Journal of the American Oriental Society Volume 117 Issue 2 1997 [Doi 10.2307%2F605488] Dov Gera and Wayne Horowitz -- Antiochus IV in Life and Death- Evidence From the Babylonian

Antiochus IV in Life and Death: Evidence from the Babylonian Astronomical DiariesAuthor(s): Dov Gera and Wayne HorowitzSource: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1997), pp. 240-252Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/605488 .Accessed: 12/06/2014 15:02

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofthe American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 188.72.126.41 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 15:02:27 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANTIOCHUS IV IN LIFE AND DEATH: EVIDENCE FROM THE BABYLONIAN ASTRONOMICAL DIARIES1

Dov GERA BEN-GURION UNIVERSITY OF THE NEGEV

WAYNE HOROWITZ

THE HEBREW UNIVERSITY

This paper discusses Babylonian astronomical diaries for the years 169-163 B.C.E., which mention Antiochus IV Epiphanes and consequently bear chronological implications for Seleucid history. While the documents discussed do not upset the accepted reconstruction of Seleucid history, they add to our knowledge of the period.

The first diary discussed mentions a "procession" (pompe). We claim that this procession should not be identified with Antiochus IV's famous procession at Daphne but was a local festival of the Greeks of Babylon, celebrated in honor of their king's victorious Egyptian campaign.

There are two significant notices in a diary for 165. The first refers to Antiochus' Armenian expedition while the second, it is argued, alludes to his efforts to explore the Persian Gulf. The diary's date and the geographical information it contains add to our knowledge of Antiochus IV's movements during that year.

The last diary mentions a party escorting the corpse of a king, who must be Antiochus IV. On the basis of Jewish sources, the party's leader is identified as Philip, the dead king's syntrophos. His presence in Babylon in Tebet 163. supplies an additional argument in favor of dating Lysias' second campaign against the Jews to that year.

I. INTRODUCTION

THREE HISTORICAL NOTICES RELATING TO Antiochus

IV Epiphanes are preserved in astronomical diaries from the city of Babylon. This study examines the implications of these notices on the currently accepted chronology of the reign of Antiochus IV and that of his son Antiochus V Eupator. We shall show that, although the

1 Although the following is a cooperative effort of the authors, the Assyriological materials are the responsibility of W. Horowitz and the historical materials are that of D. Gera. Assyriological abbreviations follow E. Reiner, ed., The Assyr- ian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. 17: S, part II (Chicago: The Oriental Institute, 1992), ix-xxvi, with the following addition: Halley's Comet = F R. Stephenson and C. B. F Walker, eds., Halley's Comet in History (London: British Museum Publications, 1985). Abbre- viations of classical journals accord with the list found in L'Annee philologique 62 (1993): xv-xxxvii. FGH = F Ja- coby, Die Fragmente der griechischen Historiker (Berlin: Weid- mann; Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1923- ). CAH = The Cambridge Ancient History, new edition (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1970- ).

documents do not upset in drastic fashion the accepted reconstruction of Seleucid history in the years 169-163 B.C.E., the diaries do add to our knowledge of the period.

The Diary for 169 B.C.E.

The first diary is dated to the month of Ab, 169 (-168 month V).2 This text was first published in the opening decade of the century,3 but our understanding of it has recently been enriched by R. J. van der Spek's sug- gestion4 that Akkadian pu-up-pe-e, mentioned in a historical notice in the diary, is a cuneiform rendering of Greek pompe (procession). This new reading, when taken together with the date of the diary and its allusion to

2 Sachs-Hunger Diaries use the astronomical dating conven- tion Year -x = x + 1 B.C.E., e.g., -200 = 201 B.C.E.

3 T. G. Pinches, The Old Testament in the Light of the His- torical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia, 2nd ed. (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1903), 480, 553.

4 "The Babylonian City," in Hellenism in the East, ed. A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1987), 67-68.

240


GERA and HOROWITZ: Antiochus IV in Life and Death

Antiochus IV's campaign in Egypt, prompted M. J. Geller to suggest5 that the procession in the diary for 169 is identical to the one organized by Antiochus IV at Daphne near Antioch, and that consequently the date of the festival should be fixed to 169. If this last conclusion were correct, the results for the history of Antiochus' reign would be significant, for it is almost universally agreed that the festival at Daphne was held in 166 B.C.E.6 The problem here is whether a procession mentioned in a Babylonian document during the reign of Antiochus IV need automatically be identified with the famous pompe organized by the king or should instead be regarded as part of a local celebration. Below, we shall argue for the latter proposition.


Our second examination will concern two additional historical notices in two partially preserved exemplars of the diary for Tishre 165 (-164 month VII). Inr the first of these, mention is made of "the fortresses of the city of Habigalbat which they call Armil." Since Antiochus is mentioned in the second notice, which is part of the same diary, it would seem that the notice, when complete, referred to some military activity of King Antiochus in Habigalbat-Armil. We shall argue below that Habigalbat- Armil here is the land of Armenia, which Antiochus IV is known to have conquered. In the second notice, Anti- ochus is mentioned in connection with a march along a seashore. Our contention is that the reference is to the Persian Gulf, for Pliny the Elder tells of Antiochus' ini- tiative in exploring the coast of the Persian Gulf. The date of the diary is, in fact, a terminus ad quem for Antio- chus' operations in the areas of Armenia and the Persian Gulf. We shall therefore try to reconstruct the first year of Antiochus' anabasis, from the time he left Antioch- on-the-Orontes in the spring of 165 until he reached the Persian Gulf, before or during October 165. We shall see how the chronological and geographical data in the astronomical diary improve our knowledge of the movements of Antiochus and his army and bolster, rather than upset, mainstream views regarding the chronology of Antiochus IV's reign.

5 "New Information on Antiochus IV from Babylonian

Astronomical Diaries," BSOAS 54 (1991): 1-2. 6 E.g., Cl. Preaux, Le Monde hellenistique, Nouvelle Clio:

L'Histoire et ses problemes, 6.6 bis (Paris: Presses universi- taires de France, 1978), 1: 170; C. Habicht, "The Seleucids and their Rivals," CAH VIII: 345. For another dissent see below, p. 248.


Finally, our last historical notice, in a diary for Tebet 163 (-164 month X), mentions a party which escorted a king's corpse. The date, one calendar month after Antio- chus IV's death was first reported in Babylon,7 clearly indicates that the corpse is that of Antiochus IV. The diary does not tell us who formed the escort that accompanied the funeral procession, but, relying on testimony from 1 and 2 Maccabees, we shall demonstrate that the escort was comprised of troops returning from the aborted campaign in the east, now under the command of Philip, the dead king's syntrophos. The conjectured presence of Philip in Babylon in Tebet 163 has repercussions for the date of Lysias' second campaign against the Jews. We shall ad- dress this problem as well, making use of a Greek inscription dated to the summer of 163 and found at Yavneh-Yam in Israel. Thus, our Babylonian astronomical diary serves as an entr6e to wider investigations into the wars between the Seleucids and the Jews. However, before discussing the import of these notices, let us first briefly describe the genre of Babylonian astronomical diaries in general.

The Astronomical Diaries

Babylonian astronomical diaries survive from the seventh to the first centuries B.C.E.8 Each diary recorded

7 See the Babylonian, Hellenistic period, king list, BM 35603 (A. Sachs and D. J. Wiseman, "A Babylonian King List of The Hellenistic Period," Iraq 16 [1954]: 204, line 14): "[Year 148 (of the Seleucid Era), the month] of Kislev (IX), it was heard that Antiochus, the k[ing had died]." See also Sachs and Wise- man, "King List," 208-9; RIA 6: 98-100; Halley's Comet, 21; Grayson, Chronicles, 123, rev. 7-10; and n. 69 below.

