Lev 22:25a (“Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of... more Lev 22:25a (“Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these [blemished animals]”) appears to acknowledge the acceptance of sacrifices from foreigners, as long as the animals are not defective. Throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the Jerusalem temple accepted sacrifices from Gentiles, and rabbinic literature also reflects this practice, quoting Lev 22:25 in support of it. Furthermore, when in 66 CE insurgent priests repealed the practice, Josephus seems to indicate that priests who adhered to the ongoing practice cited Lev 22:25 in their defense. Centuries later, two alternative interpretations of the verse emerge in rabbinic and Karaite texts. The first reads it as proscribing any sacrifices by foreigners. The second reads it as warning Israelites not to offer blemished animals obtained from a foreigner. Attributing these interpretations to Qumranic texts or to the 66 CE insurgents is obviously anachronistic. Moreover, the latter probably did not focus on Lev 22:25 at all, because another temple practice, the exclusion of Gentiles, implied that Gentile offerings should be rejected as well.
In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 p... more In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 prohibits any viewing of the “holy,” except by Aaron, the priest, and his sons. Philo of Alexandria, as well as several modern scholars, read this as a prohibition on any non-priestly viewing of the sacred, Jewish cultic vessels, including the menorah, the shewbread table and the incense altar. Accordingly, a dominant view in research holds that during the Second Temple period these cultic utensils were concealed from the sight of non-priests. However, this view partly overlooks and partly misinterprets our main source in that respect: Josephus indicates that the Jewish holy vessels were actually displayed to the Jewish crowd gathered in the temple court during the Second Temple period. This is supported by the images on certain Hasmonean coins as well as by later texts, such as P.Oxy. 840 and rabbinic literature.
In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 p... more In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 prohibits any viewing of the “holy,” except by Aaron, the priest, and his sons. Philo of Alexandria, as well as several modern scholars, read this as a prohibition on any non-priestly viewing of the sacred, Jewish cultic vessels, including the menorah, the shewbread table and the incense altar. Accordingly, a dominant view in research holds that during the Second Temple period these cultic utensils were concealed from the sight of non-priests. However, this view partly overlooks and partly misinterprets our main source in that respect: Josephus indicates that the Jewish holy vessels were actually displayed to the Jewish crowd gathered in the temple court during the Second Temple period. This is supported by the images on certain Hasmonean coins as well as by later texts, such as P.Oxy. 840 and rabbinic literature.
A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as ina... more A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as inauthentic, since it contains many improbabilities, including the assertion that the Jews and the Spartans are fraternal nations. However, its patent implausibility also renders it unimaginable that the correspondence was intended to be understood literally. Hence, the binary choice offered in research, whereby it is either a bizarre fabrication or an authentic correspondence, despite all its peculiarities, is problematic. The Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence thus remains a conspicuous, unresolved enigma in the research of 1 Maccabees and the early Hasmonean period. Based on a textual clue, this article proposes a solution, namely, that the correspondence is, in fact, an ingenious derision of the Jews’ authentic ethnic “brothers”—the Samaritans. This suggestion provides new insights into the history of the early Hasmoneans and the literary creativity of the author of 1 Maccabees.
A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as ina... more A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as inauthentic, since it contains many improbabilities, including the assertion that the Jews and the Spartans are fraternal nations. However, its patent implausibility also renders it unimaginable that the correspondence was intended to be understood literally. Hence, the binary choice offered in research, whereby it is either a bizarre fabrication or an authentic correspondence, despite all its peculiarities, is problematic. The Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence thus remains a conspicuous, unresolved enigma in the research of 1 Maccabees and the early Hasmonean period. Based on a textual clue, this article proposes a solution, namely, that the correspondence is, in fact, an ingenious derision of the Jews’ authentic ethnic “brothers”—the Samaritans. This suggestion provides new insights into the history of the early Hasmoneans and the literary creativity of the author of 1 Maccabees.
Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalt... more Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalty of death, from proceeding any further inward. This was mounted on a low stone balustrade that encircled an area larger than the actual holy ground. As suggested in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near” to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalt... more Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalty of death, from proceeding any further inward. This was mounted on a low stone balustrade that encircled an area larger than the actual holy ground. As suggested in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near” to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of ... more After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of impure animals into Jerusalem. Two Qumran Scrolls contain parallels to this injunction but target a different audience, i.e., Jews, as opposed to the gentile audience of the programma. Consequently, the focus of these texts also differs: pure animals in the scrolls, impure animals in the programma. Nonetheless, the programma, the scrolls, and perhaps also some instructions in the Mishnah reflect a coherent interpretation of the biblical ban on non-sacral slaughter within a certain radius around God’s altar. Furthermore, comparison of these sources reinforces the authenticity of the programma, offers a possible underlying reasoning for a reconstructed ruling in the Temple Scroll, and even alludes to the Vorlage of the biblical text employed for drafting the programma. Further evidence, however, implies that the relevant Jewish halakhah underwent a significant change during the second cent...
After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of ... more After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of impure animals into Jerusalem. Two Qumran Scrolls contain parallels to this injunction but target a different audience, i.e., Jews, as opposed to the gentile audience of the programma. Consequently, the focus of these texts also differs: pure animals in the scrolls, impure animals in the programma. Nonetheless, the programma, the scrolls, and perhaps also some instructions in the Mishnah reflect a coherent interpretation of the biblical ban on non-sacral slaughter within a certain radius around God’s altar. Furthermore, comparison of these sources reinforces the authenticity of the programma, offers a possible underlying reasoning for a reconstructed ruling in the Temple Scroll, and even alludes to the Vorlage of the biblical text employed for drafting the programma. Further evidence, however, implies that the relevant Jewish halakhah underwent a significant change during the second century BCE.
First Maccabees 7:34 employs four verbs to describe the offensive speech by Nicanor, the Seleucid... more First Maccabees 7:34 employs four verbs to describe the offensive speech by Nicanor, the Seleucid general, addressed to the Jewish elders and priests. The third verb indicates that Nicanor defiled his audience. While this has led scholars to associate 1 Maccabees with the Jewish concept of gentile impurity, several factors suggest that, at this point, an error found its way into the Greek translation from the original Hebrew. The present argument comprises three steps. First, I use the biblical Sennacherib story, featured in the background of the Nicanor episode in 1 Maccabees, as a means of reconstructing the relevant original Hebrew verb employed by 1 Maccabees. Second, I suggest a possible misreading of one letter on the part of the Greek translator. Finally, I propose that a similar, earlier verse in 1 Maccabees, 1:24b, may have been conducive to the translator’s commission of this mistake, thus offering an insight into his way of thinking.
The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, e... more The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, envisaged a need to explain its absolute exclusion of two foreign nations (the Ammonites and the Moabites), alongside its more lenient approach towards members of two other foreign nations (the Edomites and the Egyptians), as expressed in their temporal exclusion from the Assembly. The eternal exclusion of the Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, e... more The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, envisaged a need to explain its absolute exclusion of two foreign nations (the Ammonites and the Moabites), alongside its more lenient approach towards members of two other foreign nations (the Edomites and the Egyptians), as expressed in their temporal exclusion from the Assembly. The eternal exclusion of the Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit b... more Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit by King Ptolemy III to Jerusalem. This paper suggests, firstly, that in all likelihood Ptolemy III did not visit Jerusalem during the Third Syrian War, and secondly, that Josephus’ report echoes King Ptolemy IV’s visit to Jerusalem following the battle of Raphia, as paralleled in III Maccabees. This would make Josephus’ Against Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.
Abstract:Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I So... more Abstract:Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and his contender, Alexander I Balas, to win the support of the Jews in Judea. Verses 25b-45 quote a letter, allegedly sent by the king, containing numerous overwhelming promises. Following an accepted view in research, which regards the letter as a fake, this paper raises the possibility that it was written as an ironic text, the irony being at times evident and at others more covert. The article suggests that in the composition of this array of promises, its author consulted, collected, and borrowed elements, even entire clauses from several other, authentic, Seleucid letters sent to the Jews in Judea. Of these letters, the resemblance in content between the text in question and two letters of Antiochus III, quoted by Josephus in book 12 of his Antiquity of the Jews, is especially striking. The apparent reliance on such authentic Seleucid documents, which are not quoted in I Maccabees, indicates that the author of the letter and the author of I Maccabees used the same official Temple archive, and quite likely, are the same person.
Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and h... more Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and his contender, Alexander I Balas, to win the support of the Jews in Judea. Verses 25b-45 quote a letter, allegedly sent by the king, containing numerous overwhelming promises. Following an accepted view in research, which regards the letter as a fake, this paper raises the possibility that it was written as an ironic text, the irony being at times evident and at others more covert. The article suggests that in the composition of this array of promises, its author consulted, collected, and borrowed elements, even entire clauses from several other, authentic, Seleucid letters sent to the Jews in Judea. Of these letters, the resemblance in content between the text in question and two letters of Antiochus III, quoted by Josephus in book 12 of his Antiquity of the Jews, is especially striking. The apparent reliance on such authentic Seleucid documents, which are not quoted in I Maccabees, indicates that the author of the letter and the author of I Maccabees used the same official Temple archive, and quite likely, are the same person.
Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit b... more Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit by King Ptolemy III to Jerusalem. This paper suggests, firstly, that in all likelihood Ptolemy III did not visit Jerusalem during the Third Syrian War, and secondly, that Josephus’ report echoes King Ptolemy IV’s visit to Jerusalem following the battle of Raphia, as paralleled in III Maccabees. This would make Josephus’ Against Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.
The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III... more The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III Maccabees (henceforth III Macc.) has long been at the center of a debate in research, i.e., whether it should be dated to the Hellenistic period in Egypt, or to the Roman period. This paper suggests that III Macc. was composed not too long after the inauguration of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem — hence an additional support for its dating to the Roman period.
The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III... more The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III Maccabees (henceforth III Macc.) has long been at the center of a debate in research, i.e., whether it should be dated to the Hellenistic period in Egypt, or to the Roman period. This paper suggests that III Macc. was composed not too long after the inauguration of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem — hence an additional support for its dating to the Roman period.
This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerus... more This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerusalem temple: one from Josephus’s Jewish War, books 1 and 5, where the relevant hierarchy is referred to as the seven purities, and the other, in Mishnah Kelim 1:6-9, titled (the) ten holinesses. After analyzing the guiding principles behind the seven purities, this paper will examine the two hierarchies against the background of the biblical instructions for the exclusion of impure persons from the desert camp, and the interpretation of these instructions according to Josephus, the Temple Scroll from Qumran, and rabbinic literature. It will show that, while the seven purities is a cultic perception coherent to the exclusion of different categories of people from the temple, the ten holinesses follows different guiding principles.
Lev 22:25a (“Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of... more Lev 22:25a (“Neither from the hand of a foreigner shall you offer the bread of your God of any of these [blemished animals]”) appears to acknowledge the acceptance of sacrifices from foreigners, as long as the animals are not defective. Throughout the Hellenistic and Roman periods, the Jerusalem temple accepted sacrifices from Gentiles, and rabbinic literature also reflects this practice, quoting Lev 22:25 in support of it. Furthermore, when in 66 CE insurgent priests repealed the practice, Josephus seems to indicate that priests who adhered to the ongoing practice cited Lev 22:25 in their defense. Centuries later, two alternative interpretations of the verse emerge in rabbinic and Karaite texts. The first reads it as proscribing any sacrifices by foreigners. The second reads it as warning Israelites not to offer blemished animals obtained from a foreigner. Attributing these interpretations to Qumranic texts or to the 66 CE insurgents is obviously anachronistic. Moreover, the latter probably did not focus on Lev 22:25 at all, because another temple practice, the exclusion of Gentiles, implied that Gentile offerings should be rejected as well.
In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 p... more In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 prohibits any viewing of the “holy,” except by Aaron, the priest, and his sons. Philo of Alexandria, as well as several modern scholars, read this as a prohibition on any non-priestly viewing of the sacred, Jewish cultic vessels, including the menorah, the shewbread table and the incense altar. Accordingly, a dominant view in research holds that during the Second Temple period these cultic utensils were concealed from the sight of non-priests. However, this view partly overlooks and partly misinterprets our main source in that respect: Josephus indicates that the Jewish holy vessels were actually displayed to the Jewish crowd gathered in the temple court during the Second Temple period. This is supported by the images on certain Hasmonean coins as well as by later texts, such as P.Oxy. 840 and rabbinic literature.
In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 p... more In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 prohibits any viewing of the “holy,” except by Aaron, the priest, and his sons. Philo of Alexandria, as well as several modern scholars, read this as a prohibition on any non-priestly viewing of the sacred, Jewish cultic vessels, including the menorah, the shewbread table and the incense altar. Accordingly, a dominant view in research holds that during the Second Temple period these cultic utensils were concealed from the sight of non-priests. However, this view partly overlooks and partly misinterprets our main source in that respect: Josephus indicates that the Jewish holy vessels were actually displayed to the Jewish crowd gathered in the temple court during the Second Temple period. This is supported by the images on certain Hasmonean coins as well as by later texts, such as P.Oxy. 840 and rabbinic literature.
