# data[].attributes.body
First known house to exist within the Judean Lowlands, marking the beginning of permanent settlements.

# data[].attributes.headline
Buildings in End of Chalcolithic Period (C. 3000 BCE)

# data[].attributes.subject
Buildings in End of Chalcolithic Period (C. 3000 BCE)

# data[].attributes.body
Buildings show signs of transition from rural to urban life and signs of a temple.

# data[].attributes.headline
Houses urbanize in Poliochni during Early Bronze Age

# data[].attributes.subject
Houses urbanize in Poliochni during Early Bronze Age

# data[].attributes.body
Newly reconstructed, the city shows newfound organization and diversity in housing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Battle of Kadesh 1274 BC (Egyptian - Hittite War) DOCUMENTARY

# data[].attributes.body
Ramses III

# data[].attributes.body
David establishes the United Kingdom

# data[].attributes.body
Technical building innovations occur to send a symbolic face.

# data[].attributes.body
Solomon (David's son) builds the Jerusalem Temple

# data[].attributes.body
The UK is divided as North (Samaria/Israel) and South (Judah) after Solomon's reign

# data[].attributes.body
the Tel Dan Inscription - first inscription reference to the house of David

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Tel Dan Stele is a fragmentary stele containing a Canaanite inscription, discovered in 1993 in Tel-Dan by Gila Cook, a member of an archaeological team lead by Avraham Biran, the pieces having been used to construct an ancient stone wall that survived into modern times. The stele is in several pieces and contains several lines of Aramaic, closely related to Hebrew and historically a common language among Jews. The surviving inscription, which dates to 9th century BCE, details that an individual killed Jehoram, the son of Ahab, king of Israel and the king of the house of David. These writings corroborate passages from the Bible, as the Second Book of Kings mentions that Jehoram, also Joram, is the son of an Israelite king, Ahab, by his Phoenician wife, Jezebel. Applying a Biblical viewpoint to the inscription, the likely candidate for having erected the stele is Hazael, an Aramean king, whose language would have been Aramaic, who is mentioned in Second Book of Kings as having conquered the Land of Israel, though he was unable to take Jerusalem. The stele is currently on display at the Israel Museum, and is known as KAI 310.

Fragment A of the stele was discovered in July 1993 by Gila Cook of Biran's team who was studying Tel Dan in northern Israel. Fragments B1 and B2 were found in June 1994. The stele was not excavated in its " primary context", but in its "secondary use".

The fragments were published by Biran and his colleague Joseph Naveh in 1993 and 1995.

It consists of several fragments making up part of a triumphal inscription in Aramaic, left most probably by Hazael[citation needed ] of Aram-Damascus, an important regional figure in the late 9th century BCE. The unnamed king boasts of his victories over the king of Israel and his apparent ally the king of the "House of David" (). It is considered the earliest widely accepted reference to the name David as the founder of a Judahite polity outside of the Hebrew Bible, though the earlier Mesha Stele contains several possible references with varying acceptance. A minority of scholars have disputed the reference to David, due to the lack of a word divider between byt and dwd, and other translations have been proposed. The Tel Dan stele is one of four known inscriptions made during a roughly 400-year period (1200-800 BCE) containing the name "Israel", the others being the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith.

The Tel Dan inscription generated considerable debate and a flurry of articles, debating its age, authorship, and authenticity; however, the stele is generally accepted by scholars as genuine and a reference to the House of David.

The following is the transcription using Hebrew letters provided by Biran and Naveh. Dots separate words (as in the original), empty square brackets indicate damaged/missing text, and text inside square brackets is reconstructed by Biran and Naveh:

1. [ א]מר.ע[ ]וגזר[ ]‎
2. [ ---].אבי.יסק[.עלוה.בה]תלחמה.בא[ ]‎
3. וישכב.אבי.יהך.אל[.אבהו]ה.ויעל.מלכי[ יש]‎
4. ראל.קדם.בארק.אבי[.ו]המלך.הדד[.]א[יתי]‎
5. אנה.ויהך.הדד.קדמי[.ו]אפק.מן.שבע[ת---]‎
6. י.מלכי.ואקתל.מל[כן.שב]ען.אסרי.א[לפי.ר]‎
7. כב.ואלפי.פרש.[קתלת.אית.יהו]רם.בר.[אחאב.]‎
8. מלך.ישראל.וקתל[ת.אית.אחז]יהו.בר[.יהורם.מל]‎
9. ך.ביתדוד.ואשם.[אית.קרית.הם.חרבת.ואהפך.א]‎
10. ית.ארק.הם.ל[ישמן ]‎
11. אחרן.ולה[... ויהוא.מ]‎
12. לך.על.יש[ראל... ואשם.]‎
13. מצר.ע[ל. ]‎

Romanized:

The 1995 translation by Biran reads;

1. [ ]...[...] and cut [...]

2. [...] my father went up [against him when h]e fought at [...]