8 Editions of Babylonian astronomical diaries are now be- ing published by H. Hunger based on previous work by the late A. Sachs, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Bab- ylonia (Vienna: Ostereichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988- ), herein cited as Sachs-Hunger Diaries. The first two volumes of this work include diaries for the years 652 B.C.E. to 165 B.C.E. The third volume covers the years 164 to 61 B.C.E. Diaries for 164-163 B.C.E and 87 B.C.E are published in Hal- ley's Comet, 18-40. For general introductions to Babylonian astronomical diaries, see Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 1: 11-36 and Halley's Comet, 12-17. See also M. J. Geller, "Babylonian As- tronomical Diaries and Corrections of Diodorus", BSOAS 53 (1990): 1-7, and the following reviews and discussions of Sachs- Hunger Diaries 1 and 2: F. Rochberg-Halton, Or 58 (1989): 551-55; idem, JAOS 111 (1991): 323-32; R. D. Biggs, JNES 50 (1991): 63-65; V. S. Tuman, WO 19 (1988): 174-79; J. Oelsner, OLZ 84 (1989): 672-76; W. H. van Soldt, ZA 81 (1991): 153-55.

241


Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.2 (1997)

data drawn from astronomical and other observations concerning the moon, planets, solstices and equinoxes, meteors and comets, and the weather for each night of the month for one-half year. At the end of each monthly section, the astronomers who compiled the diaries often reported the price of commodities for the previous month, and, occasionally, also noted events of oracular, political, or religious import.9 Individual diaries were dated by the ancient astronomers to regnal years. Diaries which no longer preserve their regnal dates can be dated on the basis of astronomical observations.'0 Thus, Babylonian astronomical diaries which record historical events pro- vide fixed astronomical dates for these very events.

II. THE TEXT OF 169 B.C.E.

Ab S.E. 143 = Aug. 18-Sept. 16, 169 = -168 month V" Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 2: 470 A 14-15, A = BM

41581, photo pl. 156, copy pl. 157.

14. ... ITU.BI al-te-e um-[ma] 15. mAN LUGAL ina URU.ME? sa KUR Me-luh-ha sal-

ta-ni GIN.GIN-ma [ x x ] u1pu-li-te-e pu-up-pe-e u e-se-e-tu sc GIM u-sur-tu 1ula-a-man-nu x [ ... ]

"That month I (the astronomer) heard as follows: King Antiochus marched victoriously through the cities of Meluhha (southern Egypt)12 and [...] the citizens, pro-

9 For religious ceremonies in astronomical diaries, see W. Horowitz, "Antiochus I, Esagil, and a Celebration of the Ritual for Renovation of Temples," RA 85 (1991): 75-77; idem, "A Kettle-Drum Ritual during Iyar Seleucid Era 85," N.A.B.U. 1991: 52-53. For historical notices see Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 1: 36; W. Horowitz, "An Astronomical Fragment from Colum- bia University and the Babylonian Revolts against Xerxes," JANES 23 (1994): 61-67, and van Soldt's review of Sachs- Hunger Diaries, in ZA 81 (1991): 153-55. See also Rochberg- Halton's review, JAOS 111 (1991): 325, for the relationship between the historical notices and Late Babylonian chronicles, and D. J. Wiseman, "A Note on Some Prices in Late Babylonian Astronomical Diaries," in Sachs Mem. Vol., 363-73, for the prices of commodities.

10 See Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 1: 19. I The Babylonian dates in this paper are converted to Jul-

ian dates according to the tables supplied by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75 (Providence: Brown Univ. Press, 1956), 41.

12 Although third-millennium Meluhha is to be located in the Indus Valley, Meluhha occurs in first-millennium texts as a name for upper Egypt, Nubia, and perhaps as far up the Nile as Ethiopia. Cf. D. Potts, "The Road to Meluhha," JNES 41 (1982): 284-85; Rep. g6ogr., 8: 228.

cessions (pompe) and rituals akin to the style of the Greeks. [. . .]"

Assyriological Commentary

line 15 For pu-up-pe-e = pompe, "processions," see above, note 4.13

Historical Commentary

As noted, Geller's proposed new date for the procession and the games at Daphne is based on an identification of this event with the pompe noted in the portion of the diary for August-September 169. This conclusion seems to rest on the tacit assumption that a pompe was an extraordinary event, and that there could have been no more than one in the reign of Antiochus IV. However, more often than not, the term refers to processions that formed an essential part of Greek religious festivals. Thus one would expect to find such festivals and processions in any Greek religious community or p6lis.l4 Most processions seem to have been connected to the cults of vari- ous gods and heroes.15 Others were associated with the ruler-cults; Greek poleis that wished to confer divine honors on a king or dynast instituted a festival (panegyris), of which the procession was an essential part.'6 Thus there is no reason to presuppose that the pompe in the diary is the famous Daphne pompe. Furthermore, it is even possible that the Babylonian astronomical diary here reports a local Babylonian event performed in Babylon by the Greeks and their Hellenized neighbors in celebration of the arrival of the news of Antiochus' victories.17

13 For this passage cf. D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press, 1985), 22, n. 152; E. Bickermann, "Sur la chronologie de la sixieme guerre de Sy- rie," CE 27 (1952): 397, n. 3; A. T Olmstead, "Intertestamental Studies," JAOS 56 (1936): 247.

14 See W. Burkert, Greek Religion, tr. J. Raffan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press, 1985), 99-101. F Bomer, s.v. Pompa, RE XXI.2 (1952), cols. 1913-74, lists 356 known processions from Greece and the Hellenistic east of which 305 seem to be institutionalized, i.e., they took place on a regular basis at fixed dates.

15 These include the first 249 on the list in Bomer, "Pompa," cols. 1913-62.

16 See C. Habicht, Gottmenschentum und griechische Stddte, 2nd ed. (Munich: C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1970), 147-48. An additional reference may be found in Ph. Gauthier, Nouvelles inscriptions de Sardes II (Geneva: Librairie Droz, 1989), 48, no. 2, line 13.

17 For the Greek community in Babylon and its inner organization, see the differing views of van der Spek, "The

242



Indirect support for the theory that the Babylonian astronomical diary refers to a local festival may be found elsewhere. In 167, when the Jews of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia were forced by Antiochus and his officials to transgress their ancestral law, 2 Macc. 6:7 states that "when the Dionysia (festival of Dionysus) came to pass, they (i.e., the Jews) were forced to escort Dionysus in a procession (pompetein) wearing wreaths of ivy."'8 Once we have knowledge of a procession in Jerusalem associated with the cult of Dionysus in the time of Antiochus IV, and of a second procession in Daphne associated with the worship of the entire pantheon (Athen. 5.195 a-b = Polyb. 30.25.13-15), it is possible to accept the existence of a third pompe in Babylon. There is no need therefore to identify the pompe of 169 in the astronomical diary with the famous procession of 166 organized by Antio- chus IV in Daphne (see below, section III). Furthermore, the text of the astronomical diary supports the view that the procession of 169 was a civic, rather than a royal, affair. It speaks of the politai (citizens) establishing the pompe, not the king. Geller's statement that the Babylo- nian diaries refer to a "Greek festival established by An- tiochus to celebrate his victories"'9 clearly goes beyond the plain meaning of the text.

