem
in Greek and Roman Sources 133
As Judaism was considered a type of xenophobic superstition,
innately hostile to the pagan gods and to the Greek and Roman way of life, and
a threat to the Roman society because of its appeal to many, the memory and
term “Solyma” or “Hierosolyma” occasionally became a synonym for all that was
Jewish and abhorred by various Roman authors. Thus, the sole identity of Jerusalem
was its status as the “capital of the Jews.”
Notes
* To Isaac Jacob
Meyers (1979–2008) In Memoriam Perpetuam. My cousin, Isaac Jacob Meyers of New
York , was a doctoral candidate in Classics at Harvard
University Jerusalem , Judaism, Hebrew,
Latin and Greek. His untimely death in a traffic accident is a great personal
loss and a loss to scholarship. May his memory be blessed.
I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. David Zwebner
and Mr. Menahem Lewinsky of the Hazvi Yisrael Synagogue in Jerusalem
who invited me to address the congregation at the Jerusalem Day commemoration
on 1 June 2008 , where I gave
a lecture in Hebrew on this subject which served as the inspiration for this
article.
1. Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1, in Menahem Stern, Greek and
Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and
Humanities, Vol. II, No. 281, 1980), 21, 28. The Latin reads: “Hierosolyma
genti caput.” The term “gens” refers to the people of Judea ,
the Jews, mentioned in the first part of the sentence. All sources in this
article are from Stern’s anthology, see note 9.
2. Dennis Ross, The Missing Peace: The Inside Story of the
Fight for Middle East Peace (New
York : Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2004), 694, 699. It
is noteworthy that the pagan town of Nablus
(the Arabic pronunciation of the Greek “Neapolis”) was founded by the Roman
Emperor Vespasian several years after his victory over the Jews and the
destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem
in 70 C.E. Neapolis, located in Samaria
near the Biblical town of Shechem ,
had a pagan population. For a brief popular summary of officially supported and
sanctioned rewriting and falsifying of the ancient history of Jerusalem and the
region by the Palestinian Authority, to negate their Jewish past, deny Jewish
claims and replace them with those of Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians, see
Itamar Marcus & Barbara Crook, “Anti-Semitism among Palestinian Authority
Academics,” PostHolocaust and Anti-Semitism 69, 1 June 2008.
3. The vehement negations of the existence of a Jewish
pre-Islamic past in the history of Jerusalem and numerous counter-narratives
claiming that the Temple was built by Adam or Abraham and later renovated by
King Solomon and Herod have been collected and analyzed by Yitzhak 134 Rivkah
Fishman-Duker Reiter, From Jerusalem to Mecca and Back: The Muslim Rallying
Around Jerusalem (Jerusalem: Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 2005).
[Hebrew] For a summary in English see Nadav Shragai, “In the Beginning was
Al-Aqsa,” Ha-Aretz, 27 November 2005 .
For the use of Muslim arguments in promoting plans for the division of Jerusalem
see Nadav Shragai, “Jerusalem : The
Danger of Division,” 1–6 (Hebrew) www.jcpa.org. On Islamic appropriation of the
Biblical Jewish past see Jacob Lassner, “The Origins of Muslim Attitudes toward
the Jews and Judaism,” Judaism, 39, 4 (Fall, 1990), 494–507. According to
Lassner, “… the Muslim response to the Jews and Judaism stemmed from an intense
competition to occupy the center of a stage held sacred by both faiths. The
story of the Jews was a history that Muslims appropriated in the Qur’an, its
commentaries and other Islamic texts,” 497–98. The history of Jerusalem
seems to belong to this category as well. 4. For a cogent presentation of the
issues, see Dore Gold, The Fight for Jerusalem Holy City Washington ,
D.C. Jerusalem : Portrait of a
City in the Second Temple Period (538 BCE– 70 CE) (Philadelphia :
Jewish Publication Society, 2002), which clearly demonstrates the Jewish
character of Jerusalem in the Second
Temple Temple
Mount Jerusalem :
Shoham Academic and Research Publication, 2002).