3. and my father lay down, he went to his [ancestors (viz. became sick and died)]. And the king of I[s-]

4. rael entered previously in my father's land, [and] Hadad made me king,

5. And Hadad went in front of me, [and] I departed from the seven [...-]

6. s of my kingdom, and I slew [seve]nty kin[gs], who harnessed th[ousands of cha-]

7. riots and thousands of horsemen (or: horses). [I killed Jeho]ram son [of Ahab]

8. king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]iahu son of [Jehoram kin-]

9. g of the House of David, and I set [their towns into ruins and turned ]

10. their land into [desolation ]

11. other [... and Jehu ru-]

12. led over Is[rael and I laid]

13. siege upon [ ]

Other scholars have presented alternate translations. For example, Andre Lemaire's 1998 translation reads;

1. [.....]..[.............] and cut [..............]

2. [.....] my father went up [......f]ighting at/against Ab[...]

3. And my father lay down, he went to his [fathers]. And the kings of I[s-]

4. srael penetrated into my father's land[. And] Hadad made me - myself - king

5. And Hadad went in front of me[, and] I departed from .... [....]

6. of my kings. And I killed two power[ful] kin[gs], who harnessed two thou[sand cha-]

7. riots and two thousand horsemen. [I killed Jo]ram son of [Ahab]

8. king of Israel, and I killed [Achaz]yahu son of [Joram king]

9. of the House of David. And I set [......]

10. their land [.......]

11. other ...[............ and Jehu ru-]

12. led over Is[rael ............]

13. siege upon [.......]

The main differences are on line 6 and 7; Lemaire suggests that two kings, rather than seventy, were killed and that they possessed two thousand chariots and horsemen.

In the second half of the 9th century BCE (the most widely accepted date for the stele), the kingdom of Aram, under its ruler Hazael, was a major power in the Levant. Dan, just 70 miles from Hazael's capital of Damascus, would almost certainly have come under its sway. This is borne out by the archaeological evidence: Israelite remains do not appear until the 8th century BCE, and it appears that Dan was already in the orbit of Damascus even before Hazael became king in c. 843 BCE.

The author of the inscription mentions conflict with the kings of Israel and the 'House of David'. The names of the two enemy kings are only partially legible. Biran and Naveh reconstructed them as Joram, son of Ahab, King of Israel, and Ahaziah, son of Joram of the House of David. Scholars seem to be evenly divided on these identifications. It is dependent on a particular arrangement of the fragments, and not all scholars agree on this.

In the reconstructed text, the author tells how Israel had invaded his country in his father's day, and how the god Hadad then made him king and marched with him against Israel. The author then reports that he defeated seventy kings with thousands of chariots and horses (more on this below). In the very last line there is a suggestion of a siege, possibly of Samaria, the capital of the kings of Israel. This reading is, however, disputed.

The stele was found in three fragments, called A, B1 and B2. There is widespread agreement that all three belong to the same inscription, and that B1 and B2 belong together. There is less agreement over the fit between A and the combined B1/B2: Biran and Naveh placed B1/B2 to the left of A (the photograph at the top of this article). A few scholars have disputed this, William Schniedewind proposing some minor adjustments to the same fit, Gershon Galil placing B above A rather than beside it, and George Athas fitting it well below.

Archeologists and epigraphers[which? ] put the earliest possible date at about 870 BCE, whilst the latest possible date is "less clear", although according to Lawrence J. Mykytiuk it could "hardly have been much later than 750". However, some scholars (mainly associated with the Copenhagen school) - Niels Peter Lemche, Thomas L. Thompson, and F. H. Cryer - have proposed still later datings.

Two biblical scholars, Cryer and Lemche, analyzed the cracks and chisel marks around the fragment and also the lettering towards the edges of the fragments. From this they concluded that the text was in fact a modern forgery. Most scholars have ignored or rejected these judgments because the artifacts were recovered during controlled excavations.

The language of the inscription is a dialect of Aramaic. Most scholars identify Hazael of Damascus (c. 842 - 806 BCE) as the author, although his name is not mentioned. Other proposals regarding the author have been made: George Athas has argued for Hazael's son Ben-Hadad III, which would date the inscription to around 796 BCE, and Jan-Wim Wesselius has argued for Jehu of Israel ( r. c. 845 - 818 BCE).

"Seventy kings"

While the original translators proposed that line 6 of the inscription refers to the slaying of "seventy kings", later epigraphers have offered alternative readings. Nadav Na'aman proposed that the line should be read as Hazael slew "mighty kings". According to Lemaire, "the reading 'seventy' is based only on a very small fragment of a letter which is interpreted as part of an 'ayin but could also be part of another letter". He proposed that the inscription should instead grammatically be read as "two kings" were slain, in line with the subsequent description of the inscription of only having defeated two kings. Other scholars have followed and further developed Lemaire's reading.

