Myers E. a. the Ituraeans and the Roman Near East Reassessing the Sources Society for New Testament...

This page intentionally left blank

THE ITURAEANS AND THE ROMAN NEAR EAST

The Ituraeans, a little-known people of late rst-century BCE Syria-Palestine, are referred to briey in a number of early texts, notablyPliny, Strabo and Josephus, and the principality of Ituraea is men-tioned in Luke 3.1.There is, as yet, no consensus among archaeologists as to whether

certain artifacts should be attributed to the Ituraeans or not.Overall, they form a mysterious backdrop to what we know of thearea in the time of Jesus, which remains obstinately obscure despitethe enormous amount of research in recent decades on the histor-ical Jesus and Greco-Roman Galilee.Through reference to the early texts, modern scholarship has

contributed to a claim the Ituraeans were an Arab tribal groupknown mainly for their recurrent brigandage. E.A. Myers chal-lenges these presuppositions and suggests a reappraisal of previousinterpretations of these texts and the archaeological evidence topresent a more balanced portrait of this ancient people.

E . A. MYERS is an independent scholar and alumnus with theCentre for the Study of Religion, University of Toronto.

SOCIETY FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

MONOGRAPH SERIES

General editor: John M. Court

147

THE ITURAEANS AND THE ROMAN NEAR EAST

REASSESSING THE SOURCES

SOCIETY FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

MONOGRAPH SERIES

Recent titles in the series

125. Jesus Defeat of DeathPETER G. BOLT

126. From Hope to Despair in ThessalonicaCOLIN R. NICHOLL

127. Matthews Trilogy of ParablesWESLEY G. OLMSTEAD

128. The People of God in the ApocalypseSTEPHEN PATTEMORE

129. The Exorcism Stories in LukeActsTODD KLUTZ

130. Jews, Gentiles and Ethnic ReconciliationTET-LIM N. YEE

131. Ancient Rhetoric and Pauls ApologyFREDRICK J. LONG

132. Reconstructing Honor in Roman PhilippiJOSEPH H. HELLEMAN

133. Theological Hermeneutics and 1 ThessaloniansANGUS PADDISON

134. Greco-Roman Culture and the Galilee of JesusMARK A. CHANCEY

135. Christology and Discipleship in the Gospel of MarkSUZANNE WATTS HENDERSON

136. The Judaean Poor and the Fourth GospelTIMOTHY J . M. LING

137. Paul, the Stoics, and the Body of ChristMICHELLE LEE

138. The Bridegroom Messiah and the People of GodJOCELYN MCWHIRTER

139. The Torn VeilDANIEL M. GURTNER

140. Discerning the SpiritsANDR MUNZINGER

141. The Sheep of the FoldEDWARD W. KLINK II I

142. The Psalms of Lament in Marks PassionSTEPHEN P. AHERNE-KROLL

143. Cosmology and Eschatology in HebrewsKENNETH L. SCHENCK

144. The Speeches of Outsiders in ActsOSVALDO PADILLA

145. The Assumed Authorial Unity of Luke and ActsPATRICIA WALTERS

146. Geography and the Ascension Narrative in ActsMATTHEW SLEEMAN

The Ituraeans and the RomanNear EastReassessing the Sources

E . A . MYERS

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore,

So Paulo, Delhi, Dubai, Tokyo

Cambridge University Press

The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge CB2 8RU, UK

First published in print format

ISBN-13 978-0-521-51887-1

ISBN-13 978-0-511-67541-6

E. A. Myers 2010

2010

Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521518871

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the

provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part

may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press.

Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy

of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication,

and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,

accurate or appropriate.

Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York

www.cambridge.org

eBook (NetLibrary)

Hardback

To my grandchildren, the next generationBrandon Charles JefferyMitchell James GordonMorgan PaigeandKai Lancelot the little one

CONTENTS

List of illustrations page xPreface xiList of abbreviations xii

Introduction 1

1 Early scholarship 5

2 Literary texts 12

3 Archaeology 42

4 Coins 102

5 Inscriptions 115

6 Ituraeans and identity 133

7 The Ituraeans in history 147

8 Conclusions 169

Appendix 1: Two small nds and the Ituraeans 176Appendix 2: Inscriptions relevant to the Roman

auxiliary units 180Bibliography 186Index 213

ix

ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure 1 The Golan Heights as seen looking to the southfrom the lower slopes of the Hermon (photographby the author) 43

Figure 2 Mount Hermon capped with snow as seen fromthe northern reaches of the Golan (photograph bythe author) 68

Figure 3a Looking to the north-west from the northernridge of the upper cult enclosure, in the fardistance the northern Galilee and Huleh valleywith Lebanon beyond (photograph by the author) 72

Figure 3b Looking to the north-east from the upper cultenclosure (photograph by the author) 73

Figure 4 Facing north and part of the upper cult enclosurewith Locus 17 in the foreground (photograph bythe author) 74

Figure 5a The two stelae in situ at Structure 7 (photographby the author) 75

Figure 5b The taller stele (photograph by the author) 76Figure 5c The smaller stele (photograph by the author) 76Figure 6 The remains of the temple at Majdal Anjar

(photograph by Hanswulf Bloedhorn, September1999) 91

Figure 7 Monimus, the Ituraean archer, from hisgravestone now in the Mainz Museum(photograph by Jrgen Zangenberg) 116

x

PREFACE

This monograph is a result of research done for my PhD dissertation,the initial challenge being an attempt to add to our scant knowledgeof a little-known people. In the process, however, it became obviousthat certain ideas formulated in antiquity and carried through to thepresent were ideas repeated often without any signicant change.In general these assumptions tended to be negative and at timesdisparaging, leaving the questions: how do we know, and why? Thismonograph attempts to address this dilemma, to look again at thefew textual references mentioning Ituraeans, and to reassess what hasbeen said about them. In the end there may be, as yet, no clear answerto any question, but it is hoped that in the questioning at least a newand more perceptive view will be taken in future scholarship.Once again I would like to say thank you to the committee for the

Canadian Friends of the cole Biblique; their generosity in awardingme a second grant to cover full residence at the cole is muchappreciated. My time in Jerusalem in the summer of 2008 enabledme to update my material and spend many productive hours in thelibrary. I would also like to thank Liz Bettles and Steve Mason, whowillingly read sections of the manuscript and provided useful com-ments and suggestions. I am grateful for your efforts on my behalf.The editorial staff at Cambridge University Press have been mosthelpful in sorting out any questions regarding the technical side, and Ithank them all for guiding me through this process.

xi

ABBREVIATIONS

AAE Arabian Archaeology and EpigraphyAB The Anchor BibleABD Anchor Bible DictionaryADAJ Annual of the Department of Antiquities JordanAE Anne pigraphiqueAEHL The Archaeological Encyclopedia of the Holy LandAHL Archaeology and History in LebanonAJBA Australian Journal of Biblical ArchaeologyANET James Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts

Relating to the Old TestamentANRW Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen WeltAO Archiv OrientlnARAB Daniel David Luckenbill,Ancient Records of Assyria

and Babylonia Vol. IArOr Ars OrientalisBA Biblical ArchaeologistBAAL Bulletin dArchologie et dArchitecture LibanaisesBAIAS Bulletin of the Anglo-Israel Archaeology SocietyBAR Biblical Archaeological ReviewBAR/IS British Archaeological Reports International SeriesBASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental ResearchBCH Bulletin de correspondance hellniqueBE Bulletin pigraphieBGU Berliner griechische Urkunden (Aegyptische Urkunden

aus den Kniglichen Museen zu Berlin 1895)BIFAO Bulletin de lInstitut franais darchologie orientaleBMB Bulletin du Muse de BeyrouthBMC Syria W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Galatia,

Cappadocia, and SyriaBMC Galatia W. Wroth, Catalogue of the Greek Coins of Galatia,

Cappadocia, and Syria in the British Museum (1964)

xii

CAH Cambridge Ancient HistoryCANE Jack M. Sasson, ed., Civilizations of the Ancient

Near EastCIG Corpus Inscriptionum GraecarumCIL Corpus Inscriptionum LatinarumCIS Corpus Inscriptionum SemiticarumCMO Collection de la Maison de lOrient mditerranenCPL Corpus Papyrorum LatinarumDaM Damaszener MitteilungenDaris Documenti per la storia dell esercito romano in EgittoDCA Dictionary of Classical AntiquitiesEAEHL Michael Avi-Yonah, ed., Encyclopedia of

Archaeological Excavations in the Holy LandESI Excavations and Surveys in IsraelFGH F. Jacoby, ed., Die Fragmente der griechischen

HistorikerHist. Num. Barclay Head, Historia Numorum: A manual of

Greek NumismaticsHSCP Harvard Studies in Classical PhilologyHUCA Hebrew Union College AnnualIDB Interpreters Dictionary of the BibleIEJ Israel Exploration JournalIGL Philippe Le Bas and William Henry Waddington,

Inscriptions grecques et latines recueilles en AsieMineure

IGLS Inscriptions grecques et latines de la SyrieIGR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentesILS Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae IIIIINJ Israel Numismatic JournalJANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of

Columbia UniversityJAOS Journal of the American Oriental SocietyJESHO Journal of the Economic and Social History of the

OrientJHS Journal of Hellenic StudiesJJS Journal of Jewish StudiesJNES Journal of Near Eastern StudiesJPOS Journal of the Palestine Oriental SocietyJRA Journal of Roman ArchaeologyJRAS Journal of the Royal Asiatic SocietyJRASS Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplement Series

Abbreviations xiii

JRS Journal of Roman StudiesJSJ Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian,

Hellenistic and Roman PeriodJSPSS Journal for the Study of Pseudepigrapha Supplement