5. Martin Goodman emphasizes the intense anti-Judaism of the
Flavian dynasty (69–96 CE) which owed its prestige to the decisive and brutal
victory against the Jews. Furthermore, after the destruction of Jerusalem ,
the Flavians initiated an anti-Jewish policy to show that “the conquest was
being celebrated not just over Judea but over Judaism.”
Goodman argues that this Imperial policy was a source of Christian
anti-Judaism. Rome and Jerusalem :
The Clash of Ancient Civilizations, (London :
Penguin Books, 2007), 453 ff., 582 ff. Similarly, Rene S. Bloch relates the
negative statements of Tacitus to the anti-Jewish discourse of the Flavian era
and their influence on Western attitudes to Jews and Judaism. Antike
Vorstellungen vom Judentum: Der Judenexcursus des Tacitus im Rahmen der
Griechisch-Roemischen Ethnographie (Stuttgart :
Franz Steiner Verlag, 2002), 221–223. [German]
On Greek and Roman attitudes to Jews and Judaism see E.
Gabba, “The Growth of anti-Judaism or the Greek Attitude towards Jews,” in W.D.
Davies and L. Finkelstein eds., The Cambridge History of Judaism, Vol. II: The
Hellenistic Age (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 614–656; Louis
H. Feldman, Jew and Gentile in the Ancient World (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1993), especially 123–176; Peter Schaefer, Judeophobia:
Attitudes toward the Jews in the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass., Harvard
University Press, 1997). On the origins of anti-Semitism in Egypt in the third
century BCE and the circumstances of the first pogrom against Jews, which took
place in Alexandria in 38 CE, and was perpetrated by its Greek majority see
Manfred Gerstenfeld, The Jewish Identity of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman Sources
135 Interview with P.W. van der Horst, “The Egyptian Beginning of
AntiSemitism’s Long History,” Post Holocaust and Anti-Semitism, 62, 1 November
2007.
6. Josephus, The Life; Against Apion, translated by H. St.
John Thackery (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1966). For a summary
of the history, importance and contents of Against Apion see E. Schuerer, The
History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, revised by Geza Vermes
and Fergus Millar (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), I, 54– 60. The most
recent and thorough study of Against Apion is: Louis H. Feldman & John R.
Levison, eds., Josephus’ Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Context
(Leiden: Brill, 1996).
7. Josephus, Against Apion, II: 151–296.
8. Schuerer, I, 20–43, 63–68.
9. Menahem Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and
Judaism, I-III (Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974–84).
My teacher and master, Professor Menahem Stern, of blessed memory, was
professor of Jewish History of the Second Temple Period at the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem. Stern, a prolific scholar and expert in Greek and
Latin texts, was murdered by a Palestinian terrorist while on his way to the Hebrew
University Jerusalem
in 1989. For an earlier, smaller anthology of Greek and Latin texts see
Theodore Reinach, Textes d’auteurs grecs et romains relatifs au Judaisme
(Paris: Ernest Leroux, 1895). [French]
10. Arnaldo Dante Momigliano, “The Hellenistic Discovery of
Judaism,” Alien Wisdom: The Limits of Hellenization (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1975), 74–96. Momigliano states that “by the end of the sixth
century B.C., they were already writing books on ethnography and geography,”
74.
According to Bloch, passim, 222, Greek and Roman ethnographers
related to the Jews differently than they did to other ancient peoples whose
dress, habitations, climate and weaponry were discussed at length.
11. Herodotus, Historiae II, 104:3; Stern, I, No. 1, 2.
12. On the twentieth century Palestinian Arab adoption and
use of the terms “Palestine” and “Palestinian” as labels of ethnic
identification, which originally and for millennia were geographical terms see
Bernard Lewis, “The Palestinians and the PLO: A Historical
Approach,”Commentary, Vol. 59 (January, 1975): 32–48. Lewis notes that the
Roman renamed Judea “Syria-Palestina” and Jerusalem as “Aelia Capitolina” in
137 CE, in order to “stamp out the embers not only of the [Bar Kokhba] revolt
but of Jewish nationhood and statehood … with the same intention — of
obliterating its historic Jewish identity,” 32.