Matthew Suriano has defended the "seventy" reading, arguing that it is a symbolic trope in ancient near eastern military language, representing the defeat of all other claimants to power. Noting that Hazael was himself a usurper to the throne of Aram-Damascus, he argues that ancient Syria would have posited a number of other rivals for the throne and that Hazael's claim to have slain "seventy kings" is a reference to him defeating his rivals in succession to the throne of Aram-Damascus.

"House of David"

Since 1993-1994, when the first fragment was discovered and published, the Tel Dan stele has been the object of great interest and debate among epigraphers and biblical scholars. Its significance for the biblical version of Israel's past lies particularly in lines 8 and 9, which mention a "king of Israel" and possibly a "house of David". The latter reading is accepted by a majority of scholars but not all.

Dissenting scholars note that word dividers are employed elsewhere throughout the inscription and one would expect to find one between byt and dwd in bytdwd too if the intended reading was "House of David". They contend that reading dwd as "David" is not uncomplicated since the word can also mean "uncle" (dōd) (a word with a rather wider meaning in ancient times than it has today), "beloved", or "kettle" (dūd). Lemche and Athas suggests that bytdwd could be a place-name and Athas that it refers to Jerusalem (so that the author might be claiming to have killed the son of the king of Jerusalem, rather than the son of the king from the "house of David"). R.G. Lehmann and M. Reichel proposes interpreting the phrase as a reference to the name or epithet of a deity.

According to Anson Rainey the presence or absence of word dividers is normally inconsequential for interpretation. The majority of scholars argue that the author simply thought of "House of David" as a single word.[citation needed ] Mykytiuk argues that readings other than "House of David" are unlikely.

Francesca Stavrakopoulou states that even if the inscription refers to a "House of David" it testifies neither to the historicity of David nor to the existence of a 9th century BCE Judahite kingdom.

1. ^ "Stone Tablet Offers 1st Physical Evidence of Biblical King David : Archeology: Researchers say 13 lines of Aramaic script confirm the battle for Tel Dan recounted in the Bible, marking a victory by Asa of the House of David". Los Angeles Times. 14 August 1993.

2. ^ "Samuel and Saidye Bronfman Archaeology Wing". The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Archived from the original on 12 August 2011.

3. Aaron Demsky (2007), ^ Reading Northwest Semitic Inscriptions, Near Eastern Archaeology 70/2. Quote: "The first thing to consider when examining an ancient inscription is whether it was discovered in context or not. It is obvious that a document purchased on the antiquities market is suspect. If it was found in an archeological site, one should note whether it was found in its primary context, as with the inscription of King Achish from Ekron, or in secondary use, as with the Tel Dan inscription. Of course texts that were found in an archaeological site, but not in a secure archaeological context present certain problems of exact dating, as with the Gezer Calendar."

4. ^ Maeir, Aren M. (2013). "Israel and Judah". The Encyclopedia of Ancient History. New York: Blackwell. pp. 3523-27. The earliest certain mention of the ethnonym Israel occurs in a victory inscription of the Egyptian king MERENPTAH, his well-known "Israel Stela" (ca. 1210 BCE); recently, a possible earlier reference has been identified in a text from the reign of Rameses II (see RAMESES I-XI). Thereafter, no reference to either Judah or Israel appears until the ninth century. The pharaoh Sheshonq I (biblical Shishak; see SHESHONQ I-VI) mentions neither entity by name in the inscription recording his campaign in the southern Levant during the late tenth century. In the ninth century, Israelite kings, and possibly a Judaean king, are mentioned in several sources: the Aramaean stele from Tel Dan, inscriptions of Shalmaneser III of Assyria, and the stela of Mesha of Moab. From the early eighth century onward, the kingdoms of Israel and Judah are both mentioned somewhat regularly in Assyrian and subsequently Babylonian sources, and from this point on there is relatively good agreement between the biblical accounts on the one hand and the archaeological evidence and extra-biblical texts on the other.

5. ^ Fleming, Daniel E. (1 January 1998). "Mari and the Possibilities of Biblical Memory". Revue d'Assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale. 92 (1): 41-78. JSTOR 23282083. The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël in the mid-9th century, and the continuity of settlement back to the early Iron Age suggests that the establishment of a sedentary identity should be associated with this population, whatever their origin. In the mid-14th century, the Amarna letters mention no Israël, nor any of the biblical tribes, while the Merneptah stele places someone called Israël in hill-country Palestine toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. The language and material culture of emergent Israël show strong local continuity, in contrast to the distinctly foreign character of early Philistine material culture.

6. Grabbe, Lester L. (28 April 2007). Ahab Agonistes: The Rise and Fall of the Omri Dynasty. Bloomsbury Publishing USA. ISBN 9780567251718. The Tel Dan inscription generated a good deal of debate and a flurry of articles when it first appeared, but it is now widely regarded (a) as genuine and (b) as referring to the Davidic dynasty and the Aramaic kingdom of Damascus.

7. Cline, Eric H. (28 September 2009). Biblical Archaeology: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199711628. Today, after much further discussion in academic journals, it is accepted by most archaeologists that the inscription is not only genuine but that the reference is indeed to the House of David, thus representing the first allusion found anywhere outside the Bible to the biblical David.