SeriesJSS Journal of Semitic StudiesLCL Loeb Classical LibraryMA Mediterranean ArchaeologyMASupp Mediterranean Archaelogy SupplementsMUSJ Melanges de lUniversit Saint-Joseph BeyrouthNEAEHL Ephraim Stern, ed., New Encyclopaedia of

Archaeological Excavations in the Holy LandOCD Oxford Classical DictionaryOEANE Eric E. Meyers, ed., The Oxford Encyclopedia of

Archaeology in the Near EastOED The Oxford English DictionaryOGIS Orientis Graecae Inscriptiones SelectaeOLA Orientalia Lovaniensia AnalectaOLP Orientalia Lovaniensia PeriodicaPECS Richard Stillwell, ed., Princeton Encyclopaedia of

Classical SitesPEQ Palestine Exploration QuarterlyPEFQSt Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly StatementPIR Prosopographia Imperii RomaniPPUAES Publications of the Princeton University

Archaeological Expedition to Syria in 19041905and 1906

QDAP Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities inPalestine

RA Reallexicon der AssyriologieRB Revue bibliqueRE Realencyklopdie fr protestantische Theologie und

KircheREG Revue des tudes grecquesRIU Romischen Inschriften UngarensRMD Margaret Roxan, Roman Military DiplomasRMRP Roman Military Records on PapyriSAA State Archives of AssyriaSB Sammelbuch griechischen Urkunden aus AegyptenSEG Supplementum Epigraphicum GraecumSCI Scripta Classica Israelica

xiv Abbreviations

SHAJ Studies in the History and Archaeology of JordanSIG Sylloges Inscriptionum GraecarumSNTSMS Society for New Testament StudyMonograph SeriesTA Tel AvivTAPA Transactions of the American Philological

AssociationTDOT E. Johannes Botterweck et al., eds., Theological

Dictionary of the Old TestamentTrans TranseuphratneUF Ugarit-ForschungenVT Vetus TestamentumVTSupp Vetus Testamentum Supplement SeriesWVDOG Wissenschaftliche Verffentlichungen der deutschen

OrientgesellschaftZDMG Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenlndischen

GesellschaftZDPV Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palstina-VereinsZPE Zeitschrift fur Papyrologie und Epigraphik

Unless otherwise stated, all Greek and Latin authors quoted are fromthe Loeb Classical Library.

Abbreviations xv

INTRODUCTION

There is a certain elusiveness about history; always contingent onthose who both shape and interpret events, it is subject to accurateand well-considered reporting or inaccuracy and distortion. In therst century BCE people of the ancient Near East were witness to theend of the Seleucid Empire, a consolidation of power and the rise ofthe Roman Empire in the East. For the ancient world of Syria-Palestine it was a period of inevitable change and accompanyinginstability in the midst of which, of the many peoples of the affectedregion, were the Ituraeans. Their involvement in and contribution toevents of this period is portrayed in the historical record as relativelyminor, the written sources that have survived to the present day beingminimal, and often only a eeting mention. As a result, in part, theIturaeans remained largely obscure, occasionally acknowledged byscholars when in reference to affairs recorded by the classical writers.In recent history, from the nineteenth century to the present, itbecame an accepted belief that Ituraeans were an Arab, unruly peo-ple, usually associated with brigandage and robbery endemic to theancient world. A more detailed history of these enigmatic and almostinvisible people was yet to be written.This book attempts to reassess the textual sources relevant to

Ituraeans, and how the sources are understood and interpreted inmodern scholarship. It will endeavour to place the Ituraeans withinthe larger context of the ancient Near East as opposed to beingunderstood as a people subordinate to the greater Hellenistic andRoman world of which they were an integral part. A brief history ofscholarship over the past century outlines important contributionsmade by scholars to the study of ancient Syria-Palestine, and ofIturaeans who were a part of that world. The source material isdivided into four main sections: literary texts, archaeology, coinsand inscriptions. Until recent scholarship began to enrich our knowl-edge, it was only through texts of the classical writers that a people

1

called Ituraean and a territory named Ituraea were known to haveexisted. There is a risk, however, in relying entirely upon these diverseand varied texts, as often they reect little more than the fundamentalaims of the original authors, and ever present in the mind of the readerare questions of language and context, the authors intended aim andaudience. Both past and present scholarship frequently reects atendency to repeat early assumptions and ideas without adequateconsideration of their reliability and context. The problem is whetherto accept implicitly what the primary texts state, or attempt to under-stand the text in light of the original authors intent and circumstance.Throughout the twentieth century archaeology has introduced a

new dimension to historical studies, and in particular with referenceto the Ituraeans. On this foundation modern scholarship has formu-lated new and occasionally challenging conclusions regardingIturaean settlement. The inherent problems in formulating any com-prehensive understanding of who the Ituraeans were, or even whatlanguage they spoke, are yet to be fully resolved. Both the challengeand the risk are in the interpretation: on what basis do we come to anyconclusion in respect to a site or to a text?Mentioned in the early textsare three large geographical areas: the Biqa Valley of present-dayLebanon, the Anti-Lebanon including the Hermon massif, and theregion known today as the Golan Heights with its natural extensioninto what is now southern Syria. Surveys and excavations in each ofthese three regions, although varying in extent, have contributed inrecent years to research on their settlement history. Each regionpresents its own unique geographical landscape in which, accordingto the early writers andmodern scholars, the Ituraeans were present inthe late Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Although certain spe-cic sites have been identied as Ituraean, there is need to clarifywhat archaeology can or cannot say about an Ituraean occupationof the land in relationship to the historical sources.Among the primary sources, coins preserve evidence for an

Ituraean principality formed under rulers who bore the titles of , tetrarch and chief priest, bothtitles reecting the prevailing cultural milieu in which Ituraeans inter-acted. In the late Hellenistic and early Roman period the title oftetrarch indicates the rank of a minor prince whose political powerwas less than that of a king. It was particularly popular in Roman Syriawith the term chief priest occurring frequently in inscriptions from theRoman provinces. In this context the translation of as chief priest is more suitable, the term high priest used more

2 The Ituraeans and the Roman Near East

specically for Jerusalem. As well as conrming the names and titles ofIturaean rulers, the coins also provide a dating on which an Ituraeanhistorical chronology can be framed.The corpus of Greek and Latin inscriptions offers a diverse and

occasionally enigmatic assemblage of information. The majority ofinscriptions that mention Ituraeans are concerned with Ituraean aux-iliary units in the Roman military, the name for the unit being takenfrom the original Ituraean tribe or tribal leader. Initially these rstunits would have comprised Ituraean men recruited from their townsand villages, along with Syrians and other eastern tribes known fortheir skill in archery. These inscriptions offer a glimpse, albeit brief,into lives of individual soldiers, but do not elucidate a specicIturaean identity. Along with archaeology, coins and the early texts,the inscriptions provide information which necessitates a carefulinterpretation within the context from which they originate.Most scholars of the past twentieth century, along with many

today, assert that Ituraeans were of Arab origin, yet perhaps it istime to challenge this preconception. It is important to emphasizethe need to examine how the early writers understood the termsArab and Arabian, and at the same time to acknowledge whatthe Arabs in antiquity considered their own self-identity, if in factthat can be understood. Determining ethnic identity through histor-ical sources and archaeological nds is not without its obstacles andoften results in vague and misleading conclusions. The relevantmaterial presented here is meant to challenge some of these priorpresuppositions. Questioning what the primary texts say and howthey have been ascribed, how scholars both past and present haveused these texts, and how we might best understand the informationwe have before us may lead to a new and enlightened perspective.The information here presented is intended to examine the Ituraeansin a neutral framework, reassess the texts in which they are men-tioned, and discuss the archaeology in terms of what it may or maynot reveal of an Ituraean people. In the early years of scholarshipthe various disciplines tended to be studied in isolation withoutintegrating other contiguous areas of research into the examination.That approach is rapidly changing, and it is now understood that anappreciation of archaeology can give substance to texts, while thetexts can provide context and historical precision to the archaeo-logical evidence. Coins and inscriptions may reect the religious andcultural trends of a society sometimes not revealed in other featuresof an archaeological excavation and often provide insight into

Introduction 3

cultural and religious background. Together these various disci-plines form a more complete picture, often if not always promptingthe researcher with further questions. The following chapters willconsider each of these topics in light of the Ituraeans, and in sodoing question some of the prevailing ideas regarding Ituraeans.