13. For a summary of scholarly interpretations of the varied
reactions of Jews to the impact of Hellenism and the significance of
Hellenization in Jewish history of the Second Temple and Talmudic periods see
L. Levine, “Hellenism and the Jewish World of Antiquity,” Judaism and Hellenism
in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence (Seattle: University of Washington Press,
1998), 3–32.
14. Momigliano, 90–91; Johanan Hans Lewy, “Aristotle and the
Jewish Sage,” 136 Rivkah Fishman-Duker Studies in Jewish Hellenism (Hebrew:
Olamot Nifgashim) (Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1969), 15–43; Josephus, Against
Apion, I, 176–183; Stern, I, VII, No. 15, 47–52.
15. On the anti-Exodus narrative as a major motif of
Greco-Roman antiSemitism: Van der Horst; Schaefer, 15–33. Momigliano, 91–95,
holds that the Greek authors either did not know of the account of the Exodus
in the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Torah or refused to acknowledge
its historicity. In contrast, Erich S. Gruen maintains that these tales were
not part of a concerted pagan anti-Jewish campaign and they “do not derive from
Egyptian distortion of Jewish legend, but the reverse, Jewish inventiveness
expropriated Egyptian myth.” (“The Use and Abuse of the Exodus Story,” Heritage
and Hellenism: The Reinvention of Jewish Tradition (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1998), 41–73, especially 71–73. Gruen’s argument, however, is
neither relevant nor convincing as it is clear that the oft-repeated anti-Exodus
tales indeed formed part of the essential underpinning for anti-Judaism and
Jew-hatred in the Greco-Roman world. For a reaction to Gruen, see John J.
Collins, “Reinventing Exodus: Exegesis and Legend in Hellenistic Egypt,” Jewish
Cult and Hellenistic Culture (Leiden :
Brill, 2005), 44–57 and 191–193.
16. The anti-Exodus texts by Hecataeus: Aegyptiaca, in
Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca Historica XL:3 (Photius, Cod. 244) Stern, I, V,
No. 11, 1–8, 20–35; in: Against Apion I, 183–204; Stern, I, V, No.12, 35–44;
and by Manetho, in: Against Apion I, 73–91, 93–105, 228–252; Stern, I, X, nos.
19–21, 66–86. On theories concerning the date of the texts attributed to
Hecataeus, see Note 21.
17. Van der Horst, op.cit.
18. Daniel R. Schwartz, “Introduction,” Studies in the
Jewish Background of Christianity (Tuebingen: Mohr, 1992), 10–15, attributes
the wide-spread phenomenon of conversion to Judaism, a way of life and set of
beliefs which transcended territorial boundaries, to the influence of the
massive acculturation to Hellenism throughout the Mediterranean world, whereby
one could become Hellenized without living in Greece. On the attraction of
Judaism and the success of proselytism among Greeks and Romans see Feldman,
177–341. J.H. Lewy, “The Second Temple Period in Light of Greek and Roman
Literature”, op.cit., 3–14, argues the crises which stimulated anti-Jewish
writing were the influx of Jews into Ptolemaic Egypt during the third century
BCE, the triumph of the Hasmonean dynasty (mid-late second century BCE) against
the Greek Seleucids, Hasmonean policies toward Greeks, the subjugation of
formerly Greek dominions to the Romans, and the crisis fomented by Roman
Emperor Gaius Caligula’s insistence on worshipping his statue. Later Roman
intellectuals perceived attraction to Judaism and Jewish missionary activity as
undermining their traditional way of life. Repeating the anti-Exodus material
in order to support his campaign against the rights of Jews, Apion led the
Greek delegation to the Emperor Gaius Caligula (37–41 CE) during the period of
inter-ethnic crisis in Alexandria, aggravated by the Imperial policies and the
pogrom of 38 CE. On Alexandria, see Van der Horst op.cit; Schaefer, The Jewish
Identity of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman Sources 137 Judeophobia, 136–160; and
Collins, “Anti-Semitism in Antiquity? The Case of Alexandria,” op.cit.,
181–201.