To conclude, we propose that the diary for Ab 169 refers to a procession organized by the Greek (and Hel- lenized residents) of Babylon who, having heard of the victorious campaign of Antiochus Epiphanes in Egypt, now judged that the right moment had come to pay divine honors to their monarch. They therefore established a festival in his honor, acting like many Greek pdleis that

Babylonian City," 67-70; and S. Sherwin-White, "Seleucid Babylonia: A Case-study for the Installation and Develop- ment of Greek Rule" in Hellenism in the East, 20-21. See also S. Sherwin-White and A. Kuhrt, From Samarkhand to Sardis (London: Duckworth, 1993), 155-58.

18 Cf. B6mer, "Pompa", col. 1941, no. 125; F-M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees (Paris: Librairie Lecoffre, 1949), 362- 63. E. Bickermann claimed that the Greek deities mentioned in the sources with regard to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus IV were in fact Semitic (Der Gott der Makkabder [Berlin: Schocken Verlag-Jiidischer Buchverlag, 1937], 90- 116). Consequently, he identified Dionysus with the Nabatean god Dusares (pp. 113-14). However, the cults introduced by the Seleucid king to Judea were Greek by nature. See M. Stern, "The Hasmonean Revolt and Its Place in the History of Jewish Society and Religion," Cahiers d'histoire mondiale 11 (1968): 96-97; F Millar, "The Background to the Maccabean Revolu- tion: Reflections on Martin Hengel's 'Judaism and Hellenism'," Journal of Jewish Studies 29 (1978): 12-21.

19 Geller, "New Information," 1-2.

wished to pay homage to the king and to reap his bene- factions in return. One of the features of this festival was the pompe reported in the astronomical diary20

III. THE TEXT OF 165 B.C.E.

Tishre S.E. 147 = Oct. 2-Oct. 30, 165 = -164 month VII Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 2: 497 B 15'-C 13'-14' B = BM 35015 (LBAT 645) + 35332 (LBAT 377) +

55531 pl. 164-65 (collated). C = BM 45848 + 45907, pl. 165.

B: 15' ... ]el.BAD*.ME sad URU Ha-bi-gal-bat sa KUR Ar*-mi-il MU-SU SA4-U X X X X X [ ... [... ] the fortresses of the city of Habigalbat which they call the land of Armil . .... [...

C: 13' [ ... ] um-ma man-ti-'u-uk-su L[UGAL X X ] TA URU.ME9 s[d...

C: 14' ... ] sa UGU ma-rat GIN.MEg C: 13' [... ] saying, Antiochus the k[ing, ... ] from

the cities o[f ... C: 14' [ ... ] who/which went on the sea-(shore).21


II B 15': Habigalbat/Ijanigalbat is the Assyrian name for the second-millennium Hurrian federation,

Mitanni. In Neo-Assyrian inscriptions, Habigalbat is located in the vicinity of Lake Van, where Neo-Assyrian Aramale/Armarili in Urartu is also located.22 Armil in the diary is almost certainly a later rendering of this name. As Habigalbat is not attested after the fall of As- syria in 611,23 the term here represents an anachronistic name for the region the astronomer knows as Armil.

20 Similarly, van der Spek, "The Babylonian City," 68. 21 UGU = muhhu with names of bodies of water has the

sense of "by/along the shore of." For examples see Grayson, Chronicles, 284: 12: ra-di?' muh-hi idma-rat-ta; CAD 10.2: 175, mubbu 2. b).

22 For Uanigalbat/Iabigalbat, see RLA 4: 105-7. For Ara- male/Armarili see AOAT 6: 22, 30. See also I. M. Diakonoff, The Pre-History of the Armenian People (New York: Caravan Books, 1984), 84. For the location of Aramale see B. B. Pio- trovskij, II regno di Van, tr. M. Salvini (Rome: Edizioni dell' Ateneo, 1966), 77.

23 Uabigalbat does occur in the Late Babylonian exemplar, BM 64382+82955, of the Neo-Assyrian geographical treatise "The Sargon Geography." See W. Horowitz, "Moab and Edom in The Sargon Geography," IEJ 43 (1993): 151-56.

243



Compare the use of Melubba, the third-millennium name of the Indus Valley culture, for southern Egypt in I 15 (see above section II); Hatti (the Hittite land) as a name for Syria in the Antiochus Soter Inscription;24 and Hani for Macedonia/Greece.25

The "city of Habigalbat" (URU Ha-bi-gal-bat) here is presumably the political capital of the country. Compare the following passages in Babylonian chronicles: Gray- son, Chronicles, 102, 12, URU la-a-hu-du "the city of Judah," for Judah's capital Jerusalem in the context of Nebuchadnezzar's invasion of Judah in 597; Grayson, Chronicles, 96, 72, pi-hat URU u-ra-as-tu "the district of the city of Urartu," and URU KUR A-gam-ta-nu "The City of the land of Ecbatana" (see Grayson, Chronicles, 106, commentary ii 3). For an identification of "the city of Habigalbat" in the astronomical diary with Artaxata (Ar- tashat), see below section III.3. The "fortresses" of the city of Habigalbat presumably refers to lesser fortified cities outside the capital.26

II C 14': Although the Akkadian name for the ocean marratu was originally only a name for the

"Lower Sea" (i.e., the Persian Gulf or Indian Ocean), the name came to be used for both the "Upper Sea" (Medi- terranean Sea) and "Lower Sea" as early as the time of Sargon II of Assyria (721-705). Thus marratu here, in theory at least, could refer to either the Mediterranean or the Persian Gulf.27 There is no evidence that the inland lakes of modern eastern Turkey were ever called marratu although they are identified as tamtu "sea" in Middle and Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions.28

24 VAB 3 132: 10. See A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin-White, "As- pects of Seleucid Royal Ideology: The Cylinder of Antiochus I from Borsippa," JHS 111 (1991): 75, line 10; and Pritchard, ANET, 317.

25 Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 1: 190-328: 26'-27', left edge; p. 210-322: 22. See Geller, "Babylonian Astronomical Diaries," 5-6; and Grayson, Chronicles, 112, 1. 6; 116, 1. 17. For the use of anachronistic place-names in Mesopotamian texts in general, see J. Tigay, "Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Literatures," in History, Historiography, and Interpretation, ed. H. Tadmor and M. Weinfeld (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1983), 181-86.

26 Compare the examples cited in CAD D 1973: dfru A in bit duri = "fortress."

27 See W. Horowitz, "The Babylonian Map of the World," Iraq 50 (1988): 153, 156. For additional examples of marratu see CAD 10.1: 285.

28 See J. Elayi, "Terminologie de la mer M6diterranee dans les annales assyriennes," Oriens Antiquus 23 (1984): 80-87;


In the second diary we hear of events which became known to the astronomer in Babylon in the month of Tishre, i.e., between October 2 and October 30, 165 B.C.E.

The first item clearly touches upon some events of a military nature because "the fortresses of the city of jabigalbat" are mentioned. Both Iabigalbat and the land of Armil (Armale)-which seem to be synonyms-are situated to the east or northeast of Lake Van, i.e., in Ar- menia.29 This geographical setting and the chronological context indicate that this item is related to the campaign of Antiochus IV against Artaxias I, king of Armenia.30 The date of our document is in general agreement with that of a fragment of Diodorus which tells of the war waged by the Seleucid king against Artaxias I, and the latter's submission. This fragment should be dated to 168 B.C.E. at the earliest, but no later than Antiochus' death in 164.31 It should also be recalled that, according to 1 Macc. 3:37, Antiochus IV left Antioch-on-the-Orontes with his army in 147 S.E. (= Seleucid Era) on his way to the Euphrates and beyond. This date, the beginning of 147 S.E., serves as a terminus a quo for the eastern campaign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. It has long been suggested that Armenia was the Seleucid king's first ob- jective within this campaign.32 This would mean that 1 Maccabees provides a terminus a quo for the Armenian expedition of Antiochus IV as well. Scholars however disagree with regard to the Seleucid era or eras used in 1 Maccabees, and thus it is possible to argue either for October 166 as a terminus a quo (according to the Mace- donian reckoning) or April 165 (according to the Baby-

Rep. g6ogr., 5: 321; and AOAT, 6: 346. For possible references to the Black Sea, see Rep. g6ogr., 5: 319 1, 320 3. For a study of Mesopotamian names for the ocean see W. Horowitz, Meso- potamian Cosmic Geography (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, forthcoming). Although it may be assumed that the existence of the Black and Caspian Seas was known from at least the time of the Middle Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243- 1207), no certain references to these seas have come to light.