1EARLY SCHOLARSHIP

First published in German in 1874, Emil Schrers Geschichte desjdischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi includes a section summa-rizing a history of the Ituraeans.1 Schrer documented all the then-known primary textual sources, inscriptions, coins and Romanmilitary inscriptions relating to the Ituraean principality. AnEnglish translation, now substantially revised and updated, andreecting the opinions and ideas of those who worked on the revision,remains an important resource.2 Treatment of the sources is wellbalanced and objective, and does not rest on unreasonable assump-tions. This general historical outline with detailed references is afundamental tool in any initial research for the historical Ituraean.Within a few years of Schrers rst English publication between

1885 and 1891, George Adam Smith published The HistoricalGeography of the Holy Land.3 As a clergyman he was particularlyinterested in geography and its relationship to the history of Israel/Palestine and the early church. Having made two trips to the MiddleEast, the rst in the spring of 1880 and the second in 1891 when hetravelled further into Syria, it was his rst-hand experience of a newand varied landscape that inspired him to seek a greater understand-ing of the biblical and extra-biblical texts. Although this experiencetends to colour his writing, it still affords a particular insight into theregion, its geography, environment, climate and inhabitants. Thoughthe writing is often subjective and occasionally outdated, references toearly writers, surveyors and explorers of the region furnish a uniqueresource. His conclusions regarding the Ituraeans are to be notedwhen he states quite emphatically the Ituraeans were Arabs, describ-ing them as wild bordermen between Syria and Arabia.4 InitiallySmith published an article in The Expositer, a journal dealing mainly

1 Schrer 1874, vol. I, Geschichte von Chalcis, Itura und Abilene.2 Schrer 1973. 3 Smith 1902. 4 Smith 1974: 3501.

5

with biblical and theological issues. Here Smith defends his positionon the geographical limits to the territory of the Trachones andIturaea, and at the same time discusses the territory of the Ituraeansin light of Schrers evidence. Much of this discussion centres on thereference to the territory of Ituraea as mentioned in Lk. 3.1.5

A more detailed and comprehensive study of Syria and surround-ing regions which again concentrates on historical geography waspublished under the auspices of the Haut-Commissariat de laRpublique Franaise en Syrie et au Liban in 1927. Ren Dussaudsmonumental Topographie historique de la Syrie antique et mdivalefurnishes maps, an extensive bibliography, detailed footnotes withreferences, and a well-documented text.6 As the title suggests,Dussaud was primarily interested in the topography of ancientSyria, including what is presently known as Lebanon, the Hauranand the Golan. In chapter 6 he discusses the regions of the Hauran,the Hermon and the Biqa, all important in relation to the Ituraeans.The topographical maps are particularly useful as they include sitesmodern maps often overlooked. Arabic names, when known, aregiven for towns and villages, rivers, wadis and mountain ranges. Asa guide to understanding the landscape of Syria-Palestine in the lateHellenistic and early Roman periods it is invaluable.A history of Romes control in the Eastern territories is the focus of

A.H.M. Jones, The Cities of the Eastern Roman Provinces (1937),which makes extensive use of coins, inscriptional evidence and pri-mary texts.7 In Jones view, the Ituraeans were one of two tribalprincipalities, the other being the Nabataeans. The Ituraeans arecalled an Arab people, and he suggests that they were an unrulypeople, given to brigandage.8 These valuations represent still awidely accepted view as will be demonstrated and challenged later.Although Jones gives extensive reference material, his writing, ingeneral, tends to be subjective. In a previously published article onthe Ituraeans he outlines the development, urbanization and historyof an Ituraean principality which remains a basic reference point.9

Such early twentieth-century publications have been enhanced byevidence from archaeological excavations, and the textual historicalrecord reinvigorated by renewed interest in the ancient world. In the1980s Willi Schottroff expanded the study on Ituraeans through hisarticle Die Iturer by including a detailed listing of Ituraean

5 Smith 1894: 2318. 6 Dussaud 1927. 7 Jones 1937.8 See Jones 1971: 254. 9 Jones 19311932: 26575.


auxiliary units recorded on Roman military diplomata.10 His articlebegins with a description of gravestones found in and around Mainz,Germany, on which names of soldiers enlisted in the Ituraean auxil-iary units are inscribed. Two of the gravestones each have a sculpturalrelief of an auxiliary soldier. Here, for the rst time, a picture is drawnof an individual whomwemight assume to be an Ituraean, yet even inthis context there is no way of proving it. Schottroff maintains thepreviously accepted view that Ituraeans were Arabs, describing themas Hellenized Arabs who gradually changed their lives from robberyto farming.11 Schottroffs recording of Ituraean alae and cohortesauxiliary units in the Roman army lends yet another aspect to ourscant knowledge of an unknown people. His pioneering work on theIturaean auxiliary units forms a background to which others havesince added. This eld of study on auxiliary units of the Romanmilitary is both varied and extensive, with signicant contributionsmade by numerous scholars. As it remains a separate eld of scholar-ship with a vast publication, only a few examples have been includedin the bibliography.Since the 1970s and early 1980s increased activity in the archaeology

of the Galilee and the Golan, and in particular that conducted byShimon Dar and Moshe Hartal, has provoked substantial discussionand raised further questions.12 Their identication of sites as Ituraeanbased on a particular pottery type has given rise to a renewed interest inthe Ituraeans and their history. Some have challenged previous viewsconcerning the northern Galilee and its ethnic composition during theperiod of Hasmonean expansion in the late second and early rstcenturies BCE. Questions posed as a result of these enquiries have ledto a greater consideration of whether a people called Ituraean formed asubstantial part of the Galilean population, or whether they weremerely one of many groups that may or may not have inhabited theregion. The work by Dar and Hartal is signicant, in part for thearchaeological record it has produced, but also in terms of their desig-nation of settlement sites in the Hermon and northern Golan asIturaean. To date it is the only archaeological evidence on whichsuch a claim rests, and it has yet to be fully understood and expanded.Since their determination of ethnic identity rests on a pottery type, thisquestion is discussed in some detail in a following chapter.Ethnicity is a more deceptive but signicant issue arising from

pursuit of the Ituraeans, an issue which is often merely a matter of

10 Schottroff 1982: 12552. 11 Schottroff 1982: 145. 12 Dar 1993; Hartal 1989.

Early scholarship 7

perception. As one scholar framed it, ethnicity can never be a singlewater-tight category.13 It is a common fallacy to assume ethnicidentity through names or language; in consideration of these issuesMichael Macdonald suggests that both language and artifact areregrettably an insecure guide by which to determine the ethnic iden-tity of a people.14 There are, in fact, inherent dangers in so doing.Many scholars assume the Ituraeans were Arabs; indeed, this is thestandard andmost widely accepted view. This is clearly evident in onepublication, where it is condently stated the Ituraeans were ofArabian stock and spoke Aramaic.15 From what little evidence wehave in order to support either part of this statement, wemust rst askthe question, how do we know? There is no rm evidence upon whichsuch statements can be supported; we can merely speculate. Thesemisconceptions endure, however, where in a recently published travelbook the Ituraeans are described as being of Arabian origin andAramaic speaking.16 Unfortunately, there is nothing in the primarysources either to conrm or negate such statements with condence,and only the essential ideas implied are misleading. A society thatspeaks Aramaic is not necessarily Arab; conversely Arabs do notnecessarily speak Aramaic. These statements are made even moreconfusing by the absence of any clear denition of the term Arab.The question as to whether Ituraeans were Arab involves an under-standing, rst, of what the word Arab implied in antiquity and,second, how the term is understood today. A work which offers ahighly detailed history of the Arabs and attempts to understand thiscomplex term is a recent publication by Jan Rets.17 In his bookRets presents a vast amount of detail with references to literary,historical and archaeological sources, along with an extensive bib-liography and footnotes. This follows earlier works by Israel Ephaland Irfan Shahid, both writing specically about Arabs and theirplace within the history of the ancient Near East.18 In a number ofarticles, Michael Macdonald has published some of the most signi-cant work regarding the Arabs. With his expertise in Semitic lan-guages, and in particular Ancient North Arabian (of which Safaitic isonly one), along with a clear understanding of the historical sourcesand archaeological results, Macdonalds research offers a rich andenlightening resource for any modern scholar.19

13 Macdonald 1998: 182. 14 Macdonald 1999: 256. 15 Hitti 1957b: 171.16 Mannheim 2001: 581. 17 Rets 2003. 18 Ephal 1984 and Shahid 1984.19 See bibliography for complete listing.


Nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholarship has tended to viewthe ancient Near East from a western classicist point of view often,but not always, with the result that the ancient Semitic world iscoloured by an overlay of Greek and Roman dress. The drama ofthe classical world simply obscured the Semitic roots of Syria-Palestine. Ephal pointed to a lack of literary documentation for thePersian period which he describes as a veritable dark age.20 Thisdark age is no longer, as the wealth of epigraphic sources which havecome to light in recent years encouraged scholars to rethink previousassumptions relating to the years before Alexanders conquest ofSyria-Palestine. Archaeological nds of this past century supportthe abundant evidence of considerable Greek inuence in Palestinebefore the advent of Alexander the Great, which has led scholars torecognize the even greater impact and inuence of the Persian Empireupon the Near East.21 Signicant also is a greater discernment forcomprehending the ancient Near East in terms of its long history andthe immense diversity in which East and West met and at times co-existed. Questioning these earlier preconceptions, in which the vari-ous stages of Near Eastern history were treated as separate and oftenunrelated events, are Susan Sherwin-White and Amlie Kuhrt, whofocus mainly on contact between the Greek world and the non-Greekworld of what became the Seleucid Empire. Their purpose is toemphasize this world as a multiplicity of cultures, in which theindigenous peoples maintained their own cultures and traditionswhile absorbing and reinterpreting those of the Persian, HellenisticandRoman worlds.22 As a classical scholar, FergusMillars emphasison the frequency of Greek language in the inscriptional evidence fromSyria-Palestine seems to contrast with this way of thinking.23 As aresult, Millar provides a much less comprehensive understanding ofthe nature of the Semitic world upon which the Greek and Latinlanguage was imposed. In describing the hinterland of the Lebanonand Anti-Lebanon, he points to the lack of much inscriptional evi-dence, and so declares this region to be almost wholly obscure, withany details that might remain in the texts not worth pursuing.24 Ifsuch a strict standard is to be used, possible insights into the indige-nous populations are severely reduced.How we approach and understand the historical record and its

nature, and what biases we bring to any interpretation, is not without

20 Ephal 1998: 107. 21 Ephal 1998: 118.22 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 144. 23 Millar 1993. 24 Millar 1993: 2734.