19. Tacitus, Historiae V: 4:1, Stern, II, XCII, No. 281,19,
25. According to Bloch, 221–223, Tacitus’ excursus on the Jews reflects the
anti-Jewish discourse of the Flavian era and beliefs in the superiority of the Roman
Empire . See Goodman, 453 ff. Erich S. Gruen, however, downplays
any notion of a “long-simmering hostility” as the basis of anti-Jewish
expression in the wake of the revolt in Judea and
attributes negative Roman attitudes to the shock of the challenge of a
“laughable” people. Gruen, “Roman Perspectives on the Jews in the Age of the
Great Revolt,” in Andrea M. Berlin & J. Andrew Overman, eds., The First
Jewish Revolt: Archaeology, History, Ideology (London :
Routledge, 2002), 27–39.
20. Manetho's references to Jerusalem come from his
Aegyptiaca, refuted by Josephus in Against Apion I, 90; I, 93; I, 228; Stern,
I, X, No. 19, 68–69; No. 20, 74–75; No. 21, 78, 81, 83.
21. Hecataeus, in Stern, I, V, No. 11, 26–28. According to
Stern (I, 20–24), Hecataeus wrote in c. 300 BCE. His Aegyptiaca comes down to
us from the first century B.C.E. work of Diodorus Siculus via the tenth-century
Bibliotheca of Photius. Diodorus may have altered the original text. In Against
Apion I, 183–204, Josephus includes a selection entitled “On the Jews” by
Hecataeus, which was regarded as the earliest Greek description of the Temple
and Jerusalem . Several scholars
have challenged the authenticity of the passages in Josephus. Stern presents
the commonly accepted opinion that “Josephus had before him a Jewish revision,
however slight” which was more pro-Jewish than the original Hecataeus (I,
23–24). However, an exhaustive study of the material which Josephus attributes
to Hecataeus asserts that it was written by an Egyptian Jew of the late
second–early first century BCE and not by Hecataeus at all, see Bezalel Bar
Kochba, Pseudo-Hecataeus’ On the Jews: Legitimizing the Jewish Diaspora
(Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996), especially 110–121, 249–252.
This view suits Erich S. Gruen’s later thesis (Note 15), although it is not
universally accepted. See also Bloch, 29–36.
22. On Moses in pagan writing see Feldman, Jew and Gentile,
232–287. On the Greek logic behind the identity of the founder of the religion,
conqueror of the land and builder of the shrine see Bloch, 34, Note 38.
Josephus, Against Apion II: 154–178, 352–365. Josephus argues that Moses is the
oldest legislator in human history and that his laws are superior to those of
other peoples and they are accessible to all.
23. Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica XXXIV, 1: 1, 2, 3, in :
Stern, I, XXXII, No. 63.
24. Lysimachus, in Against Apion I, 304–311; Stern, I, LXII,
No. 158, 383– 386. Stern notes that Lysimachus’ reference to “Hierosyla” is an
example of the etymology of a name of a nation (386, No. 311).
25. Tacitus, Historiae V, 2:1–2; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281,
17–18, 24–25. Stern points out that Tacitus’ references to “Hierosolymus” and
“Iuda” resemble those of his contemporary Plutarch (33, Note 2:2). For
Plutarch: Stern, I, XCI, No. 259, 563. 138 Rivkah Fishman-Duker
26. Tacitus, Historiae V, 3:1–5:5; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281,
18–19, 25–27.
27. Tacitus, Historiae V, 6:1–13:4; Stern, II, XCII, No.
281, 19–23, 27–31. Bloch, 102–107, points out correctly that Tacitus devotes
hardly any attention to the political history of Judea
prior to the Great Revolt, the siege of Jerusalem
by Titus. It simply did not interest him. The otherness of the Jewish religion,
which he knew from the Jews of Rome, however, merited his critique (Bloch,
222–223).
28. Menander of Ephesus ,
in Against Apion I, 126; Stern, I, XX, No. 35, 120– 121; Dius, in Against Apion
I, 114–115; Stern, I, XXI, No. 36, 124–125; Laetus, in Stern, I, XXIII, No. 39,
128–129. Perhaps these authors were acquainted with the Biblical account which
describes the relationship between Solomon and Hiram and the latter’s role in
providing materials for the Temple ,
or obtained their information from an unknown Phoenician source.