8. Mykytiuk, Lawrence J. (1 January 2004). Identifying Biblical Persons in Northwest Semitic Inscriptions of 1200-539 B.C.E. Society of Biblical Lit. ISBN 9781589830622. Some unfounded accusations of forgery have had little or no effect on the scholarly acceptance of this inscription as genuine.

9. Compare: ^ Hagelia, Hallvard (2004). "Philological Issues in the Tel Dan Inscription". In Edzard, Lutz; Retsö, Jan (eds.). Current Issues in the Analysis of Semitic Grammar and Lexicon. Abhandlungen für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, ISSN 0567-4980, volume 56, issue 3. 1. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz Verlag (published 2005). pp. 233-234. ISBN 9783447052689. Except for some extremely late datings, most scholars date the text to the second half of the 9th century. The late datings come mainly from the Copenhagen scholars N. P. Lemche,[...] T. L. Thompson[...] and the late F. H. Cryer.[...] A not so late dating is argued by Athas, [...] dating the inscription to around 796 BC.

10. ^ Na'aman, Nadav. "Three Notes on the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan", Israel Exploration Journal (2000), pp. 92-104

11. ^ Ghantous, Hadi. The Elisha-Hazael paradigm and the kingdom of Israel: the politics of God in ancient Syria-Palestine. Routledge, 2014, pg. 61

12. ^ Suriano, Matthew. "The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription", Journal of Near Eastern Studies (2007), pp. 163-176

13. ^ Mykytiuk 2004, p. 126: is best translated as "the house of david," meaning the dynasty of David or the territory it ruled; Pioske 2015, p. 180: The most straightforward reading of the phrase bytdwd in line A9 of the Tel Dan inscription is the construct phrase "House of David," and this interpretation has garnered the assent of the majority of scholars familiar with the text.; Schmidt 2006, p. 315

14. ^ Stavrakopoulou 2004, p. 86: However, though the reference to a "king of Israel" is fairly secure, the rendering of the phrase bytdwd as "House of David" is disputed, not least because it occurs without the expected word dividers, which are employed elsewhere throughout the inscription.; Athas 2003, p. 218: The crux for interpreting the lexeme ... lies in the fact that there is no word divider between the seeming two parts, .... This suggests that the lexeme incorporates only one idea rather than two separate ideas, and is to be understood as a single concept or entity. This is confirmed by the fact that elsewhere in the Tel Dan Inscription, construct expressions are used to denote two or more concepts that are both individually exclusive, yet connected genitivally in the given context.

Athas, George, "Setting the Record Straight: What Are We Making of the Tel Dan Inscription?" Journal of Semitic Studies 51 (2006): 241-256.

Biran, Avraham; Naveh, Joseph (1993). An Aramaic Stele Fragment from Tel Dan, Israel Exploration Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2/3 (1993), pp. 81-98. Israel Exploration Society. JSTOR 27926300.

Davies, Philip R., "'House of David' Built on Sand: The Sins of the Biblical Maximizers." Biblical Archaeology Review 20/4 (July/August 1994): 54-55.

Dever, William G. (2001). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Eerdmans. ISBN 9780802821263.

Finkelstein, Israel. "State Formation in Israel and Judah: A Contrast in Context, a Contrast in Trajectory" Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 62, No. 1 (Mar. 1999), pp. 35-52.

Rainey, Anson F. (November 1994). "The 'House of David' and the House of the Deconstructionists". Biblical Archaeology Review. 20 Issue=6: 47.

Pioske, Daniel (2015). David's Jerusalem: Between Memory and History. Routledge Studies in Religion. 45. Routledge. ISBN 978-1317548911.

Schniedewind, William M. and Bruce Zuckerman, "A Possible Reconstruction of the Name of Hazael's Father in the Tel Dan Inscription," Israel Exploration Journal 51 (2001): 88-91.

Schniedewind, William M., "Tel Dan Stela: New Light on Aramaic and Jehu's Revolt." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 302 (1996): 75-90.

Suriano, Matthew J., "The Apology of Hazael: A Literary and Historical Analysis of the Tel Dan Inscription," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66/3 (2007): 163-76.

Lemaire, André (1998). "The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography". Journal for the Study of the Old Testament. 23 (81): 3-14. doi:10.1177/030908929802308101. ISSN 0309-0892.

Wesselius, Jan‐Wim (1999). "The first royal inscription from ancient Israel: The tel dan inscription reconsidered". Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament. 13 (2): 163-186. doi:10.1080/09018329908585153. ISSN 0901-8328.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Tel Dan Stele is a fragmentary stele containing a Canaanite inscription, discovered in 1993 in Tel-Dan by Gila Cook, a member of an archaeological team lead by Avraham Biran, the pieces having been used to construct an ancient stone wall that survived into modern times.