29 See note 22 above. 30 The sources for this campaign are Diod. 31.17a; Appian,

Syr. 45-46, 66; Porphyry, FGH 260, F38, 56. 31 See O. M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria (Copenhagen:

Gyldendal, 1966), 166. 32 B. Niese, Geschichte der griechischen und makedonischen

Staaten (Gotha: F A. Perthes, 1903), 3: 216-17; E. Will, His- toire politique du monde hellenistique, 2nd ed. (Nancy: Uni- versit6 de Nancy II, 1982), 2: 352. For further references see M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 167, n. 5.

244



lonian reckoning).33 In practice, however, this difference is of little importance here. Weather conditions in Arme- nia during the winter are extremely harsh,34 and it is unlikely that Antiochus IV would have contemplated using his troops, conditioned to a warmer climate, against the rebellious province during the winter months. The spring of 165 is therefore the earliest date for the departure of Antiochus IV for the east.

What do we know about the war itself other than its date? The picture emerging from the literary sources concerning Antiochus' war with Artaxias I is dim and unsatisfactory. The Seleucid king, we are told, fought against the Armenian king, killed many of his soldiers, and finally captured Artaxias I himself. The royal pris- oner was forced to recognize the authority of Antiochus IV, in exchange for which he was allowed to retain his throne. The Babylonian document adds a geographical dimension to our knowledge of the war, namely that military operations were waged in the land of Armil against the fortresses of Habigalbat.35

The connection between the events discussed above in Diary II B and those that follow in II C is far from clear. The name of King Antiochus is mentioned, and the Seleucid king is somehow linked with a march along the seacoast, but because of the fragmentary state of the diary we cannot be sure whether it is the king who is marching, his subordinates, or perhaps even his adver-

33 For the two eras, see Bickermann, Der Gott der Makka- bder, 155-56. Recently L. L. Grabbe, "Maccabean Chronology: 167-164 or 168-165 B.C.E.," JBL 110 (1991): 59-74, has accepted that some of the dates in 1 Maccabees reflect the use of the Seleucid era (Macedonian reckoning) while others are calculated from an era which began in the spring of 312 B.C.E. Two objections to this may be raised. First, no era of Nisan 312 B.C.E. is known. Why invent one if it does not solve all our difficulties? Cf. Grabbe himself (pp. 66-67, 71). Second, the date in 1 Macc. 13:41 (170 S.E.) can be right only if calculated from Nisan 311 B.C.E., not 312. See D. Gera, "Tryphon's Sling Bullet from Dor," IEJ 35 (1985): 157-58.

34 See R. D. Barnett, "Urartu" in CAH, 3.1: 323. Thus Grabbe's tentative dating of Antiochus' march to the east in the autumn or winter of 166 B.C.E. ("Maccabean Chronology," 68, 71), which ignores climatic conditions in Armenia, cannot be accepted.

35 The "city of. Uabigalbat" presumably refers to the capital of Artaxias (see above, section III) and therefore to Artaxata (Artashat), located thirty kilometers south of Erivan. On Ar- taxata see Diod. 31.17a; Strabo 11.4.6 (528-529); and Plut. Lucullus 31.3-4. The land of Armil seems to have included Artaxias in the northeast.

saries. This event, like the war in Armenia, came to the knowledge of the astronomer in October 165. If we assume that II B and C are closely related, it is tempting to take the "sea" (marratu) mentioned in II C as a reference to Lake Van, Lake Urmia, or one of the other lakes in Armenia. Indeed, with regard to Assyrian campaigns in Armenia, we hear of "the Sea of Nairi," "the Sea of Zamua," and others. However, there are no known examples of marratu used in conjunction with inland seas and lakes.36 Furthermore, we cannot be sure that the events of II B and II C are, in fact, related. Rather, II B and II C might refer to two completely separate events that came to the attention of the astronomer in Babylon during the same month.37 Thus, we are left with a choice between the "Upper Sea" (the Mediterranean) and "the Lower Sea" (the Persian Gulf).

According to Porphyry, Antiochus IV campaigned against the people of Aradus and in the process devas- tated the entire area along the coasts of Phoenicia.38 Yet the coins of Aradus do not confirm Porphyry's story; the clash between Antiochus IV and the Aradians seems to be fictional.39 With the absence of any solid information for any armed movements along the Mediterranean, the marratu here would then seem to be the Persian Gulf.

The association of Antiochus IV with the Persian Gulf is attested by Pliny the Elder, who writes40 of the city of Charax which was placed "in the innermost recess of the Persian Gulf" and that the original founder of the city was Alexander the Great who named it Alexandria; it was later rebuilt by Antiochus quintus regum who, in turn, named it after himself. This Antiochus seems to be none other than Antiochus IV Epiphanes.41 Pliny the

36 For marratu, see above, section III, comment on II C 14'. 37 In Babylonian astronomical diaries historical notices for

a particular month were noted at the end of monthly sections after the astronomical observations for the days of that month. Thus, two separate historical events occurring as many as twenty- nine days apart (i.e., the first and thirtieth of a lunar month) might have appeared directly juxtaposed in the diaries.

38 FGH, 260, F 56. 39 See M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 122-24. 40 6.138-39. 41 He was actually preceded by five kings named Antiochus:

Antiochus I, Antiochus II, his father Antiochus the Great, his eldest homonymous brother (co-regent with Antiochus the Great), and his nephew Antiochus son of Seleucus. This would make him the sixth. Curiously, both W. W. Tarn, The Greeks in Bac- tria and India, second ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1951), 213, n. 4, and M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 168, support the identification of Pliny's Antiochus quintus regum

245



Elder also says that the coastline of the Persian Gulf was first explored for Antiochus Epiphanes.42 Here Pliny is no doubt mistaken. Alexander the Great had already initiated the exploration of the Gulf, and later on, in 205 B.C.E., Antiochus III was sailing through its waters.43 Due to Pliny's error Tarn dismisses the information here on Antiochus IV, explaining it as "a mistake for Antiochus III."44 However, in one important respect Pliny's brief notice differs from what is known of the Seleucid efforts in the Persian Gulf during the reign of Antiochus III. Antiochus the Great was personally in charge of the voyage through the Gulf waters (Polyb. 13.9.4-5). However, Pliny does not say that Antiochus Epiphanes personally led the expedition, rather that the Gulf seashore was explored for him.45 Pliny was not confused here and did not base his statement on a source which dealt with Antiochus the Great. The march along the seacoast mentioned in our document seems very much like the expedition that Antiochus IV sent along the coast of the Persian Gulf, and the two may in fact be identical. The leader of this expedition may have been the Seleucid official Numenius, again mentioned by Pliny the Elder.46 Numenius was appointed ab Antiocho rege as governor of Mesene, and is reported as winning a sea battle in the waters of the Persian Gulf and a land battle as well. However, Pliny here does not supply us with any firm clue as to the identity of the King Antio-

with Antiochus IV. The first scholar ignores in this context Antiochus Epiphanes' eldest brother while the second neglects to mention the nephew. It seems more convincing to count An- tiochus, the eldest son of Antiochus the Great, as the fourth Antiochus for he was included in official lists of the Seleucid dynasty (W. Dittenberger, Orientis Graeci Inscriptiones Selec- tae [Leipzig: S. Hirzel, 1903], 1: nos. 245-46), while Antio- chus Epiphanes' nephew was omitted. Pliny would not have heard of Antiochus, son of Seleucus.