29. Hecataeus “On the Jews,” in Against Apion I, 198–199;
Stern, I, V, No. 12, 36–37, 39. See Note 21 on the problems relating to this
passage. Bar Kochba, 153–154, 160–168, states that the author,
Pseudo-Hecataeus, an Egyptian Jew at the turn of the first century BCE, based
his description on Greek literary models of temples and was acquainted with
pagan temples and their surroundings. Therefore, the Temple
in Jerusalem is not the structure
described in the text.
30. Tacitus, Historiae V:12:1 (Stern, II, XCII, No. 281) 22,
30.
31. Hecataeus, in Diodorus, Aegyptiaca, Bibliotheca
Historica XL, 3, 4–6; Stern, I, V, No. 11, 26–28.
32. Livy, in Stern, I, XLVI, No. 133, 330. Tacitus,
Historiae V: 8:1, 9:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28. Tacitus relates that
only after Pompey’s invasion of the Temple
in 63 BCE did the emptiness of the sanctuary become common knowledge. He does
not repeat the Greek calumnies and rumors about the sanctuary.
33. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 17:2–3; Stern, II,
CXXII, No.406, 349, 351.
34. Diodorus, Bibliotheca Historica, XXXIV:2–4; Stern, I,
XXXII, No. 63, 182–183. On the pagan accusation of Jewish ass worship see
Schaefer, 58–62.
35. This account differs from the Jewish versions of
Antiochus IV's invasion of Jerusalem
and desecration of the Temple in I
and II Maccabees. While all stress Antiochus' attempts to abolish Jewish
practices, Diodorus states that after taking tribute from the Jews and
dismantling the walls of Jerusalem ,
he left the Jews alone. He does not mention the Jews led by Judah
the Maccabee taking the Temple from
Antiochus' soldiers and supporters and consecrating it.
36. Posidonius, in Against Apion II, 80, 89–96; Stern, I,
XXVIII, No. 44, 145–146; Apollonius Molon, in Against Apion II, 80, 89–96; Stern,
I, XXIX, No. 48, 12–154; Apion, in Against Apion II, 80–90–96; Stern, I, LXIII,
No. 170, 408–412.
37. Ibid.
38. Ibid.
39. An explanation of the origins of Apion's accusation of
cannibalism on the The Jewish Identity of Jerusalem in Greek and Roman Sources
139 part of the Jews may be found in Stern, I, 412, Note 89. See also Schaefer,
62–67. Periodic kidnapping and killing of a Gentile, of course, occurs in the
medieval blood libels, the first of which took place in Norwich ,
England Europe ,
in which innocent Christian children appear as the victims, murdered by Jews
who use their blood for Passover rituals.
40. Cicero, Pro Flacco 28:66–69; Stern, I, XXXIV, No. 68,
196–201. On Cicero ’s attitude to
the Jews see J. Lewy, “Cicero and the Jews in the Pro Flacco,” op.cit., 79–114.
According to Feldman, 70, the Jews were so loyal to Jerusalem
and the Temple that they were
prepared to defy a Roman edict and send large sums of money to the Temple .
41. Tacitus, Historiae V, 5:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 19,
26. Both Bloch, 93 and Feldman, 110, state that the fact that numerous
proselytes also paid the annual half-shekel to the Temple in Jerusalem resulted
in the accumulation of vast sums of money collected throughout the Empire and
sent to the Temple treasury, thus causing Gentile envy of Jewish wealth and
antipathy toward converts to Judaism.
42. Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21,
28.
43. Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:2; Stern, ibid.
44. Against Apion I, 209–211; Stern, I, XVII, No. 30a,
106–107.
45. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 15:2:1–4: Stern,
II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28. Josephus praises and describes at length the fact
that the Jews did not put up defenses around Jerusalem during Pompey’s campaign
in order not to desecrate the Sabbath and thus facilitated his invasion of the
city and the Temple (Jewish War I: 145–147; Jewish Antiquities XIV: 63–65).