# data[].attributes.body
The Northern Kingdom is conquered by the Assyrians and are assimilated into the Assyrian Empire

# data[].attributes.body
Hezekiah defends Jerusalem from attack by the Assyrians

# data[].attributes.body
Jerusalem and its temple are destroyed by Babylonians

# data[].attributes.headline
The Ahiel House is Destroyed (C. 587-586 BCE)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Ahiel House is Destroyed (C. 587-586 BCE)

# data[].attributes.body
Destroyed during the Babylonian invasion. Shows signs of urban house advancement during the Iron Age.

# data[].attributes.body
Babylonian Deportations. Elites from Judah are exiled by the Babylonians

# data[].attributes.headline
Neo-Babylonian               (c.586-539 BCE)  

# data[].attributes.subject
Neo-Babylonian               (c.586-539 BCE)  

# data[].attributes.body
Nabonidus (556-539 BCE)

# data[].attributes.body
Cyrus of Syria issues the Cyrus Cylinder, which permitted Babylonian exiles to repatriate.

# data[].attributes.body
The second temple of Jerusalem is completed

# data[].attributes.body
Alexander the Great conquers Syro-palestine.

# data[].attributes.headline
Hellenistic                        (c.332-63 BCE) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Hellenistic                        (c.332-63 BCE) 

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alexander the Great and Hellenization in the 4th Century BCE

# data[].attributes.body
the Hasmoneans/Maccabees rule Judea

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Maccabees triumphed over the Syrian Greeks and liberated the Temple, but their legacy is not so clear.

Although celebrated as heroes who saved Jewish practice and Torah law from suppression and abrogation by the Syrian Greeks, the Maccabees are portrayed in the First Book of Maccabees as religious zealots, murdering coreligionists who had chosen the path of Hellenism.

The historical reality is murky, refracted as it is through the political and religious agendas of First and Second Maccabees (books relating the Hanukkah story that the rabbis chose not to include in the Hebrew Bible). Because of this ambiguity, both interpretations have some legitimacy, and later commentators choose the one most consonant with their own needs and goals.

For example, readers who have personally experienced anti-Semitism may identify Mattathias as a hero who was loyal to his religious identity in the face of an anti-Semitic Greek civilization. On the other hand, civil libertarians may judge the Maccabees less generously, criticizing their infringement on the civil rights of their coreligionists [the latter of whom may also have treated those belonging to the Maccabean party in a similar manner].

The Role of Hellenism

Central to any assessment of the Maccabees is an evaluation of the role of Hellenism, an ideology whose universalistic outlook was based on Greek ideas and athletic prowess. Following in the footsteps of Alexander the Great, Hellenism became a political tool used by the Syrian Greeks to consolidate their power among the wealthy bourgeoisie. In turn, the aristocratic elites who embraced Hellenism gained access to the social and economic perquisites flowing to citizens of a Greek polis, including the right to mint coins, to take part in international Hellenistic events, and to receive protection from the city's founding ruler.

But Hellenism encompassed more than a pragmatic relationship between the ruler and local economic elites; it also represented an "enlightened" worldview considered by many to be the way of the future. Nations who shut themselves off and did not confront the challenge of Hellenism were falling by the wayside. Because it was viewed as the wave of the future, the pressure to acculturate to Hellenism was quite intense in Judea. Therefore, the people of Judea had to decide whether the universalistic focus of Hellenism constituted a danger to their ancestral religion and its God or whether it simply represented a more modern and "progressive" way of life that could be merged with Jewish practice.

Reform or Revolt?

Was the appropriate response, then, to reform Judaism in the spirit of Hellenism or to assume a stance protective of traditional Jewish values by "liberating" Judea from the Syrian Greeks? The Jewish Hellenists chose the first path; they wanted to move beyond separatism and assimilate the positive aspects of Greek culture into Judaism. As First Maccabees recounts, "In those days there emerged in Israel lawless men [Jewish Hellenists] who persuaded many, saying, 'Let us go and make a covenant with the nations that are around us; for since we separated ourselves from them, many evils have come upon us'" (I Maccabees 1:11).

Jewish Hellenists used the secular power structures for their own benefit. First Jason and then Menelaus were able to secure the position of High Priest from Antiochus IV Epiphanes by way of monetary bribes and other machinations. Yet the involvement of these wealthy Jewish aristocrats and priests in Hellenism complicates any assessment of the role of the Maccabees. Whereas a liberator is generally one who frees a country from domination by a foreign power, the Maccabees seem to have "liberated" the loyal Jewish masses from the Hellenist Jews and their Syrian Greek allies in the context of a civil war. An assessment of the legitimacy of the Maccabean liberation, therefore, depends on whether the Hellenists are viewed as apostates or as Jews who have taken on some Greek ways.