42 6.147: Nunc a Charace dicemus oram Epiphani primum exquisitam.

43 See C. Rouech6 and S. M. Sherwin-White, "Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire: The Greek Inscriptions from Failaka, in the Arabian Gulf," Chiron 15 (1985): 6-9; and D. T Potts, The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990), 2: 6-14.

44 Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria, 213. See also Rouech6 and Sherwin-White, "Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire," 6-9.

45 Rightly understood by Potts, The Arabian Gulf, 2: 11. The name of the king appears in the dative case. Many scholars however seem to have taken Pliny's text as implying that the king personally took part in this expedition. See Habicht, "The Seleucids," 351-52; M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 169.

46 6.152.

chus who appointed Numenius, and thus Numenius may have been in the service of an Antiochus other than An- tiochus IV.47 To sum up Pliny's references to the activities of the Seleucids in the Persian Gulf, it seems clear that Antiochus IV did refound Antioch Charax. This city was a natural base for an expedition to explore yet again the Persian Gulf and its shores, and Antiochus IV en- trusted this assignment to one of his officials, who may have been Numenius. Since the marratu in II C is the Persian Gulf, the march along its shores, referred to in our document, would be identical with the expedition organized by Antiochus IV Epiphanes and mentioned by Pliny the Elder. At any rate the explanation offered here for II C, namely that Antiochus was somehow involved with the Persian Gulf in 165, could well fit the general framework of this king's anabasis, and is in accord with what Pliny tells us about the king's exploits there.

According to our understanding, then, the historical notices II B and II C have the figure of Antiochus IV in common. His activities, even though they extend over two separate geographic zones, Armenia and the Persian Gulf, are interconnected within the larger framework of the king's anabasis to the east. Furthermore, it is now possible to narrow down the date of the campaigns of Antiochus IV to Armenia and the Persian Gulf to a period of seven months, between the early spring (April) and the end of October 165. This would place within this period several time-consuming events: the Seleucid army's march from Antioch-on-the-Orontes (I Macc. 3:37) to Armenia and the campaign there against Arta- xias' army; Antiochus' journey from Armenia to the Per- sian Gulf and Antioch-Charax; the re-foundation of the polis at Charax; and the organization of an exploratory expedition along the Persian Gulf. We must also add the time needed for all this news to have reached the astronomer in Babylon. To cover such distances in an ever- changing terrain and climate is indeed formidable, but is it impossible?

The first part of Antiochus' campaign to the east was along the road from the Syrian capital to Armenia. It is impossible to know the itinerary of the Seleucid army in Armenia, for our diary does not specify where the Seleucids battled against the Armenian army but only mentions the land of Armil (i.e., Hanigalbat) and its fortresses. However, the impression one gets from the Greek sources which refer to Antiochus' campaign in Armenia is that of only slight opposition on the part of the army

47 M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 169-70; Roueche and Sherwin-White, "Some Aspects of the Seleucid Empire," 8-9; Potts, The Arabian Gulf, 2: 12-14.

246



of Artaxias I against the military might of the Seleu- cid king. This seems to be the reason why Antiochus was willing to let the Armenian king remain on his throne, albeit in a subservient position. It would seem, therefore, that a Seleucid show of force in southern Armenia was enough to convince Artaxias I to lay down his arms. Our assumption then is that Antiochus IV led his army from Antioch-on-the-Orontes to the area east of Lake Van.48 The distance between the Seleucid capital and the modern city of Van, on the eastern shore of the lake, is approximately 869 km.49 According to D. W. Engels, Alexander's army made an average daily progress of fif- teen miles (= 24 km), with a one-day halt in seven.50 Judging from the number of troops that took part in the pompe at Daphne, the Seleucid army that left Antioch in 165 was approximately the same size as Alexander's when it landed in Asia Minor,5' and presumably would have marched at a similar pace. It would have taken forty- three days to cover the distance from Antioch to the eastern shore of Lake Van. In other words, one may assume that a period of a month and a half elapsed from the time Antiochus IV set out from Antioch until he first clashed with the Armenian army. In addition, allowance should be made for waging the battle or battles against the Ar- menian army, although our impression is that the Arme- nian army did not prove formidable.

From Armenia, Antiochus Epiphanes would have descended to Mesopotamia. Since we assume that the Se-

48 Could the words of Dan. 11:45, "He shall pitch his pala- tial tents between the seas and the beautiful holy mountain . . ." (New Revised Version, with one change, "seas" [Hebrew: yam- mim] and not "sea"), refer to Lake Van, Lake Urmia, and Mount Ararat, and thus to Armenia? If so, the second part of the verse, which alludes to Antiochus IV's death, suggests Persia (see below, note 71).

49 Our estimate here is based on the route which seems to be the shortest, i.e., Antioch-Gaziantep-Urfa (Edessa)-Diarbakir- Bitlis-Tatvan-Van. Antiochus IV and his army did not necessar- ily march along this road, but this route (as well as others used in this article) provides a fair estimate of the distances and times involved.

50 Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army (Berkeley: Univ. of California Press, 1978), 154-56. P. A. Brunt gives a lower estimate of only sixteen km a day (Arrian, Loeb Classical Library [Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univ. Press-W. Heinemann, 1976], 1: 488). Admittedly armies in pursuit are known to have attained greater speed, but only for a few days. This is not the case here.

51 For the force at Daphne, Polyb. 30.25.3-11. For Alex- ander's army arriving in Asia Minor, see Brunt, Arrian, 1: lxix-lxxi.

leucid army had reached a point somewhere east of Lake Van, it would be natural to continue the campaign to the southeast. Antiochus IV and his army would have marched through the basin of Lake Van and come upon the Great Zab. The army would then have followed this tributary of the Tigris towards Mesopotamia, abandon- ing the river's course before it loops to the southeast, then crossed the Ser Amadiyeh ridge and descended to the valley of the Tigris.52 Once Antiochus' army covered this difficult terrain and reached Mesopotamia, the king was not obliged to travel with his whole army. The army could then march downstream at a slower pace to the warmer south for winter quarters, presumably in Ely- mais, and Antiochus could then have rejoined his men there for the next campaigning season, which was to be his last.53 The king, on his part, could have collected some of his cavalry and moved towards the Persian Gulf with greater speed, marching down the Tigris through Seleucia and traveling along the river southwards until he reached the site of Alexander's city, or else could have joined the Royal Road and followed it southwards, to Susa.54 It was from Susa that Alexander the Great made his way to the head of the Persian Gulf in 324.55 Antio- chus IV could now retrace the great conqueror's steps, and rename Alexandria Antioch. We have posited here a northern or northeastern approach by Antiochus IV to the Persian Gulf. A more westerly course seems unlikely, not only from a geographical point of view, but also because the astronomer in Babylon learned of the successes of Antiochus in Armenia and the Persian Gulf at one and the same time.