Early scholarship 9

its inherent complexities. In his publication on the Roman East,Warwick Ball questions the ways in which the Roman Empire ofthe East is frequently perceived. Early in his book he criticizes Millarfor constantly labouring on the lack of native character in the NearEast, and suggests that the Romans in the East are almost universallyviewed from an overlay of western cultural bias.25 In support of histhesis, Ball considers the many works dealing with the Roman East,and in particular those usually written by the classicists whom Balldescribes as being necessarily Eurocentric.26 Ball is critical of schol-arship which has continued to interpret and understand the East, andin particular the Roman East, from a Western classicist viewpoint. Ifin an appreciation of the Seleucid Empire these biases exist (Kuhrtand Sherwin-White would probably agree), then scholars today mustbe aware of these along with any modern biases they might bring tothe interpretation of material. The Ituraeans would have experiencedboth Seleucid and Roman, and possibly Achaemenid, rule. Yet, inattempting to gain an understanding of who the Ituraeans were as apeople, it is also necessary that the researcher place them within theSemitic world they inhabited. What the Semitic world in turnimprinted onto the Seleucid and Roman empires is frequently over-looked in preference to a Greco-Roman view.Ball attempts to raise another important issue of terminology in his

discussion on differences between the use of such terms as Greek andMacedonian or Greco-Roman, where each can be a source ofcultural confusion. The question becomes even more critical withthe word Arab, and Balls comment here is telling: Historys atti-tudes to the Bedouin Arab range from uncivilised barbarians of thedesert fringes, constantly threatening the civilisation of the FertileCrescent, to the European Romantic eras adulation of the Bedouinas the ultimate embodiment of nobility and environmental har-mony.27 There is certainly some truth to this statement, as suchattitudes have coloured perceptions and consequent ideas relative toArabs down to the present. How the term Arab was perceived inantiquity, and how the word is presently used when describingIturaeans, is an issue of considerable importance to any possibleappreciation of both.Two recent publications add to the growing body of scholarship

dealing with ancient Syria-Palestine. First is the publication, inFrench, of Maurice Sartres history of greater Syria from the time

25 Ball 2000: 2. 26 Ball 2000: 2. 27 Ball 2000: 32.


of Alexanders arrival to the rule of Queen Zenobia.28 At over athousand pages it provides much information on an important sub-ject, though his approach to the Ituraeans follows a conservative,traditional one in which they are involved in banditry and eventuallylose their principality to the Herodian dynasty. Kevin Butcherspublication is a wide-ranging history of ancient Syria, from its annex-ation by Pompey to theMuslim conquest in the seventh century CE.29

Amply illustrated with excellent drawings and photos, the book offersinsight into the history, geography, economy and politics of RomanSyria in the Near East, as well as acknowledging the culture, religionand economic background of the people who inhabited this vastregion. Accepting the difculties inherent in any discussion of theRoman Near East, Butcher emphasizes the need for caution whenattempting to dene or understand the past, especially when usingmodern terminology. The age-old problem of perception, of how aregion is best understood, is expressed as being neither East norWest,since both are identities projected on to the past.30 Butcher arguesthat those who lived throughout this long chronological period insuch a vast and diverse landscape were active participants in a net-work of social relations, imperial and otherwise, with a capacity forapportioning and using cultural symbols of different origin for theirown ends.31 Here Butcher expresses a well-considered concept of aregion, where only by acknowledging the multiplicity of layers can webegin to understand the inhabitants. Although brief, in a sectionreferring to Ituraeans at the time of nal Seleucid rule, he suggeststhey became a serious threat to the cities along the coast during theperiod of Pompeys annexation of the land.Although scholars have discussed primary source material in pre-

vious works texts, inscriptions, coins, and archaeology it is per-haps incumbent upon us to reassess this whole range of availableinformation. This is becoming more apparent in the eld of archae-ology, where recent excavations have enriched the available informa-tion, and occasionally changed prior assumptions. The approach tohistorical material for the ancient Near East is invigorated under newdirection, with a now conscious attempt to understand it in its broad-est perspective. As scholarship is an ongoing process, the future holdsmuch to explore and learn afresh in regard to Ituraeans, and to betterunderstand their place in the historical record.

28 Sartre 2001. It is now available in English, see Sartre 2005.29 Butcher 2003b: 17. 30 Butcher 2003b: 17. 31 Butcher 2003b: 17.

Early scholarship 11

2LITERARY TEXTS

For many years the only basis on which scholars were able to attest tothe existence and reality of the Ituraeans, and their principalityknown as Ituraea, was the early textual material. Based on theexperience and preconceptions of the early writers, this historical/literary material has been subject to various interpretations by mod-ern scholars. Analogous to this was, for many scholars, a long-accepted approach when dealing with the ancient Near East, tolook for something Greek almost to the exclusion of the existingcultures.1 How do we look to the ancient Near East without impos-ing preconceived ideas or misinterpreting the primary source mate-rial? A brief mention by Strabo, and more frequent mention byJosephus, reveal in their writings the existence of a people namedIturaean. More frequently than not this led scholars to make assump-tions about a relatively unknown people in which they are consis-tently viewed within a negative framework. In one instance Ituraeansare considered as belligerent, in another as wild border-menbetween Syria and Arabia.2 In an attempt to address this fundamen-tal misconception, and at the same time to help bring about a moreobjective interpretation, this textual material will be reconsidered.Recent scholarship has challenged the way we have, in the past,viewed the ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman world, yet, inspite of this enhancement, many outdated and ill-conceived ideas stillprevail.The Greek and Latin writers from antiquity left us with a wealth of

information, occasional rst-hand experience of travels to foreignlands, and accounts of witnesses to signicant events. They do, how-ever, frequently illustrate an authors prejudice, or personal interpre-tation of events, which often reects a bias in attitude toward other

1 Sherwin-White and Kuhrt 1993: 141.2 The rst quote is Knauf 1998: 275; the second is Smith 1974: 544.

12

cultures. Compounding this are difculties in translation of text,occasionally with our own inability to understand the nuances inthe language of the author; what does the writer mean and why isthis expressed in such a way? For example, caution is required inreading Strabo when he describes a landscape he has not visited, orwhen Josephus conveys information on events relied on through othersources. Nineteenth- and early twentieth-century scholarship oftenreected the colonial/imperialistic attitudes of western culture, clearlyillustrated in one comment made in reference to Ituraeans, where theyare described as another backward people of Syria.3 Such a negativestereotype is difcult to dispel, with recent scholarship sometimesstrengthening such an aspect as illustrated in the following statement:One aspect of the Ituraean lifestyle which was their hallmark else-where, namely brigandage, is perhaps the closest that they came toleaving a direct trace of their ongoing presence in Galilee and itsenvirons.4 Elsewhere, in making a comparison to another group theauthor is more explicit: the Nabataeans seem to have gained theirwealth by trading, whereas the Ituraeans preferred robbing.5 Suchviews are not uncommon among present scholarship, with onescholar seeing the Ituraean tribe as essentially being infamous forits ferocity.6 It is necessary to reassess these primary texts andattempt to understand both the writers intent and the context withinwhich the text was written. Concurrent, as emphasized elsewhere, isunderstanding the evidence in some plausible and comprehensiveway as well as admitting disagreement among interpreters to beone of the necessary stages we must enter into.7

Eupolemus

According to Schrer the earliest mention of Ituraeans in the Greeksources comes from the Greek/Jewish historian Eupolemus who com-pleted his History of the Jews in 158 BCE. He is mentioned in both 1and 2 Maccabees as an ambassador to Rome for Judas Maccabaeusin 161 BCE.8 Recorded in his writings, of which only fragmentsremain, the Ituraeans are listed as being one among several groupswhom David subdued:

3 Jones 19311932: 265. 4 Freyne 2001: 207. 5 Knauf 1998: 273.6 Knauf 1992: 5834. 7 Mason 1998: 12.8 Schrer 1973: 5612; 1 Macc. 8.17 and 2 Macc. 4.11.

Literary texts 13

9 (he also made expeditions against the Edomites, theAmmonites, and the Moabites, and Ituraeans, and Nabataeans, andNabdaeans).10 This fragmentary text includes the names of severaltribes, but notably without reference to Arabians, althoughEupolemus may well have understood these tribal groups as Arab,it being a common assumption in antiquity. Wacholder, in his studyon the works of Eupolemus, suggests the inclusion of Nabataeans andIturaeans to be noteworthy, and describes the Ituraeans as a preda-tory Arab tribe, which occupied the Lebanon and the Hermon moun-tains whose capital Heliopolis (modern Baalbek) was in Chalcis.11 Itis difcult to understand what Wacholder is implying here; thereappears to be an assumption that Heliopolis is the capital of theIturaean kingdom, which would in fact clearly contradict Strabosstatement (Geog. 16.2.18) that Chalcis is the acropolis of the MassyasPlain. Wacholder considers that the inclusion of both Nabataeansand Ituraeans in the list of Eupolemus might be signicant because atthe time these tribes, like the Jews, were attempting to gain independ-ence from their Seleucid rulers. Eupolemus writes of the tenth centuryBCE but includes peoples he is familiar with from the second centuryBCE, and at the same time there is an idealization of David as aperfect king.12 While Eupolemus may be the earliest written refer-ence in Greek for Ituraeans, he tends to reect his Jewish Hellenisticbackground and milieu, and provides little for any further under-standing of the Ituraeans.In a discussion on the southern Aramaean kingdom of Soba (Greek

) in the Biqa valley, Lipiski suggests that Eupolemus, in hislist of Davids enemies, substituted Ituraeans for the biblical Soba.The etymology of Soba links it to the meaning of swamp land, whichaccording to Lipiski seems to indicate the historical centre of Sobaas close to the ancient marshy lake of the Biqa valley and that Sobamay have designated a region before becoming a city name.13 Itcould be that by the early years of the tenth century BCE theAramaean kingdom of Soba was in existence within the Biqa valley,although the origins of Aramaean settlement in this region are stilllargely unknown.14 The most important site in this area of the south-ern Biqa valley is Kamid el-Loz, ancient Kumidi, which wasdestroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age. Recently renewed

9 Mras 1954: 538 = FGH 723 F2, p. 673 for the Greek text.10 Gifford 1903: 447 for the translation. 11 Wacholder 1974: 134.12 Wacholder 1974: 148. 13 Lipiski 2000: 320. 14 Lipiski 2000: 330.


excavations have begun to provide more information on its longhistory of settlement after this destruction, and support its importanceduring the Hellenistic and early Roman periods. Letters sent by thegovernor of the Neo-Assyrian province in the eighth century BCE toKing Sargon II reect the close relations between the Arabs and theregion of Soba. It is in this light that we might speculate on thepossibility of Ituraean tribes being descended from the Aramaeanswho had settled within this kingdom. While the list Eupolemus pro-vides gives us no clear evidence as to whom he understood theIturaeans to be, a separate tribal group of Arabs or possiblyAramaeans, Schrer merely points to Eupolemus as making the ear-liest reference in Greek, and offers no further comment.