According to historian Elias Bickerman, Jason and Menelaus wanted to preserve aspects of Judaism that fit with Greek ideals, like a universal God, but to remove those parts of Jewish practice that separated Jews from others: dietary laws, Sabbath observance, circumcision. Some Hellenists continued to worship the Jewish God, but moved their worship to outdoor sanctuaries and sanctioned the pig as a sacrificial animal. It is interesting, however, that even in Second Maccabees, which is considered an anti-Hellenist tract, envoys representing Jerusalem at the quinquennial games in Tyre [ the ancient version of the Olympics] "thought it improper" to purchase a sacrifice for Hercules. Instead they decided to fit out a ship and donate it to Tyre (II Maccabees 4:18-20). Although these Hellenists were willing to participate in the athletic contests, they appear to have been squeamish about doing something completely counter to Torah law.

When evaluating the Maccabees' role, one must ask whether these Hellenist Jews, deemed apostates by the Maccabees and their supporters, had the right to assimilate their Jewish observance to the surrounding Greek culture. The Maccabees answered with a resounding "no," and their judgment was confirmed when eventually Menelaus convinced Antiochus to enact a decree prohibiting Mosaic law. Through Antiochus' decree, observance of the commandments of the Torah became a capital offense, and the worship of pagan gods was required.

The Maccabean struggle was also driven by issues of social class. Because only the wealthy - the urban ruling class and large landowners, led by the priests - were citizens, the "democracy" of the Hellenized Jerusalem polis oppressed the vast majority of Jews, who were powerless. Even before the Antiochan persecutions, social antagonisms existed between the zealots of the traditional faith - the urban craftspeople and village dwellers - and the free-thinking Hellenizers, suggesting that the Maccabees may have been liberators, but that they were also driven by some degree of self-interest.

Legitimization Through Zealotry

Whereas some modern sensibilities will be offended by the Maccabees' vicious treatment of the Hellenist Jews, First Maccabees not only lauds Mattathias' zealotry against his coreligionists, but uses that very zealotry to legitimize the Maccabean dynasty. In First Maccabees, Mattathias acts in the tradition of other zealots in the Torah by murdering a fellow Jew in Modi'in who approaches a pagan altar to offer a sacrifice when requested to do so by a royal official. When this apostate Jew steps up to the altar, Mattathias kills him as well as the government official and then tears down the altar. Mattathias declares, "Let everybody who is zealous for the law and stands by the covenant follow me" (I Maccabees 2:27). With this self-conscious echoing of the words of Moses when confronted with the Golden Calf - "Whoever is for the Lord, come here" (Exodus 32:26) - First Maccabees begins its justification of Maccabean zealotry.

First Maccabees continues by explicitly comparing Mattathias to the biblical figure Pinchas, who killed a tribal leader and his Midianite partner to stop the spread of idolatry and was rewarded by God with a " brit shalom " - covenant of peace - of eternal priesthood (Numbers 25). The implication is that Mattathias derives his political and religious authority from this very act of zealotry, this taking of the law into his own hands, based on his perception that the continued existence of the Jewish community was in danger.

Although Mattathias saw himself as acting in a situation of conflict between an earthly power and the law of God, his act might be viewed from the outside as one of political terrorism; he had committed murder for the sake of what he perceived to be a greater good. Judah continued the fight begun by Mattathias by actively attacking apostasy - destroying idolatrous altars, compelling observance of Torah by force, circumcising newborn infants, and killing apostate violators of Torah law.

Later in the story, the Maccabean self-interest also led them to reinterpret Torah law so that the Jews hiding with them in the wilderness could defend themselves from government attack on the Sabbath. By interpreting the law on their own authority, the Maccabees were setting themselves up as an opposition government, infringing on the prerogatives of the sitting High Priest.

Although the text of Maccabees views Judah as a liberator whose zealotry was necessary to preserve the Torah and the Jewish people, later rabbinic commentators frowned upon such zealotry, realizing the danger of individuals taking the law into their own hands and interpreting it in accord with their own interests. Consequently, normative Jewish law limits "legitimate" zealotry nearly to the point of nonexistence: A zealot is not allowed to act preemptively in expectation of a desecration, nor punitively after the desecration has been completed; if he does so, he is treated as a murderer. Because a zealot is considered to be acting outside the law, the desecrator has the right to kill a zealot in self-defense. In addition, rabbinical courts were forbidden to give permission to zealots to act or to teach zealotry.

In the end, the Maccabees must be judged to be both liberators and zealots. Like many figures in the Bible, these apocryphal heroes are multi-layered, and their meaning is unraveled by successive generations based on their own needs and experiences. In the world today, we may identify with the Maccabean fight to preserve Judaism in the face of assimilation and anti-Semitism, while at the same time working to mitigate religious zealotry that threatens to turn Jew against Jew.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Maccabees: Heroes or Fanatics? | My Jewish Learning

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Maccabees triumphed over the Syrian Greeks and liberated the Temple, but their legacy is not so clear. Although celebrated as heroes who saved Jewish practice and Torah law from suppression and abrogation by the Syrian Greeks, the Maccabees are portrayed in the First Book of Maccabees as religious zealots, murdering coreligionists who had chosen the path of Hellenism.