Now the distance between Van and Mosul (the first leg of the second part of Antiochus' journey in 165), is

52 For this route, see Admiralty War Staff: Intelligence Divi- sion, A Handbook of Mesopotamia (1917), 4: 119-21, 129-34, 139-43, 153-57. Shalmaneser III seems to have used a route along the Great Zab in his campaigns against the kingdom of Urartu. See A. K. Grayson, "Assyria: Ashur-Dan to Adad- Nirari V," CAH, III.1: 265.

53 For Antiochus Epiphanes in Elymais see Polyb. 31.9.1-2; Porphyry, FGH, 260, F 53, 56; 1 Macc. 6:1-4; Jos. Ant. 12.354- 55; Appian, Syr. 66. The temple of Artemis (Polyb.; Porphyry, loc. cit.) which Antiochus IV failed to rob is identified by Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria, 29, 463-66, with the temple of Nanaea in Susa. See also E W. Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1979), 3: 473. 54 For the Royal Road, see Herodotus 5.52; and G. Le Rider, Suse sous les Seleucides et les Parthes (Paris: Librairie orien- taliste, 1965), 255, 267.

55 Arrian, Anabasis 7.7.1-2 lists two waterways and one over- land route, all used simultaneously by Alexander and his army.

247



approximately 375 km, and the Seleucid army would have covered it in about eighteen days. For the final part, the king and his escort had to march 908 km in order to reach Charax.56 If we assume a march rate of thirty km per day, with one day of rest in seven,57 this could be done in thirty-six days. It would therefore have taken fifty-four days to complete the entire 1,285 kilometers' march from Van to Charax. To this one must add two elements: the forty-three days' march of the Seleucid army from Antioch-on-the-Orontes to Armenia (noted above); and the time needed for the news of Antiochus' exploits at the vicinity of Antioch-Charax at the head of the Persian Gulf (as it was then) to reach Babylon, some 454 km to the northwest. Assigning a generous twenty days for this last stage58 would still mean that, techni- cally, Antiochus IV could have reached the site where he was to re-found Antioch-Charax some three months after leaving his Syrian capital. The news of his arrival at the innermost recess of the Gulf would then have reached Babylon before the end of the fourth month.

Calculating back from October 30, 165, the terminus ante quem, would place the beginning of the anabasis no later than the end of June 165. Since our estimates were based only on one element, namely the possible march rate of the Seleucid army and its king, it becomes quite clear that the spring of 165 is, not only a terminus a quo, but the most likely date for Antiochus' departure for Armenia and the east. This would mean that the Seleucid king reached Armenia by middle of May or beginning of June 165, and arrived at the shores of the Persian Gulf about September of the same year.

This interpretation of our document accords with, and indeed supports, the mainstream reconstruction of the last years of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The terminus ante

56 On the assumption that Antioch-Charax is Jabel Khayabir, some forty-eight km north of Basra. See J. Hansman, "Charax and the Karkheh," Iranica Antiqua 7 (1967): 38-45; idem, "The Mesopotamian Delta in the First Millennium B.C.," The Geographical Journal 144 (1978): 54-55.

57 Compare the 600 miles covered in thirty-eight days by the 5th Cavalry Division in the autumn of 1917. While advancing forward, this unit did not encounter serious opposition. See A. P. Wavell, The Palestine Campaigns, 3rd ed. (London: Con- stable, 1931), 235. See also N. G. L. Hammond, "A Note on 'Pursuit' in Arrian," CQ 28 (1978): 136.

58 D. M. Lewis, Sparta and Persia (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1977), 57 rightly minimizes the importance and usefulness of fire sig- nals. Note also his cautious remarks concerning the speed of the Persian royal mail and its further reduction in the time of the Seleucids.

quem for Antiochus' exploits in Armenia and the Per- sian Gulf, Tishre 165 B.C.E., furnished by our astronomical diary, clearly supports the view of those who wish to place the Armenian expedition and Antiochus' presence in the Persian Gulf within a broader context, that of the king's anabasis to the east.59 Furthermore, the terminus ante quem, October 30, 165, disproves Bar- Kochva's recent attempt to redate the Daphne games, organized by Antiochus IV, to August 165, and to place the king's departure to Armenia in the following month.60 If the procession and games at Daphne had been celebrated in August, the Seleucid army would have reached Armenia in late September or early October 165, with too little time left both for the king's passage to the area of the Gulf and for news of his deeds to have reached Babylon. Thus the document provides indirect support for the accepted date for the Daphne festival, 166 B.C.E.

Focusing on climate and chronology, we have argued that Antiochus IV and his army left for the east in the spring of 165. However, we have neglected the words of Josephus, which have served as a further support for a spring date for the beginning of Antiochus' anabasis.61 It is true that Josephus does not explicitly say that Antio- chus set out for the east in the spring. He asserts, rather, that the king wanted to invade Judea, at the beginning of the spring. Having seen however, that his resources were dwindling, he decided to leave his son, the future Antio- chus V Eupator, in Antioch with Lysias. Only then did the Seleucid ruler march to Persia in 147 S.E.62 Thus it has been contended that the spring has no relevance to the anabasis of Antiochus IV.63 Leaving aside the additional element of the spring, Josephus closely follows 1 Macc. 3:27-37 here. This text does not supply us with a chronological sequence of historical facts but, rather,

59 For the Armenian campaign see above, note 32. For the Persian Gulf, see Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria, 213; S. A. Nodelman, "A Preliminary History of Characene," Berytus 13 (1960): 85; and Potts, The Arabian Gulf, 2: 16.

60 B. Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus (Cambridge: Cam- bridge Univ. Press, 1989), 466-73. An additional argument against Bar-Kochva would be the onset of the winter by the time the Seleucid army reached Armenia.

61 Ant. 12.293. See M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 166. Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabder, 144, and Habicht, "The Seleucids," 350, favor this date but do not cite Josephus as their reason.

62 Ant. 12.293-97. 63 J. G. Bunge, "Untersuchungen zum zweiten Makkabaer-

buch" (Ph.D. diss., Bonn, 1971), 401, n. 101; Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 467.

248



presumes to relate what the king thought until he decided to go eastward. Therefore Josephus could well have linked the spring to the king's wish to fight the Jews, without meaning to disengage the spring from the departure of Antiochus IV to the east. It seems that Josephus here supplemented his main source, 1 Maccabees, with an item of news from another source, probably Polybius.64

We have attempted here to reconstruct the first year of the anabasis of Antiochus IV, 165 B.C.E. One of the problems raised by this reconstruction is whether it is actually possible to assign so much travel to a period of seven months. Could Antiochus IV, marching with either his whole army or with his cavalry units, have covered the distances suggested? Furthermore, is there time, within this period, for the king's exploits to have been announced in Babylon?

Here a parallel example involving Alexander the Great is instructive. In 331 B.C.E., around mid-April, Alex- ander and his army left Memphis in Egypt for Meso- potamia. There, about September 30, he and his troops won a major victory at Gaugamela, some 1,870 km from Memphis.65 Thus Alexander's army covered 1,870 km in five and a half months, or about 350 km per month. We are suggesting that Antiochus IV traveled 2,155 km in seven months, just over 300 km per month. Moreover, Alexander's speed was checked by his need to face, with all the military forces at his disposal, the Persian army, while Antiochus IV was probably not under such a con- straint, at least during the last leg of his journey to the Persian Gulf. Finally, Alexander's march supports the feasibility of our proposal in yet another way, for Alex- ander's five and a half months included a break at Tyre in order to celebrate there gymnastic and musical games, and to attend to important affairs of state.66 Thus the five and half months of Alexander's journey do not represent uninterrupted travel. These arguments from Alexander's

64 Polybius is quoted in Ant. 12.135-36, 358-59. See M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (Jerusalem: The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974), 1: 113. Ant. 12.402 is also based on Polyb. 31.14.4. See E. R. Bevan, The House of Seleucus (London: E. Arnold, 1902), 2: 200, n. 5. It should be noted that Polybius often connects the beginning of military campaigns with the year's seasons; see, e.g., 2.54.5; 64.1; 5.68.1; 107.4; 24.14.2.