Strabo

Strabo, the late-rst-century BCE historian and geographer,describes the Ituraeans as an identiable group with lands theyinhabit specically mentioned. In the Geography, the second of histwo major works, he locates the Ituraean principality within theMassyas Plain, today known as the Biqa valley of modernLebanon. The name of the rst Ituraean ruler, and hints of theIturaeans reputation as a people, are provided in two brief passages:

and at no great distance, also, were Heliopolis and Chalcis,which latter was subject to Ptolemaeus the son of Mennaeus,who possessed Massyas and the mountainous country of theIturaeans (16.2.10).

The beginning of this plain is the Laodiceia near Libanus.Now all the mountainous parts are held by Ituraeans andArabians, all of whom are robbers ( ), butthe people in the plains are farmers (16.2.18).

The ancient nameMassyas is, according to Lipiski, a possible tran-scription of the Semitic name meaning something like marsh, deriv-ing from the same root verb found in Hebrew, Arabic and Aramaic,meaning to soak in water.15 Strabo makes a clear distinctionbetween Ituraeans and Arabians, possibly implying that there wereat least two distinct groups of people living within the mountains ofthe Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon, and the valley or plain below. There

15 Lipiski 2000: 307.

Literary texts 15

is general agreement that Strabo used the writings of Posidonius,along with other sources particularly in Geography 16. Though hetravelled widely and wrote about a great many places, Strabo did notvisit either Syria or Palestine during his travels, therefore any infor-mation he provides concerning the hinterland of Syria must be takenas second-hand. Strabo is unclear about who the Arabians were; forthe Greeks they were usually the people who dwelt in regions to theeast and south of the Anti-Lebanon mountains. In this respect per-haps we can be reminded of Macadams assessment of Strabosknowledge of Syrian geography, on which he considers it to be gen-erally poor.16 Whether Strabo knew the landscape personally or not,he provides some interesting and detailed information on the peopleand their customs. In an earlier passage he describes parts ofMesopotamia towards the south as being inhabited by ArabianScenitae, a tribe of brigands () and shepherds, who readilymove from one place to another when pasture and booty fail them(16.1.26). Such a statement may well reect the situation in antiquity,and as Strabo understood it, however, modern scholarship hasunfortunately often taken such statements as absolute and reinforceda negative stereotype of the nomad. Macdonald sees this pattern inmodern works on the Roman period and Late Antiquity, where theterms Arab, Arabic speaker and nomad have often been treatedas synonymous.17 It quickly becomes a standard, modern interpre-tation for the use of the term, derived uncritically from the ancientsources. That Strabo names both Ituraeans and Arabians is signi-cant; he at least hints at the possibility the Ituraeans are distinct fromArabians, although without any further detail provided. Whether ornot there was a difference between these two groups we can onlyspeculate, except to lean on the side of the inevitable question: whymention both if there was no distinction?Geographical locations for Arabs were many: by the beginning of

the Hellenistic period there were six different regions identied by theGreeks as referring to Arabia. One of the six was the region of theAnti-Lebanon. The list covers a large geographical area, diverse andvaried in both language and culture, but all inhabitants were consid-ered to be Arabians. In Book 16.3.1 Strabo describes the whole ofArabia as being above Judaea and Coele Syria, as far as Babyloniaand the river country of the Euphrates towards the south. TheArabians are known to be not very good warriors even on land

16 Macadam 1986: 48. 17 Macdonald 1998: 179.


(16.4.23), appearing to be less civilized than the Syrians but havinggovernments that are better organized [than the Scenitae] (16.2.11).Although still considered Arabian, the Scenitae are tent dwellerswho are divided off into small sovereignties and live in tracts that arebarren for want of water (16.3.1). In an earlier passage mentioningparts of Mesopotamia, Strabo appears to understand the ArabianScenitae as a tribe of brigands and shepherds, who readily move fromone place to another when pasture and booty fail them. Accordingly,the people who live alongside the mountains are harassed not only bythe Scenitae, but also by the Armenians, who are situated above themand, through their might, oppress them (16.1.26). Continuing in thefollowing passage, Strabo compares two caravan trade routes used bymerchants, one crossing the Syrian desert, the other a much shorterroute following the Euphrates. Travellers on either route would beexpected to pay tribute; for those travelling the more difcult routeacross the desert it was exacted by the Scenitae, and for those takingthe shorter, less risky route along the river, it was exacted by the localchieftains. There was no common standard of tribute set, as eachgroup determined its own depending on particular circumstances. Asthe crossing of the desert took much longer (according to Strabotwenty-ve days), water would be a fundamental requirement forthe merchants.Essentially Strabos information is of the activity of merchants

travelling varying routes, and dealing with an ever-changing paymentin tribute, its arbitrariness due to peoples that are self-willed (16. 1.27), making it impossible for a common standard of tribute to be set.It is not unlikely that raiding also occurred; the caravans were alwaysvulnerable to such activity, but as Strabo makes no direct mention inthis passage it is perhaps too hasty to assume changes only as a resultof banditry. Furthermore, it is evident that Strabo has amixed view asto who the Arabians/Scenitae are: they are at the same time brigandsand shepherds (16.1.26) as well as peaceful and moderate towardtravellers (16.1.27). The Ituraeans remain a separate group fromStrabos general description of the Arabians and are only mentionedin relationship to the geographical region of the Massyas Plain.18

Strabo provides information in terms of the Arabians: tribal names,habitat, livelihood and customs. However, the ethnicity that liesbehind the terms cannot be discerned, nor can we know how thepeople themselves would have understood their own identity.

18 Strabo, Geog. 16.3.116.4.27.

Literary texts 17

Arabs/Arabians

At this juncture it is worth clarifying the use of the term Arab, how itwas used and understood in antiquity, and how it is reected inpresent discourse, especially in light of todays highly charged polit-ical implications. It rst occurs in the Assyrian Annals of the ninthcentury BCE, used mainly in reference to nomadic peoples living ineastern and southern Syria and northern Arabia. In the presenttwenty-rst century the term Arab comes laden with ethnic, histor-ical and modern political detritus, with the result that it is oftendifcult to dene, and even more so when used in the context ofantiquity. What do present-day scholars mean when they state thatIturaeans were Arabs? Do they use the termwithin its ancient context,or is it used in a modern sense? The difculties are expressed in onecomment in which the term Arab is seen to trigger erroneousassumptions in the modern mind, including a readiness to acceptthe stereotypical image of the Arab as a nomad, mounted on acamel. Unfortunately this has been a dominant feature of Westernthinking about the Middle East from antiquity to the present.19 Theusual picture lacks any recognition of Arab diversity, whether inlanguage, lifestyle or the various geographical locations in whichthey lived. The stereotype of the nomad as a constant wanderer,and an incorrigible brigand and pillager, incurably violent wasformed rst within the written records of the Assyrian andBabylonian ofcial documents, and contained in most of the biblicalprophecies.20 These documents express the opinions of those whoencountered the Arabs (or those who are referred to as Arab), andnot of the Arabs themselves.The concept of Arabia and by association Arabians as it has

come down through the historical sources was the name the Greeksand others gave to any place where Arabs were found. TheAssyrians considered the Arabians as merely inhabitants of theland of the Arabians, a vague and undened region of nomadicpeoples whom they encountered through trade and commerce inwidely differing regions. However, as Macdonald emphasizes, itdid not prevent them from regarding each of these regions asArabia, though inevitably this led to a certain amount of

19 Macdonald 2003: 308; see also Macdonald 2001: 146.20 Macdonald 1995: 1359.


confusion.21 It remains unclear as to how the word Arabian wasdened by those who used it in antiquity, so assumptions made inmodern scholarship in any attempt to understand or dene Arabianor Arab still require careful consideration.22

In a third-century CE Greek epitaph (IGR I 839) inscribed on agravestone, a man describes himself as an Arab of the city ofSeptimia of Kano tha. It is likely that this brief and enigmatic passageis the only expression of Arab as a self-designation before the sixthcentury CE, and in Macdonalds opinion any application of Arab/Arabians to groups before this period may well be misleading orincorrect.23 In part, the difculty in providing the term Arabwith anidentity or ethnicity is increased by the fact that, until the sixthcentury CE, the Arabic language was purely oral. If it became at allnecessary to write it down, the script was borrowed from anotherlanguage. The result was that Arabic speakers of antiquity became allbut invisible in the written records.24 Recent scholarship is nowbeginning to revise long-held attitudes that portray both the nomadand the mountain peoples in consistently negative terms, althoughunfortunately this view has not disappeared entirely. It is well worthremembering Macdonalds statement:

Indeed for several centuries after they rst encountered them,the Greek image of the Arab was that of a rich merchantnot a nomadic herdsman. This suggests that we should dis-card the stereotypical pictures which have lled the pages ofpolitical and literary works since the Assyrians, and refuse tomake assumptions about the way-of-life or geographicalorigins of populations, simply on the basis of a term Arabwhich is at present indenable, but in fact seems to havenothing to do with how you live or where you are from.25

In discussing the many polities existing on the fringes of the Syriandesert, Hoyland reects on how both Greco-Roman writers andmodern scholars often describe these groups as Arab, and withinthese groups are included the Ituraeans around Mt Lebanon. Ingeneral, he considers that lack of evidence prevents any rm state-ment to conrm or refute the Arab character of these groups.26

21 Macdonald 2001: 12. 22 Macdonald 2001: 2.23 Macdonald 2003: 304 and fn. 3. 24 Macdonald 2003: 3045.25 Macdonald 2003: 318. 26 Hoyland 2001: 69.