A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as ina... more A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as inauthentic, since it contains many improbabilities, including the assertion that the Jews and the Spartans are fraternal nations. However, its patent implausibility also renders it unimaginable that the correspondence was intended to be understood literally. Hence, the binary choice offered in research, whereby it is either a bizarre fabrication or an authentic correspondence, despite all its peculiarities, is problematic. The Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence thus remains a conspicuous, unresolved enigma in the research of 1 Maccabees and the early Hasmonean period. Based on a textual clue, this article proposes a solution, namely, that the correspondence is, in fact, an ingenious derision of the Jews’ authentic ethnic “brothers”—the Samaritans. This suggestion provides new insights into the history of the early Hasmoneans and the literary creativity of the author of 1 Maccabees.
A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as ina... more A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as inauthentic, since it contains many improbabilities, including the assertion that the Jews and the Spartans are fraternal nations. However, its patent implausibility also renders it unimaginable that the correspondence was intended to be understood literally. Hence, the binary choice offered in research, whereby it is either a bizarre fabrication or an authentic correspondence, despite all its peculiarities, is problematic. The Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence thus remains a conspicuous, unresolved enigma in the research of 1 Maccabees and the early Hasmonean period. Based on a textual clue, this article proposes a solution, namely, that the correspondence is, in fact, an ingenious derision of the Jews’ authentic ethnic “brothers”—the Samaritans. This suggestion provides new insights into the history of the early Hasmoneans and the literary creativity of the author of 1 Maccabees.
Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalt... more Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalty of death, from proceeding any further inward. This was mounted on a low stone balustrade that encircled an area larger than the actual holy ground. As suggested in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near” to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalt... more Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalty of death, from proceeding any further inward. This was mounted on a low stone balustrade that encircled an area larger than the actual holy ground. As suggested in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near” to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of ... more After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of impure animals into Jerusalem. Two Qumran Scrolls contain parallels to this injunction but target a different audience, i.e., Jews, as opposed to the gentile audience of the programma. Consequently, the focus of these texts also differs: pure animals in the scrolls, impure animals in the programma. Nonetheless, the programma, the scrolls, and perhaps also some instructions in the Mishnah reflect a coherent interpretation of the biblical ban on non-sacral slaughter within a certain radius around God’s altar. Furthermore, comparison of these sources reinforces the authenticity of the programma, offers a possible underlying reasoning for a reconstructed ruling in the Temple Scroll, and even alludes to the Vorlage of the biblical text employed for drafting the programma. Further evidence, however, implies that the relevant Jewish halakhah underwent a significant change during the second cent...
After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of ... more After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of impure animals into Jerusalem. Two Qumran Scrolls contain parallels to this injunction but target a different audience, i.e., Jews, as opposed to the gentile audience of the programma. Consequently, the focus of these texts also differs: pure animals in the scrolls, impure animals in the programma. Nonetheless, the programma, the scrolls, and perhaps also some instructions in the Mishnah reflect a coherent interpretation of the biblical ban on non-sacral slaughter within a certain radius around God’s altar. Furthermore, comparison of these sources reinforces the authenticity of the programma, offers a possible underlying reasoning for a reconstructed ruling in the Temple Scroll, and even alludes to the Vorlage of the biblical text employed for drafting the programma. Further evidence, however, implies that the relevant Jewish halakhah underwent a significant change during the second century BCE.
First Maccabees 7:34 employs four verbs to describe the offensive speech by Nicanor, the Seleucid... more First Maccabees 7:34 employs four verbs to describe the offensive speech by Nicanor, the Seleucid general, addressed to the Jewish elders and priests. The third verb indicates that Nicanor defiled his audience. While this has led scholars to associate 1 Maccabees with the Jewish concept of gentile impurity, several factors suggest that, at this point, an error found its way into the Greek translation from the original Hebrew. The present argument comprises three steps. First, I use the biblical Sennacherib story, featured in the background of the Nicanor episode in 1 Maccabees, as a means of reconstructing the relevant original Hebrew verb employed by 1 Maccabees. Second, I suggest a possible misreading of one letter on the part of the Greek translator. Finally, I propose that a similar, earlier verse in 1 Maccabees, 1:24b, may have been conducive to the translator’s commission of this mistake, thus offering an insight into his way of thinking.