# data[].attributes.headline
The Tomb of Benei Hezir is Built  (C. 140-37 BCE)

# data[].attributes.subject
The Tomb of Benei Hezir is Built  (C. 140-37 BCE)

# data[].attributes.body
Shows the change in tomb design, during the Greek-inspired Hasmonean era.

# data[].attributes.body
Romans conquer Syro-palestine

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) occurred during Pompey the Great's campaigns in the East, shortly after his successful conclusion of the Third Mithridatic War. Pompey had been asked to intervene in a dispute over inheritance to the throne of the Hasmonean Kingdom, which turned into a war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II. His conquest of Jerusalem, however, spelled the end of Jewish independence and the incorporation of Judea as a client kingdom of the Roman Republic.

The death of Hasmonean queen Alexandra Salome plunged Judea into a civil war between her two sons, Hyrcanus and Aristobulus. After Aristobulus had ousted his elder brother from both the throne and the high priesthood in Jerusalem, Antipater the Idumean advised Hyrcanus to enlist the aid of King Aretas III of Nabataea. In return for the promise of territorial concessions, Aretas provided Hyrcanus with 50,000 soldiers, and their joint forces besieged Aristobulus in Jerusalem.

Pompey had followed the successful conclusion of the Third Mithridatic War with the creation of the Province of Syria and had spent the years of 64 and 63 BC in bringing law and order to the region. Events in Judea prompted Aemilius Scaurus, Pompey's legate in Damascus, to arrive in Jerusalem. Scaurus was approached by both parties, but the issue was settled by a bribe from Aristobulus, and Scaurus ordered Aretas to lift his siege of the city. As the Nabataean army withdrew towards Petra, Aristobulus set off in pursuit and defeated the Nabataeans at Papyron.

When Pompey himself arrived in Damascus in 63 BC, both Hyrcanus and Aristobulus visited him there. Pompey put off resolving the issue and informed the opposing parties he would resolve it once he had arrived in Judea in person. Aristobulus did not wait for Pompey's decision and left Damascus to shut himself away at his fortress of Alexandrium. That angered Pompey, who marched into Judea with his forces at the sight of which Aristobulus yielded. When Aulus Gabinius led a force to take Jerusalem, however, Aristobulus's supporters refused to let the Roman troops in. Incensed, Pompey had Aristobulus arrested and prepared to besiege the city.

When Pompey arrived in Jerusalem, he surveyed the city:

for he saw the walls were so firm, that it would be hard to overcome them; and that the valley before the walls was terrible; and that the temple, which was within that valley, was itself encompassed with a very strong wall, insomuch that if the city were taken, that temple would be a second place of refuge for the enemy to retire to.

Hyrcanus II still had supporters in the city who opened a gate, probably in the northwestern part of the city wall, and let the Romans in. That allowed Pompey to take hold of Jerusalem's upper city, including the royal palace, and Aristobulus's party held the eastern portions of the city: the Temple Mount and the City of David. The Jews consolidated their hold by breaking down the bridge over the Tyropoeon Valley that connected the upper city with the Temple Mount. Pompey offered them the chance to surrender, but their refusal made him begin to prosecute the siege with vigour. Pompey had his forces construct a wall of circumvallation around the areas that were held by the Jews. He then pitched his camp within the wall, to the north of the Temple, where stood a saddle allowed access to the Temple and so was guarded by the citadel known as the Baris, augmented by a ditch. A second camp was erected southeast of the Temple.

The troops then set about filling the ditch that protected the northern part of the Temple enclosure and building two ramparts, one next to the Baris and the other on the west. The defenders, from their superior position, sought to hinder Roman efforts. When the banks were complete, Pompey erected siege towers and brought up siege engines and battering rams from Tyre. Under the protection of slingers driving the defenders from the walls, they began to batter the walls surrounding the Temple.

After three months, Pompey's troops finally managed to overthrow one of the Baris towers and were able to enter the Temple precinct, both from the citadel and from the west. First over the wall was Faustus Cornelius Sulla, the son of the former dictator and a senior officer in Pompey's army. He was followed by two centurions, Furius and Fabius, who each led a cohort, and the Romans soon overcame the defending Jews, 12,000 of whom were slaughtered. However, only a few Romans troops were killed.

Pompey himself entered the Temple's Holy of Holies, which only the High Priest was allowed to enter, and thus desecrated it. He did not remove anything, neither its treasures nor any funds, and the next day, he ordered the Temple cleansed and its rituals resumed. Pompey then headed back to Rome and took Aristobulus with him for his triumphal procession.

The siege and the conquest of Jerusalem were a disaster for the Hasmonean Kingdom. Pompey reinstated Hyrcanus II as the High Priest but stripped him of his royal title though Rome recognised him as an ethnarch in 47 BC.

Judea remained autonomous but was obliged to pay tribute and became dependent on the Roman administration in Syria. The kingdom was dismembered and was forced to relinquish the coastal plain, depriving it of access to the Mediterranean, as well as parts of Idumea and Samaria. Several Hellenistic cities were granted autonomy to form the Decapolis, leaving the state greatly diminished.