Literary texts 19

Apart from the few brief references already discussed, Strabo hasnothing further to say on the Ituraeans. What little he does say,however, must be considered seriously in the light of his distinctionbetween the Ituraeans and the Arabians. This distinction leads one tothink, however speculatively, that he must have understood theIturaeans to be other than Arabians. Those called Arabians arefrom lands called Arabia, presumably those regions to the east andsouth of the Anti-Lebanon. The Ituraeans are described as mountaindwellers, and it would seem safe to conclude that some were brigands,although not necessarily all. For modern scholarship to so readilyaccept that Strabo believed Ituraeans to be Arab is speculative andunveriable.

Strabo and brigands/robbers

At the same time that we learn of two distinct groups, Strabo alsospeaks of the mountainous parts being held by Ituraeans andArabians all of whom are robbers (16.2.18). In this passage Strabouses the Greek to describe the Ituraeans, which Jones(LCL) translates as robbers, indicating they are different and some-how separate from the Arabian Scenitae who are named brigands in16.1.28, using the Greek . The implication that allIturaeans were robbers has been assumed by most scholars whileciting the above passage 16.2.18. According to Liddell and Scott, has the meaning of do evil, work wickedness; to cheat,act badly.27 One can only speculate as to why Strabo uses twodifferent words, apart from his own emphasis on how he viewedeach group and what he thought personally about them.There is an aura of personal feeling in describing someone as being

wicked, or doing evil. Did Strabo merely repeat what others reportedto him, or did he in fact see these brigands as doing evil? It isimpossible to know, except that Strabo once again differentiatesbetween Arabians and Ituraeans. The more common word for rob-bery, piracy, plunderering and brigandry, and used frequently byJosephus, is (Latin latrocinium). Mason contends thatJosephus use of the Greek is entirely in keeping with con-temporary Roman usage.28 Strabo, however, uses on onlyfour occasions in speaking of brigands (Geog. 4.6.6; 4.6.89; 15.3.45;

27 Liddell & Scott 1994; see also Rengstorf 1975, II. 28 Mason 2001: 31.


16.1.24), and never in reference to Ituraeans where he uses the cognate. Brigandage is dened as unlawful use of personal vio-lence to maraud land, and was not condemned wholesale by theClassical Greeks, whereas by the Hellenistic and Roman periods thissituation had changed radically.29 Such activities were clearly a threatto the settled populations, and Strabo obviously sees these groups assuch. Where we might question Strabo at this point is in taking tooliterally that all Ituraeans were involved in such activity.It is important to consider Strabos aim in writing the Geography

as he was primarily concerned with the inhabited world as it hadbeen shaped by the efforts of generations of civilizing people. ForStrabo, the desert zones without important urban settlements andagriculture are backward regions, and a nomadic way of life isalways a sign of a low level of civilization.30 This attitude isreected in Strabos statement: These Scenitae are similar to thenomads in Mesopotamia. And it is always the case that the peoplesare more civilised in proportion to their proximity to the Syrians,and that the Arabians and Scenitae are less so (16.2.11). Thesetribes then seem to represent disorder for Strabo, and as they alsoappear to have a nomadic lifestyle would undoubtedly be perceivedas uncivilized. Added to the inherent difculties in understandingStrabos terminology and meaning in reference to Arab/Arabiansand robber/brigand is his reliance on earlier written sources, as wellas the experiences of friends and contemporaries. It is agreed amongscholars that he used Posidonius, although it has been argued it isalmost impossible that Strabo knew Posidonius personally. Strabodid not visit either Syria or Palestine during his travels, and hisdescriptions of areas and regions he did not know rst-hand werephrased in terms peculiar to his own time. Later writers who accep-ted Strabos account considered all inhabitants of the Massyas Plainto be robbers or criminals, then assumed they were Ituraeans.Strabos information on these tribes is far more negative thanpositive, and his second-hand descriptions have introduced a stereo-type that continues to the present. In the Greco-Roman tradition,Arabs were generally regarded as plunderers, the prejudice beingmaintained into the modern era.31 It would seem that Strabo, to alarge extent, reects the common view from his contemporaries asmuch as anything.

29 OCD: 2601. 30 Engels 2003: 3. 31 Graf 1997.

Literary texts 21

Apuleius and the later writers

Almost two centuries later, Apuleius mentions both Ituraeans andArabs in his description of India:

Far away it lies, beyond the learned Egyptians, beyond thesuperstitious Jews and the merchants of Nabataea, beyondthe children of Arsaces in their long owing robes, theIturaeans to whom earth gives but scanty harvest, and theArabs, whose perfumes are their wealth (Florida 6).32

Here are two brief allusions, one to a landscape the Ituraeans inhabitproducing nothing but scanty harvest, suggesting a harsh environ-ment; the second to prosperous caravan traders moving north fromthe southern Arabian lands with their incense and other exotics.During the siege of Tyre, Alexander was forced to confront the

native population, whom Quintus Curtius Rufus refers to in quitegeneralized terms:

To meet this the Tyrians brought the boats to the shore, toofar away to be seen by the enemy, and landing soldiers,butchered those who were carrying rocks. On Mt. Libanusalso the peasants of the Arabians attacked the Macedonianswhen they were in disorder, killed about thirty, and took asmaller number of prisoners (History of Alexander 4. 2.24).

These lines led Dar to propose that theMacedonians were confrontedwith Ituraean tribes the peasants of the Arabians seeing them aswell established in the region by the fourth century BCE.33 Plutarchsupports Curtius Rufus in that he also mentions Arabians as being theperpetrators: In the midst of this siege Alexander led a force againstthe Arabian tribes who inhabit the mountains of the Anti-Lebanon(Lives Alexander 24), yet it is important to recognize that neitherwriter specically mentions Ituraeans, only the Arabians. Arrian, inhis account of Alexanders conquest, merely implies it without relat-ing any confrontation: While his engines were being tted together,and his ships were being equipped for the attack and for trying theissue of a naval battle, Alexander with some of the cavalry squadrons,the Agrianes, and the archers, marched toward Arabia to the moun-tain called Antilibanus (Anabasis of Alexander 2.20.4).

32 Stern 19741984, II: 2045. 33 Dar 1993b: 15.


Curtius Rufus and Plutarch both write of Arabians or Arabiantribes, a loosely dened term, whereas Arrian refers only to a geo-graphical location, Arabia and the Anti-Lebanon mountains. Theseclassical writers reect the predominant view in antiquity that Arabiais toward the east, those places in which Arabians are found to beliving, repeating the circular argument previously mentioned.Signicantly, there is no direct mention of Ituraeans in any of thesestatements. None of the Latin historians of the rst century CE makethe claim that Ituraeans are Arabians, even though Dar seems con-vinced they are well established in the region at this time. He reasonsthat it would be a logical assumption for Ituraean tribes to havereceived permission from the Persians who controlled the region tolive in this mountainous territory. Appealing to the same sources,Freyne suggests that these passages indicate the possibility thatIturaeans had been able to gain a permanent foothold in the Biqaregion as early as the Persian period, since we hear of Arabs in theregion of the anti-Lebanon harassing Alexander during his campaignagainst Tyre in 333 BC.34 There is no direct evidence to establish alink connecting the Arabs mentioned by Curtius Rufus and Plutarchwith the Ituraeans of the Biqa. As emphasized by one scholar, theclaim that Arabs who fought Alexander were Ituraeans cannot beestablished on the basis of the literary sources.35 This is perhaps thecrucial point, and by determining that they were Arabs we remainclosed to other possibilities.Macdonald clearly demonstrates that the classical writers use the

term Arabia/Arabians in a general sense, sometimes referring tovarying geographical locations and sometimes to those who inhabitthese regions. They may have considered Ituraeans as Arabians, butthis is conjecture, not explicit statement. It appears, however, thatfrom a very early period and even after Strabos Geography, nodistinction was made between Arab and Ituraean. The fact thatboth Strabo and Dio Cassius describe some of the inhabitants of thehinterland as Arab led Millar to observe, what they meant by thisremains obscure.36 The hinterland as referred to byMillar is the areaat the northern end of Mount Lebanon, between the coast and theupper Orontes valley. It was an area of villages in antiquity andtherefore remains crucial to an understanding of the dynamics under-lying settlement in the regions.37 By the third century CE, Dio Cassius

34 Freyne 2001: 190. 35 Shatzman 1995: 184; see also Macdonald 2003: 313.36 Millar 1993: 274. 37 Butcher 2003b: 13545 discusses this problem.