65 See Engels, Alexander the Great, 63-70. For these events in the Babylonian astronomical diary for -330, see Sachs- Hunger Diaries, 1: 178-79.

66 Arrian 3. 6. 1-3; Curtius 4. 8. 9-16. Curtius also mentions Alexander's campaign against the Samaritans, which preceded his arrival at Tyre.

travels render our assessment of the movements of An- tiochus IV Epiphanes in 165 all the more plausible.

IV. THE TEXT OF 163 B.C.E.

Tebet S.E. 148 = Dec. 19, 164-Jan. 16, 163 = -164 month X

Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 3:18 C2 17-18 copy LBAT 379+891+911+99367

17' ... LU.ME9 it-t]i ADDA sa LUGAL GIN.ME?-ni it-ti [...]

18' ... ] x-sa-at sd mAN A sd mAN he-pf ina x [ ...]

17' ... those who] came [wit]h the corpse of the king, with [ ...]

18' . . ] . of/which Antiochus (V) the son of Antio- chus (IV) "BROKEN" in. ... ]


III 17': The identities of those who came with the king's corpse is not preserved. In the historical com-

mentary below it will be demonstrated that this line refers to Philip, the syntrophos of Antiochus IV Epiphanes, and his escort.

III 18': Here "BROKEN" indicates that the notice was copied on to the surviving tablet from a previ-

ous source (an earlier copy of the diary or some other tablet) which was broken at this point.


If the earlier diaries refer to events closely connected to the living Antiochus IV, the third diary refers to his corpse, which was brought to Babylon in the month of Tebet, i.e., between December 19, 164. and January 16, 163. The date here is approximately one month after the king's death first became known in Babylon during the month of Kislev, i.e., between November 20 and De- cember 18, 164.68 This delay of one month not only

67 These lines are LBAT 891: 7'-8'. 68 See above, "Introduction: The Diary for 163 B.C.E." Here

too the Julian dates are slightly revised according to Parker and Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology, 23, 41. The date of the year of Antiochus IV's death is also confirmed astronomi- cally by observations of Halley's Comet during the fall of 164 B.C.E. (Sachs-Hunger Diaries, 3: 10 16-17; 16 C1 9' [for the comet, see the translation, p. 17]). On this topic see A. Wolters,

249



corroborates the date furnished by the Babylonian king list,69 but also suggests that, while news of the king's death was speedily conveyed to Babylon despite the distance involved,70 the transport of his body was a slower affair.71

The astronomical diary mentions "... those who] came [wit]h the corpse of the king." Who, in fact, accompanied the corpse? 2 Macc. 9:29 states that Philip, the syntro-

"Halley's Comet at a Turning Point in Jewish History," The Catholic Biblical Quarterly 55 (1993): 687-97; idem, "ZOHAR HARAQIA (Daniel 12:3) and Halley's Comet," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 61 (1994): 111-20; W. Horowitz, "Halley's Comet and the Judean Revolts Revisited," The Catho- lic Biblical Quarterly 58 (1996): 456-59.

69 Sachs and Wiseman, "A Babylonian King List," 204, 208- 9; E. Grzybek, "Zu einer babylonischen Konigsliste aus der hellenistischen Zeit (Keilscrifttafel BM 35603)," Historia 41 (1992): 195, n. 16.

70 A parallel can be drawn with the death of Nabopolassar on the 8th of Ab (month V) in Babylon in the year 605 B.C.E. The news was reported to his son Nebuchadnezzar, who was then in Syria, possibly at Riblah. Nebuchadnezzar rushed to Babylon where he was crowned King of Babylon on the first of Elul (VI), twenty-three days after the death of his father (see Grayson, Chronicles, 99: 1-100: 11). Thus, within twenty-three days (August 15-Sept. 7, 605 B.C.E.) about 1750 km were covered, first by the couriers bringing the news to Syria and then by Nebuchadnezzar himself returning to Babylon (see Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, 17-18 (BM 21946, lines 10-11).

71 Antiochus IV died at Tabae (Polyb. 31.9.3, Porphyry, FGH, 260, F 56). Tabae has been identified with Gabae/Isfahan (Niese, Geschichte, 3: 218, n. 3; Tarn, The Greeks in Bactria, 214), or at least placed in its vicinity (M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 171, n. 17; Walbank, A Historical Commentary on Polybius, 3: 474). The distance between Gabae/Isfahan and Babylon, approximately 1260 km, could just about be covered, but only if we assume that at least two months passed from the king's death to the arrival of his body in Babylon. Curtius Ru- fus seems to refer to the same Tabae when speaking of Tabas oppidum est in Paraetacene ultima (5.13.2). Curtius notes the location of Tabae when telling of Alexander's pursuit of Dar- ius III. Alexander went from Persepolis to Ecbatana in Media (Arrian, Anabasis 3.18.10-19.5). Tabae should therefore not be located near Gabae/Isfahan, but is to be situated on the Paraetacene-Media border, as far as possible from Persepolis, but near Ecbatana. A location near Ecbatana, not only agrees with Curtius' statement about Tabae, but allows a distance of fewer than the 656 km separating Ecbatana and Babylon (cf. 2 Macc. 9:3, though of limited value here).

phos of Antiochus Epiphanes, escorted the king's body,72 while 1 Macc. 6:55-56 relates that Philip returned from the east with the Seleucid troops who had gone with An- tiochus IV on his anabasis. Thus, Seleucid troops headed by Philip would seem to have been the escort of the king's corpse referred to in the diary.

Our document indicates that the corpse of Antiochus IV was present in Babylon no later than January 16, 163. If our assumption is correct that the corpse was accompanied by Philip and his army, this date can throw light on the vexing question of the chronology of Lysias' second campaign against the Jews, since Philip and his men appear there as well.

During the course of Lysias' second expedition against Judas Maccabaeus, news reached Antiochus V and his guardian, Lysias, that Philip was no longer in the east, but was now seeking to gain control over affairs of state in Antioch. The two immediately changed their plans, negotiated with the Jews, agreed on terms with them, and then left for Antioch.73 When did this second campaign of Lysias take place? According to 1 Macc. 6:20, it was Judas' threat to besiege the citadel of Jeru- salem in 150 S.E. that prompted Lysias and the boy-king Antiochus V Eupator to set out from Antioch towards Judea. In 2 Macc. 13:1, however, Lysias' second campaign is dated to 149 S.E. Scholars are therefore divided between those who prefer the testimony of 2 Maccabees and opt for a 163 B.C.E. date and those who give cre- dence to 1 Maccabees and favor a 162 date.74

72 The epitamator of 2 Macc. 9:29 states that Philip subse- quently fled to Egypt because he feared Antiochus' son. J. A. Goldstein, II Maccabees (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), 372-73, 467, correctly understood the meaning of 2 Macc. 9:29, but was wrong to conclude that the Philip mentioned there should be distinguished from the person bearing the same name in 2 Macc. 13:23. D. Gera will discuss this issue elsewhere.

73 1 Macc. 6:55-63; 2 Macc. 13:23-26; Jos. Ant. 12.379- 386. These events are recorded in summary fashion by Josephus in BJ 1.46. Many scholars believe the royal letter in 2 Macc. 11:22-26 to be the fruit of these negotiations. However, see C. Habicht, "Royal Documents in Maccabees II," HSPh 80 (1976): 15-17.