The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, e... more The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, envisaged a need to explain its absolute exclusion of two foreign nations (the Ammonites and the Moabites), alongside its more lenient approach towards members of two other foreign nations (the Edomites and the Egyptians), as expressed in their temporal exclusion from the Assembly. The eternal exclusion of the Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, e... more The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, envisaged a need to explain its absolute exclusion of two foreign nations (the Ammonites and the Moabites), alongside its more lenient approach towards members of two other foreign nations (the Edomites and the Egyptians), as expressed in their temporal exclusion from the Assembly. The eternal exclusion of the Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit b... more Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit by King Ptolemy III to Jerusalem. This paper suggests, firstly, that in all likelihood Ptolemy III did not visit Jerusalem during the Third Syrian War, and secondly, that Josephus’ report echoes King Ptolemy IV’s visit to Jerusalem following the battle of Raphia, as paralleled in III Maccabees. This would make Josephus’ Against Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.
Abstract:Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I So... more Abstract:Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and his contender, Alexander I Balas, to win the support of the Jews in Judea. Verses 25b-45 quote a letter, allegedly sent by the king, containing numerous overwhelming promises. Following an accepted view in research, which regards the letter as a fake, this paper raises the possibility that it was written as an ironic text, the irony being at times evident and at others more covert. The article suggests that in the composition of this array of promises, its author consulted, collected, and borrowed elements, even entire clauses from several other, authentic, Seleucid letters sent to the Jews in Judea. Of these letters, the resemblance in content between the text in question and two letters of Antiochus III, quoted by Josephus in book 12 of his Antiquity of the Jews, is especially striking. The apparent reliance on such authentic Seleucid documents, which are not quoted in I Maccabees, indicates that the author of the letter and the author of I Maccabees used the same official Temple archive, and quite likely, are the same person.
Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and h... more Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and his contender, Alexander I Balas, to win the support of the Jews in Judea. Verses 25b-45 quote a letter, allegedly sent by the king, containing numerous overwhelming promises. Following an accepted view in research, which regards the letter as a fake, this paper raises the possibility that it was written as an ironic text, the irony being at times evident and at others more covert. The article suggests that in the composition of this array of promises, its author consulted, collected, and borrowed elements, even entire clauses from several other, authentic, Seleucid letters sent to the Jews in Judea. Of these letters, the resemblance in content between the text in question and two letters of Antiochus III, quoted by Josephus in book 12 of his Antiquity of the Jews, is especially striking. The apparent reliance on such authentic Seleucid documents, which are not quoted in I Maccabees, indicates that the author of the letter and the author of I Maccabees used the same official Temple archive, and quite likely, are the same person.
Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit b... more Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit by King Ptolemy III to Jerusalem. This paper suggests, firstly, that in all likelihood Ptolemy III did not visit Jerusalem during the Third Syrian War, and secondly, that Josephus’ report echoes King Ptolemy IV’s visit to Jerusalem following the battle of Raphia, as paralleled in III Maccabees. This would make Josephus’ Against Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.
The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III... more The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III Maccabees (henceforth III Macc.) has long been at the center of a debate in research, i.e., whether it should be dated to the Hellenistic period in Egypt, or to the Roman period. This paper suggests that III Macc. was composed not too long after the inauguration of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem — hence an additional support for its dating to the Roman period.
The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III... more The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III Maccabees (henceforth III Macc.) has long been at the center of a debate in research, i.e., whether it should be dated to the Hellenistic period in Egypt, or to the Roman period. This paper suggests that III Macc. was composed not too long after the inauguration of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem — hence an additional support for its dating to the Roman period.
This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerus... more This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerusalem temple: one from Josephus’s Jewish War, books 1 and 5, where the relevant hierarchy is referred to as the seven purities, and the other, in Mishnah Kelim 1:6-9, titled (the) ten holinesses. After analyzing the guiding principles behind the seven purities, this paper will examine the two hierarchies against the background of the biblical instructions for the exclusion of impure persons from the desert camp, and the interpretation of these instructions according to Josephus, the Temple Scroll from Qumran, and rabbinic literature. It will show that, while the seven purities is a cultic perception coherent to the exclusion of different categories of people from the temple, the ten holinesses follows different guiding principles.
Uploads
Papers by Matan Orian
in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near”
to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.
in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near”
to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.