Literary texts 23

assumes that Ituraeans were Arab when he comments that landgranted to Sohaemus was land of the Ituraean Arabians (RomanHistory 59.12.2). Kasher, who relies heavily on biblical sources for hisidentication of Ituraeans as Arabs, felt that the biblical sourcesalready provided the important basic data for understanding thehistory of Ituraeans.38

The term Arab primarily indicates people who inhabit a vaguelydened landscape called Arabia. In viewing antiquity, when variousgroups are called Arab rather indifferently, the modern interpreterneeds to remain acutely aware of the ambiguities. Since, asMacdonald has suggested, the term seems not to appear as a self-designation until the sixth century CE, in considering these earlierperiods it is the writers own beliefs about another group that we arerequired to understand and interpret.39 The term, as used by Arrian,Plutarch and Curtius Rufus, is in the words of Ephal too general adesignation for the exact identity of the nomads mentioned to bedetermined.40 In referring to populations in the desert areas of north-ern Sinai, northern Arabia and Syro-Arabia, Ephal applies the termnomads and includes the oasis dwellers as well. He recognizes thedistinction made, particularly within the classical Arabic sources,between those who lived in temporary camps and those who culti-vated land of the oasis, but adopts the terminology of the biblical andcuneiform sources, which do not distinguish between them.41 Theassociation of Arab with the Ituraeans is in part due to how modernscholars have interpreted the early Greek and Latin authors and inpart to an assumption that Ituraeans were descendants of the tribeJetur (Hebrew ) mentioned in the biblical lists of Arab tribes.This issue will be discussed in a later chapter.

Josephus

Josephus rst mentions an Ituraean ethnos () in Antiquities13.319 where he writes of conquests achieved by the Hasmoneanking Aristobulus I (he brought over to them a portion of the Ituraean nation). It isgenerally accepted that this passage reects the Jewish historiansreliance on information provided by Timagenes and Strabo, anduses his sources to portray the Ituraeans as constituting an ethnos.

38 Kasher 1988: 12. 39 See Macdonald 2003: 304 and 2000: 25.40 Ephal 1984: 100 n. 337. 41 Ephal 1984: 56.


Here I believe Josephus uses as it was understood in Hellenisticand Roman times, as referring to an outside group, of people livingtogether, a company or body of men. The Jewish people were con-sidered an ethnos in this sense, and by his own statement Josephusalso accepts the Ituraeans as a separate group. In both War andAntiquities the Ituraeans are mentioned often in reference to theirinteraction with the Hasmoneans, their recurring disorderly conductand general brigandage. Josephus, in language he frequently repeats,characterizes the Ituraean ethnos as nothing more than trouble for theHasmoneans, and successfully portrays the Ituraeans in a clearly neg-ative way.Having reported on the death of Aristobulus, Josephus provides

two passages in which the kings character and accomplishments aredescribed. The differences in sources account for the variation incontent.

And scarcely had he spoken these words when he died; in hisreign of one year, with the title of Philhellene, he conferredmany benets on his country, for he made war on theIturaeans and acquired a good part of their territory forJudaea and compelled the inhabitants, if they wished toremain in their country, to be circumcised and to live inaccordance with the laws of the Jews.

Josephus continues by quoting from Strabos Historica Hypomnemataon the authority of Timagenes:

This man was a kindly person and very serviceable to theJews, for he acquired () additional territoryfor them, and brought over () to them a portionof the Ituraean nation ( ), whom he joinedto them by the bond of circumcision42 (Ant. 13.319).

It is widely accepted that Strabo used many written sources in theHistorica. In Sterns opinion, Josephus in Antiquities 1314 dependsmore on the Historica than any of his explicit references to Straboindicate. When considering the above passage (Ant. 13.319), Sternemphasizes that without any qualms he [Strabo] quotes Timagenes,who praises Aristobulos I, thus allowing the latter to emerge as quite adifferent ruler and man than the one pictured by Nicolaus, whose

42 For Strabo, Historica Hypomnemata = FGH, II A88 F5.

Literary texts 25

opinion has been preserved in the main narrative of Josephus.43

Josephus does not precisely locate where the confrontation tookplace or what part of the land the Ituraeans occupied, although it isassumed by most scholars to be the northern Galilee. Referring toJosephus use of in this passage, Seth Schwartz arguesthat having appropriated part of the Ituraean nation, it does notimply conquest and forcible conversion, but some sort of agreement,the outward sign of which was the fact that both the Judaeans and theIturaeans, an Arab tribe, were circumcised.44 This of course assumesthat the Ituraeans were an Arab tribe, and hence the acceptance ofcircumcision. Horsley, however, comes to a somewhat different con-clusion. In his discussion on the Galileans identity at the time of theSecond Temple, and prior to the Hasmonean expansion, he considersAnt. 13.31819, where Aristobulus makes war on the Ituraeans, as thekey text: If we take Timagenes at face value and/or do not differ-entiate between Ituraeans and the inhabitants of the country, thenthe Ituraeans must have comprised a substantial portion of the pop-ulation when Galilee was taken over by Aristobulos.45 Again theconclusion is rather shaky as we cannot know from Josephus just whothe population of the Galilee really were; we can only speculate whichoften leads up a rather insubstantial path.The territory acquired for Judea was, in Horsleys opinion, part of

Galilee. Elsewhere he is far more explicit when he asserts that theGalilee had been dominated by the Ituraeans, something we simplycannot acknowledge with any assurance.46 This ready acceptancethat Ituraeans conquered the Galilee is taken one step further bytwo scholars, who, in citing Ant. 13.318 to support their claim, statein a recent article: In 104 B.C. John Hyrcanus Is sons, Antigonusand Aristobulus I, conquered Mt. Hermon, and probably forced theIturaeans to convert to Judaism.47 It is interesting thatMt Hermon ismentioned as opposed to the Galilee, especially as Josephus makes noreference to Hermon. Thus we are now confronted with several layersand three pieces of information: that Aristobulus acquired additionalterritory for the Jews, that he made war on the Ituraeans and that aportion of the Ituraean nation was converted through circumcision.The somewhat speculative reference to circumcision follows a patternalready set in similar circumstances with the Idumaeans. Stern hasargued against the forced Judaization of the Ituraeans in the Galilee

43 Stern 19741984, I: 262. 44 Schwartz 1991: 19. 45 Horsley 1995: 41.46 Horsley 1996: 26. 47 Eshel 2002: 119.


by Aristobulus.48 Recently Freyne has questioned the authority ofJosephus on this issue and states: The hypothesis of enforcedJudaization of the Itureans has been developed by modern scholarsto ll the gap, but without sufcient basis either in the literary orarchaeological evidence.49 I am inclined to agree with Freyne, andfor the following discussion I consider the circumcision question tohave little bearing on the question whether this happened or not.Being reminded of Josephus literary-rhetorical aims in his writings,Ant. 13.31819 and War 1.76 will be considered separately ratherthan conated as one.When recalling the duplicity that led to the death of Antigonus, in a

passage quite unrelated to any confrontation with the Hasmoneans,Josephus describes Antigonus as having procured for himself somevery ne armour and military decorations in Galilee (War 1.76=Ant. 13.30810). The parallel passage in Antiquities does not mentionthe decorations or the location of Antigonus successful militarycampaign. The conclusion drawn by many scholars is that this partic-ular military success, with its consequent decorations as mentioned inWar, was achieved through victory won over Ituraeans in the north-ern Galilee, even though it is not explicitly stated. Nowhere in Wardoes Josephus mention the Ituraeans by name. Kasher states it thus:from an indirect hint inWar, 1, 76, Marcus (the translator) assumedit took place in Galilee and continues by suggesting the possibility ofone of the Hellenistic cities in the northern Sharon or the Carmelcoast as being a likely place for any such confrontation, and inparticular Stratos tower where everyone anticipated Antigonuswould be killed.50 But still the question must be asked as to whyscholars have Josephus place the Ituraeans in the northern Galileewhen he does not state it in the text. Since Josephus does not place theIturaeans in theGalilee, the issue need not be a problem or consideredas fact. By assuming Josephus has the Galilee in mind, scholars haveconstructed a view which may be entirely misconstrued. AlthoughKasher expresses serious doubts about how to interpret Josephus, healso raises another issue. From a detailed examination of the passagehe suggests that evidence from Timagenes actually proves annexationof the Galilee by Judas Aristobulus rather than its conquest. In thissense he sees the expression he acquired additional territory as notnecessarily being interpreted as an act of military conquest.51 Lastly,

48 Stern 19741984, I: 2256. 49 Freyne 2000: 1289.50 Kasher 1988: 81. 51 Kasher 1988: 81.

Literary texts 27

there is another argument which needs to be mentioned. InAntiquitiesthe reference is made to Aristobulus, who has apparently made waron the Ituraeans; however, in War it is Antigonus who has beenawarded the decorations in Galilee. The implication here cannotbe overlooked, and suggests further the need to reassess these earlierassumptions.In modern scholarship these two passages are frequently conated,

resulting, with great regularity, in the assumption that Ituraeansoccupied the northern Galilee, and were subject to Hasmoneanaggression, which ended with a military victory and its consequentdecorations for the Hasmoneans. The decorations referred to arethose worn by the soldier who has been victorious in battle. TheRomans generally issued rewards on the basis of rank, the mostcommon awards being the torque and the phalerae, the latter beingsculptured disks displayed on the breastplate. Such decorations aredisplayed by Antigonus as reported by Josephus, and perhaps onemight ask who in fact awarded these decorations. Is Josephus heresuggesting it was the Romans? Knauf appears to readily acceptJosephus and even adds to the conquest, although Josephus himselfmakes no mention: In 104/3 BC, the Hasmonean Aristobulus con-quered the Ituraean territory in Galilee and Transjordan and force-fully converted the inhabitants to Judaism.52 Again, why, we mustask, at this juncture is the Transjordan included when there is nomention by Josephus? Schrer (according to the English translation)is rather more cautious in his description, where the Jewish kingAristobulus, having ruled the kingdom of the Ituraeans, seems tohave included the Galilee as well.53 In agreement with both Knaufand Schrer, Overman also assumes the conversion and states,Aristobulus conquered the Ituraean territory in Galilee andTransjordan and converted the people to Judaism (Ant. 13.318),but then adds that Ituraean territory appears to have extendedsouth into Upper and Eastern Galilee at least as far as LakeHulah and perhaps as far as the north shore of the Sea of Galilee.54

At this early period, when the Hasmoneans were beginning to layclaim to territories, there is no explicit evidence the Ituraeans weremoving into southern regions, and these passages in Josephus provideno support for such conclusions. Whether or not they eventuallyconquered these territories is yet another problem as yet unresolved.