46. On the Feast of Tabernacles se Plutarch, Quaestiones
Convivales IV: 6:2, in: Stern, I, XCI, No. 258, 553–554, 557–558. On Plutarch’s
description of the festival see Schaefer, 53–54.
47. Plutarch, Regum et Imperatorum Apophthegmata; Stern I,
XCI, No. 260, 563–564. For a similar reference to the siege of Jerusalem
by Antiochus VII Sidetes on the Feast of Tabernacles see Josephus, Jewish
Antiquities XIII, 242–248. Josephus, however, points out that Antiochus
withdrew the siege, whereas Plutarch states that the Jews were amazed and
placed themselves in his hands.
48. Livy, Periochae CII; Stern, I, XLVI, No. 131, 329.
49. Cicero states that Pompey “‘laid his victorious hands on
nothing in that shrine,’” Pro Flacco 28:67; Stern, I, XXXIV, No. 68, 196–197;
Tacitus, Historiae V, 9:1; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281, 21, 28, notes that during
Pompey’s invasion “the walls of Jerusalem were razed and the Temple remained
standing.” Cassius Dio, Historia Romana XXXVII, 15:2:1–4; Stern, II, CXXII, No.
406, 349–350, briefly describes the difficulty of capturing the Temple, but
unlike the others, writes that “its wealth was plundered.” In both the Jewish
War I: 152–153 and Jewish Antiquities XIV: 72, Josephus praises Pompey’s
virtuous character and the fact that he touched none of the gold and Temple
vessels.
50. Tacitus; Stern, II, XCII, Nos. 273–294, 1–93; Cassius
Dio; Stern, II, 140 Rivkah Fishman-Duker CXXII, Nos. 406–441, 345–407. On
Tacitus' depiction of Vespasian and Titus in light of the Jewish revolt, see
Bloch, 137–142.
51. Suetonius, The Twelve Caesars, “Divus Titus” 5:2; Stern,
II, XCIV, No. 317, 125–126.
52. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana LXIX, 12:1; Stern, II,
CXXII, No. 440, 391–392.
53. Against Apion I: 197; Stern, I, V, No. 12, 36, 39. Bar
Kochba, 110–113, argues that this description of a walled and fortified city
serves as part of the proof of a later date and a different author of the
passage attributed to Hecataeus by Josephus.
54. Against Apion I:209; Stern, I, XVII, No. 30a, 106–107.
55. Timochares, in: Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica IX:35:1;
Stern, I, XXV, No. 41, 135. Stern explains the source of the exaggerated
figures.
56. Xenophon of Lampsascus, in PE IX: 36:1; Stern, I, XXVI,
No. 42, 138.
57. Pliny the Elder, Naturalis Historia V:71: Stern, I,
LXXVIII, No. 204, 469, 471–472. 58. Tacitus, Historiae V, 8:1; Stern, II, XCII,
No. 281, 21, 28. On Tacitus’ physical description of Judea
and Jerusalem compared to his
geographical data about other locations, see Bloch, 101–102.
59. Tacitus, Historiae V, 11:3; Stern, II, XCII, No. 281,
22, 30. The most detailed physical description of Jerusalem
and the Temple prior to the siege
of Titus may be found in Josephus, The Jewish War, V, 136–247.
60. Cassius Dio, Historia Romana LXVI, 4:1; Stern, II,
CXXII, No. 430, 371, 373.
61. Valerius Flaccus , Argonautica, I, 14; Stern, I, LXXIX,
No. 226, 504–505; Martial, Epigrammata, VII, 82, 7; Stern, I, LXXXIV, No. 242,
526.
62. Juvenal, Saturae, VI, 542–544; Stern, II, XCIII, No.
299, 100–101. On the threat of Judaism as perceived by the Romans see Stern II,
94–95,106– 107. Both Tacitus and Juvenal displayed their contempt for
proselytes (Bloch, 134–135) and their dislike of all peoples, whether Jews,
Germans or Greeks, who did not behave like Romans (Goodman, 110, 160; Bloch,
136–137).
No comments:
Post a Comment