74 163 B.C.E.: J. Wellhausen, "Uber den geschichtlichen Wert des zweiten Makkabaerbuchs, im verhaltnis zum ersten," Nach- richten von der Konigl. Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. K1. (1905), 151-52; M0rkholm, Antio- chus IV of Syria, 153; K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judaa (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), 19-20, 27, n. 50. 162 B.C.E.: V. Tcherikover,

250



Philip and the army accompanying him are clearly of importance here. Bickermann, for instance, was able to argue, on the basis of Philip's presence, first alongside the dying Antiochus IV and then in Antioch during the second campaign of Lysias, that a date of 162 is out of the question. Bickermann claimed, on the evidence then available, that Antiochus IV had died in the early months of 163. Philip would not then have waited for more than a year before trying to seize Antioch. He would, rather, have marched on the Seleucid capital in the summer following the king's death, i.e., the summer of 163.75 The new datum on the date of the king's death (i.e., it became known in Babylon in November-December 164; see above) only adds weight to Bickermann's argument. In addition, our historical notice, which shows that the corpse of Antiochus IV, and consequently Philip and his army, were present in Babylon no later than January 16, 163, makes a 162 date even more unlikely. What would have kept Philip from marching, in the spring and summer of 163, the 1065 km that separate Babylon from Antioch (up the Euphrates and then via Aleppo)? One should recall that in 165 the king's army covered greater distances, and that, in the following year, it marched, in approximately one month, hundreds of kilometers from Tabae, where the king had died, to Babylon. Thus our document makes it even more likely that the second campaign of Lysias should be dated to 163 B.C.E.

Here, however, one should consider another piece of information, the recently published inscription of Yavneh- Yam, a record containing two or possibly three documents. One of these is a memorandum addressed by the Sidonians in the port of Jamnia to Antiochus V Eu- pator, and another is the king's reply, dated to the month of Loos, 149 S.E. (June-July 163 B.C.E.).76 An intriguing

Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadelphia: The Jew- ish Publication Society and Magnes Press, 1959), 224-25; E. Schiirer, The History of the Jewish People in the Time of Jesus Christ, revised by G. Vermes, F. Millar, and M. Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1973), 1: 167, n. 14; Bar-Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 543-51.

R. Hanhart, "Zur Zeitrechnung des I. und II. Makkabaer- buches," Beihefte zur Zeitschrift fiir die a?ttestamentliche Wis- senschaft 88 (1964): 57-59, 67-68, tries to harmonize the two dates. He dates the siege and the following campaign to between October 163 and April 162 B.C.E.

75 Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabder, 156-57. 76 B. Isaac, "A Seleucid Inscription from Jamnia-on-the-Sea:

Antiochus V Eupator and the Sidonians," IEJ 41 (1991): 132- 44. The text is on p. 133. The date of the letter is in line 6. See

point concerning this inscription is that it makes no mention of the Jews and the king's problems with them at the time. This led the first editor of the Yavneh-Yam inscription to conclude that "no precise connection can be found between the contents of the inscription and any of the known stages in the wars of Judah the Macca- bee."77 Our view, however, is that one should look for a link between the Yavneh-Yam inscription and the Seleu- cid-Jewish conflict, not in the text of the inscription itself, but in the, background of the appeal of the Sidonians of Jamnia-on-the-Sea to their king. It should be remem- bered that at the beginning of the second campaign of Lysias, the Seleucid army advanced through Idumea towards Beth-Zur (1 Macc. 6:31). From this F-M. Abel concluded that the Seleucid army had first marched along the maritime plain of Palestine. Only afterwards did the Seleucid army turn eastwards in order to approach Judea from the west, or perhaps the southwest.78 It is obvious that the Seleucid army would have marched right past Jamnia-on-the-Sea. Since the date of Antiochus Eupa- tor's letter is the same as the date in 2 Maccabees for the second campaign of Lysias, we suggest that both indicate the correct date of this campaign. The Sidonians of Jamnia-on-the-Sea, on hearing of the approach of the royal army, sent their delegates to the king and stressed their long-standing loyalty to his predecessors (lines 8- 11). They seem to have asked the king to grant them the same exemption from taxes which was allowed another (unnamed) community, and in this they were successful (lines 4-5).79 The inscription itself was set up in order to commemorate the royal privileges granted to the Si- donians of Jamnia-on-the-Sea.

also the instructive discussion of Ph. Gauthier, "Bulletin 6pi- graphique," REG 105 (1992): 528-30, no. 552.

77 Isaac, "A Seleucid Inscription" 137-38. However, A. Ka- sher, "A Second-Century B.C.E. Greek Inscription from Iam- nia," Cathedra 63 (1992): 20-21 (in Hebrew), suggests that the Sidonians of Jamnia-on-the-Sea asked the king to grant them favors in return for their help in transferring supplies from northern Syria to Palestine in the course of either the first campaign of Lysias or the second. This is not borne out by the existing text.

78 "Topographie des campagnes machab6ennes," RB 33

(1924): 210; M0rkholm, Antiochus IV of Syria, 153. Bar- Kochva, Judas Maccabaeus, 291 (with map 14), favors a south- western approach, while A. Kasher, Jews and Hellenistic Cities in Eretz-Israel (Tiibingen: J. C. B. Mohr [P. Siebeck], 1990), 87-88, is more cautious, noting both possibilities.

79 For the exemption, see line 12 of the inscription, and the reading proposed by Gauthier, "Bulletin 6pigraphique," no. 552.

251



It is clear then that in June-July 163 the Seleucid army was already approaching Judea. Since the date in 1 Mac- cabees, 150 s.E., serves as a terminus a quo for Lysias' second campaign, it cannot be right. For this year would have begun either in October 163 (according to the Macedonian reckoning), or in April 162 (according to the Babylonian reckoning). This mistaken information in 1 Macc. 6:20 is perhaps the result of a chronological error committed by the author of 1 Maccabees. He dates the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes to 149 s.E.80 This date is accurate according to the Macedonian reckoning, and the author of 1 Maccabees may have gleaned this detail from an external source. However, if the author thought that this date was computed according to the Babylonian reckoning, he would have dated the second campaign of Lysias, which began after the Babylonian and Jewish new year of 1 Nisan, to 150 s.E.81

V. CONCLUSIONS

In sum, we have dealt here with historical notices in three Babylonian astronomical diaries, all of which have

80 1 Macc. 6:16. 81 Bickermann, Der Gott der Makkabaer, 157.

chronological implications for Seleucid history in the reigns of Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his son, Antio- chus V Eupator. The first diary refers to a pompe which is not identical with the festival organized by Antio- chus IV at Daphne. The procession should instead be regarded as part of a local festival instituted by the Greeks of Babylon to celebrate their monarch's victories in Egypt. Thus the diary now supplies us with the third known example of festivals and processions celebrated in the Seleucid kingdom during the reign of Antiochus IV.

The fragments of the second diary actually add some- thing substantive to our knowledge of the movements of the Seleucid king and his army: by Tishre (October 2- October 30) 165, Antiochus IV had not only concluded his victorious Armenian campaign but already reached the Persian Gulf. The date here lends support to the view that Antiochus IV began his anabasis in the spring of 165, and that the games at Daphne took place in 166. Finally, we have used the third diary to argue that Philip the syntrophos escorted the king's corpse to Babylon. His presence at Babylon supplies additional evidence in support of a 163 B.C.E. date for the second campaign of Lysias against the Jews. While the three diaries do not revolutionize what might be termed the mainstream reconstruction of Seleucid history in the years 169-163, they do add bits and pieces to our knowledge and represent a small, but appreciable, step forward.

252