52 Knauf 1992: 583, and 1998: 271. 53 Schrer 1973: 564. 54 Overman 2001: 2.


In regard to the above passages, one is reminded that Timagenesdoes not specify the territories captured from the Ituraeans byAristobulus.55 Careful reading of the text would seem to indicatethat Ituraeans and Hasmoneans encountered each other and inter-acted by the end of the second century BCE, but no specic geo-graphical boundaries are given as to where this interaction took place.To some extent, archaeology, particularly in the latter part of thetwentieth century, has claried the texts but also presents new chal-lenges. This is perhaps best illustrated in Andrea Berlins view onHellenistic Palestine, where in a reference to Josephus comment thatAristobulus made war on Ituraea (Ant. 13.318) she admits, it isdifcult to reconcile the literary account with the archaeologicalevidence. On the other hand, in taking into account surveys con-ducted in the region of the Hermon and northernGolan, as well as thequestion of unique Golan Ware pottery being named IturaeanWare, she suggests that it is reasonable to assume that the presenceof Golan Ware can be taken to indicate an Ituraean population.56

This again presupposes the Golan Ware pottery to be Ituraean. Therst part of her conclusion demonstrates once more a continuing needto question Josephus, but the second part merely supports a verytenuous supposition that Golan Ware was the distinctive pottery ofthe Ituraeans. After consideration of the Galilee in the light ofarchaeological excavations, and a comparison of the evidence fromthe Golan sites, she then concludes that to date there is no evidencefor Ituraean settlement in Galilee itself, and suggests that Josephusmisreported the conquests of Aristobulus.57 A recently publishedreport by the Israel Antiquities Authority (IAA) on the results of twoarchaeological surveys in the western Galilee supports Berlins con-clusion on the lack of evidence for Ituraean settlement in the Galilee.As a result of their analysis of pottery types, and other features, theIAA suggests that there is little or no evidence for Ituraean settlementin the Upper Galilee.58 Once again, however, this is based on the lackof any pottery clearly attributable to Ituraeans being found in surveysof the Upper Galilee. That ethnic identity be determined entirelythrough pottery is, in this case, rather speculative. As nothing isknown regarding Ituraean culture, language or identity, the presenceor absence of this specic pottery is not in itself an ethnic marker.

55 Stern 19741984, I: 225. 56 Berlin 1997: 36.57 Berlin 1997: 37. 58 Frankel et al. 2001: 110.

Literary texts 29

The works of Josephus remain an indispensable resource for infor-mation on the lives and intrigues of those who controlled, or attemp-ted to control, Syria-Palestine in the late Hellenistic to early Romanperiods. Although the Ituraeans and their rulers get only a briefmention, their appearance in Antiquities is frequently cast in termsmore derogatory than complimentary. Josephus, having lived withina few generations after the events, leaves the more detailed record forthe Hasmonean dynasty, which is of course his main objective. Fromthis record can be captured mere fragments of information aboutIturaeans as an ethnos during this same period, and how he writeshis history tells us as much about Josephus as about the history herelates. The Hasmonean Judah Aristobulus ruled for barely one year(104103 BCE) but in that short period he apparently made war onthe Ituraeans (Ant. 13.318). In 103 BCE Alexander Jannaeus, whohad been brought up in the Galilee from his birth inherited theHasmonean kingship (Ant. 13.323). Kasher has suggested that thismay indicate a Jewish presence in the Galilee and perhaps evenHasmonean control in parts of it (if not ofcially then in practice)as far back as the days of John Hyrcanus I.59

The twenty years after the accession of Jannaeus were witness tothe ongoing struggles within the Seleucid Empire at large, and thoseof the Hasmonean princes whose main ambition was to regain controlof Judea. The Seleucid ruler of Damascus, Antiochus XII Dionysus,was defeated in battle by the (Nabataean) Arab ruler Aretas III in 85BCE. Josephus relates how Aretas was called to the throne by thosewho held Damascus because of their hatred of Ptolemy, the son ofMennaeus (Ant. 13.392). This is the same Ptolemy, son ofMennaeus,as mentioned by Strabo when describing Chalcis as subject toPtolemaeus the son of Mennaeus, who possessed Massyas and themountainous country of the Ituraeans (Geog. 16.2.10). Ptolemybegan his rule in 85 BCE and died during the Parthian incursions of40 BCE. Prior to the establishment of the principality of Ituraea,Tigranes as king of kings had maintained control over Syria, andPtolemy would likely have been subject to him. Another changeoccurred during this same period resulting from the internal politicsof the Hasmonean dynasty, when in 76 BCE, after the death ofAlexander Jannaeus, his widow Alexandra appointed her elder sonHyrcanus as high priest. This action followed an already establishedpattern of hereditary succession set by the Hasmoneans in the

59 Kasher 1988: 80.


previous century.60 Josephus, however, advances another reason forHyrcanus being appointed, suggesting that the younger AristobulusII was a man of action and high spirit (Ant. 13.407). ObviouslyJosephus or his sources deemed him not t to rule. This same youngman of high spirit was later sent out in 70 BCE by his mother with anarmy to Damascus against Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus. Josephustells us Ptolemy was a troublesome neighbour to their city (Ant.13.418=War 1.11516), but provides no further information on thiscampaign except to say that Aristobulus returned without accom-plishing anything noteworthy. Little was achieved it seems, and pre-sumably Ptolemy succeeded in quashing the campaign. Alexandrawas an astute ruler who recognized within her two sons both theirstrengths and failings; her reasons for initiating such a campaignmusthave been political. Sullivan interprets it as an indication of pressureput on Damascus by Ptolemy, and suggests that Alexandra sent herson with troops to Damascus because of Ptolemys continual oppres-sion.61 Josephus is more enigmatic than informative, and there islittle given which offers information on the internal strife of a regionin conict.Upon the death of Alexandra in 67 BCE there were several years of

continued struggle between Hyrcanus and Aristobulus, along withalliances made with Aretas and Antipater, until in 64 BCE Pompeyarrived in Syria to bring order to a vast and troubled land. On his wayto Damascus in the spring of 63 BCE it is recorded that Pompeydemolished () the citadel at Apamea and devastated() the territory of Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, aworthless fellow (Ant. 14.389). Ptolemy, however, escaped pun-ishment for his sins by paying a thousand talents with which Pompeypaid the wages of his soldiers (Ant. 14.389). In all these passagesJosephus repeats the phrase Ptolemy, son of Mennaeus, possibly toclarify Ptolemys identity, but perhaps at the same time to remind usthat this same Ptolemy was the same troublesome neighbour andworthless fellow he had alluded to previously. An impression ofsome hostility is presented here, perhaps on the part of Josephushimself, or the sources upon which he has relied. It may be a literarydevice constructed by Josephus for emphasis, but however we mightperceive it, there is little doubt that Josephus, without further detail,imparts a negative picture which future writers will repeat andembellish.

60 Rajak 1994: 2857. 61 Sullivan 1990: 71.

Literary texts 31

The intervening years fourteen all told were years of continuousstruggle, with the Hasmonean Aristobulus twice taken prisoner toRome. Dio Cassius puts a slightly different slant on it: Aristobulus hesent home to Palestine to accomplish something against Pompey(Roman History 40.18.2). In 49 BCE Caesar released Aristobulusand sent him to Syria with two legions, hoping he might win thesupport of the Syrians. Unfortunately, the partisans of Pompey suc-ceeded in having him poisoned, and his body, after it had lain forsome time preserved in honey, was sent back to Judea (War 1.184).Not long after, at the instigation of Pompey, Alexander the son ofAristobulus was beheaded in Antioch, and his brother and sisterswere taken by Ptolemy, the son of Mennaeus, who was prince ofChalcis at the foot of Mount Lebanon (Ant. 14.126 =War 1.185).Having accepted responsibility for the family of Aristobulus, Ptolemysent his son Philippion to Ascalon to meet the widow of Aristobulus,along with the two sisters and brother, and escort them home.Philippion unexpectedly fell in love with the young Alexandra andquickly married her. Ptolemy, however, upon meeting his youngdaughter-in-law, coveted her for his own, ordered his son to be putto death and married the widow. Thus was forged a matrimonial linkbetween the Ituraean dynast and theHasmoneans.Within the year, inSeptember of 48 BCE, Pompey was assassinated on the Egyptianshores. A mere eight years later Lysanias, the son of Ptolemy, suc-ceeded and ruled from 40 to 36 BCE. It is worth noting that Lysaniasinherited a territory referred to as a principality and not a kingdom.During this period, Lysanias made a pact of friendship withAntigonus, the son of Aristobulus (Ant. 14.3302), who was also asupporter of the Parthians. A similar fate befell Antigonus, when in37BCEhe alsowas beheaded inAntioch. Thismay have been, in part,a result of his popularity among his own people (Ant. 15.812), withAntony perceiving him as a potential threat.62

It was not long before Lysanias also fell victim to the ambitions ofCleopatra, for in 36 BCE she succeeded in persuading Antony to haveLysanias put to death and the lands under his domain given to her(Ant. 15.923). After Cleopatras suicide in 30 BCE, Octavian handedove

Myers E. a. the Ituraeans and the Roman Near East Reassessing the Sources Society for New Testament...

Documents

Transcript of Myers E. a. the Ituraeans and the Roman Near East Reassessing the Sources Society for New Testament...