Bibliography

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Siege of Jerusalem (63 BC) occurred during Pompey the Great's campaigns in the East, shortly after his successful conclusion of the Third Mithridatic War. Pompey had been asked to intervene in a dispute over inheritance to the throne of the Hasmonean Kingdom, which turned into a war between Hyrcanus II and Aristobulus II.

# data[].attributes.body
Herod the Great rules Israel and the Palestine as a client of the king of the Romans

# data[].attributes.body
Birth of Jesus

# data[].attributes.body
The death and resurrection of Jesus

# data[].attributes.body
The Apostle Paul is in Corinth during this time (Gallio Inscription)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Acts 18:1-11 Paul moves on to Corinth - where Silas and Timothy eventually rejoin him some months later (see Map 24 ).

For a year and a half (in 51-52AD), Paul stays with Aquila - a Jew from the Roman province of Pontus in Asia Minor (see Map 24 ) - and his wife Priscilla, who have recently fled from Rome when the emperor, Claudius, expelled all the Jews from the city in 49AD.

As they, like Paul, are tentmakers (making tents and other leather articles from 'cilicium', a felted goat-hair cloth originating from Cilicia, the area around Tarsus), Paul works with them in the agora - making and repairing awnings and shelters to protect people from the hot Mediterranean sun.

When Paul meets opposition from some Jews in the synagogue, he preaches next door in the home of Titius Justus, a Gentile believer.

Roman fountain in Corinth (Acts 18:7)

Corinth

The ancient Greek city of Corinth was destroyed by the Romans in 146BC, but was rebuilt a century later by Julius Caesar. In the time of Paul, Map 24 Corinth was a busy Roman trading city on the narrow strip of land between the Ionian Sea and the Aegian Sea (see ).

It had two harbours - Lechaeum on the Gulf of Corinth to the west and Cenchraea on the Aegian Sea to the east. It made huge profits by taxing cargoes that were transported overland between the two ports to avoid the dangerous waters around the Peloponnese. The first attempt to build a canal across the isthmus at Corinth was started by Emperor Nero in c.66AD, but was soon abandoned. The present-day Corinth Canal was completed in 1893.

Modern visitors to Corinth today can walk along the Lechaion Way - a marble-paved road linking the port of Lechaeum with the city. On reaching the heart of the settlement, the road passed through an imposing Propylaion (ceremonial gateway) before citizens climbed a flight of steps leading up into the agora (market place). Here, overlooked by the bouletarion (council chamber) and the colonnaded stoas (covered walkways with shops), Paul was placed on the bema (a stone platform) before the Roman proconsul, and accused of breaking the religious laws by members of the Jewish synagogue.

The nearby Temple of Apollo was one of the few buildings that the Romans left intact when they rebuilt the city in 44BC. A stone inscription naming Erastus as the official who paved one of the city's streets may well refer to the Director of Public Works from whom Paul sent greetings when he dispatched his Letter to the Romans from Corinth (see Romans 16:23).

Temple of Apollo at Corinth (Acts 18:11)

At nearby Acrocorinth, visitors can explore the remains of the Temple of Aphrodite (the goddess of love) on the summit of the ancient Greek Acropolis that overlooks the site of Roman Corinth. Paul critisized the popular practice of sacred prostitution found in this temple in his First Letter to the Corinthians (see 1 Corinthians 6:15-20) and went on to describe the true nature of love in one of the most famous passages in the Bible (see 1 Corinthians 13:1-13).

Paul before the Proconsul of Achaia

Acts 18:11-17 Paul is hauled before Gallio - the Roman proconsul of Achaia (southern Greece) - who was the elder brother of the influential Roman philosopher and dramatist Seneca, the tutor of Nero (from 49AD) and later his advisor (from 54 to 62AD). But Gallio refuses to judge Paul - a Roman citizen - on a matter of Jewish law.

During his eighteen months in Corinth (in 51-52AD), Paul writes his First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, in which he encourages the new Gentile believers to stand firm under persecution, instructs them how to lead a godly life and clears up some confusion about the second coming of the Lord Jesus.
Go to next page

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
The Bible Journey | powered by  Edit.com

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Acts 18:1-11 Paul moves on to Corinth - where Silas and Timothy eventually rejoin him some months later (see Map 24 ). For a year and a half (in 51-52AD), Paul stays with Aquila - a Jew from the Roman province of Pontus in Asia Minor (see Map 24 ) - and his wife Priscilla, who have recently fled from Rome when the emperor, Claudius, expelled all the Jews from the city in 49AD.

# data[].attributes.body
First Jewish revolt and the romans destroy the second temple

# data[].attributes.body
House is destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt, and is a preserved

# data[].attributes.body
Second Jewish revolt (The Bar Kokhba Revolt)

# data[].attributes.body
Constantine's Edict of Milan makes Christianity an official religion in the Roman Empire