The Morbid Bank Of High-Priest John Hyrcanus

John Hyrcanus, a member of the Maccabee/Hasmonean Dynasty, ruled Jerusalem from 135 to 104 BCE. Around the same time as John Hyrcanus’ ascendance, the Jewish state was invaded by the Seleucid Empire, from which the Hasmonean Dynasty of high priests had rebelled in 167 BCE. Antiochus VII, leader of the Seleucids, marched his army to the walls of Jerusalem in 135 or 134 BCE, intending to bring the Jewish realm back into a state of vassalage. A siege ensued, in which both the attackers and defenders suffered from inadequate supplies. As neither side was in an ideal situation to continue the siege, Antiochus VII and John Hyrcanus opened up peace negotiations. For these talks, the high priest needed to find more resources that he could use as leverage in the bargain. As the story goes, John Hyrcanus obtained these bargaining chips from a morbid source.

Josephus, a Jewish priest and historian from the 1st century, wrote about how John Hyrcanus responded to the siege of Antiochus VII. In The Jewish War, Josephus wrote, “Hyrcanus opened the tomb of David, the wealthiest of kings, and extracted more than 3,000 talents. He spent 300 on bribing Antiochus to raise the siege, and used the residue to hire a force of mercenaries—he was the first Jew to adopt this practice” (The Jewish War, I.61). What Josephus biasedly called a bribe, other ancient historians instead interpreted as a submittal by John Hyrcanus to the demands of Antiochus VII. Yet, the high priest of Jerusalem was indeed able to negotiate favorable terms for himself. Although John Hyrcanus, in the negotiations, apparently recognized Seleucid power and agreed to some demilitarization, he also convinced Antiochus VII to recognize Maccabee/Hasmonean rule in Jerusalem, and to allow the dynasty to continue exercising autonomy.

John Hyrcanus’ early concessions worked out in the long run, as he was able to regain lost ground after the death of Antiochus VII in 129 BCE, at which point the Seleucid Empire fell into a succession crisis and civil war. Along with the mercenaries paid by the treasure from King David’s tomb, John Hyrcanus also added a further check against foreign threats by reportedly making some sort of partnership or alliance with Rome.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (Hoard of ancient gold coins, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• Josephus’ The Jewish War, translated by Martin Hammond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
• http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7972-hyrcanus-john-johanan-i 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Hyrcanus-I 
• https://www.livius.org/articles/person/antiochus-vii-sidetes/ 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antiochus-VII-Sidetes 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-Josephus 
• https://www.ancient.eu/King_David/

The Unwise Charge Of Eleazar

After the death of Antiochus IV of the Seleucid Empire in 164 BCE, his successor, Antiochus V, decided that one of the first goals of his reign would be to crush a rebellion in Jerusalem that was led by the theocratic Hasmonaean dynasty. The rebellion was reportedly raised by a man named Matthias (or Mathathias) in 167 BCE, and his son, Judas Maccabaeus (hence the Biblical Books of the Maccabees). Judas was the rebellion’s first great priest-general, beginning his heyday around 164 BCE, not long before Antiochus V came to power.

Around 162 BCE, Antiochus V launched his attack against Jerusalem, reportedly mobilizing tens of thousands of infantry, thousands of cavalry, and nearly one hundred elephants for the assault. Judas Maccabaeus led the Jewish forces out to intercept the Seleucids at Beth-Zechariah, but the battle did not go as planned. The rebel forces showed poor discipline during the encounter, and Judas Maccabaeus’ own brother, Eleazar, was said to have been greatly responsible for the Jewish army’s untimely breakdown in order and morale. According to the Books of the Maccabees and the Jewish historian, Josephus, Eleazar was tempted by the thought of glory into making a rash and foolish charge during the battle of Beth-Zechariah. As the story goes, he hoped to quickly assassinate Antiochus V in the heat of battle, and therefore he scoured the field of carnage for the tallest elephant, presuming that the Seleucid king would be riding atop the most formidable beast. When he spotted the tallest elephant, he vowed to take it down at all cost, and neither friend nor foe was able to stop him from reaching the animal. Josephus, relying on the Books of the Maccabees, recorded this scene in his own text, The Jewish War, and also added a moral to the story at the end of the odd tale:

“So he rushed out far ahead of his own lines and hacked his way through a mass of the enemy to reach the elephant. Unable to get near the supposed king because of his height from the ground, Eleazar struck at the underbelly of the beast, which brought it collapsing down on top of him. He was crushed to death. He had put hope of glory before life itself, but it came to nothing more than a heroic failure. In fact the man riding the elephant was a commoner” (The Jewish War, 1.43-44).

Ultimately, in his attempt to assassinate Antiochus V, Eleazar only managed to assassinate himself—for even the elephant’s commoner rider likely could have survived the fall. After the incident, the Seleucid army’s chain of command remained intact and unconfused, whereas Eleazar’s breaking from rank and subsequent death left the Jewish forces in a state of disarray and demoralization—after all, he was a member of the rebellion’s leading family, and he was likely one of Judas Maccabaeus’ military lieutenants. As the battle continued, the Jewish forces could not regain momentum or advantage and Antiochus V won the day. The Seleucids continued their march into Judea and Judas Maccabaeus was able to do little to stop Antiochus V from occupying Jerusalem before the end of 162 BCE.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (Battle of Zama, by Cornelis Cort, 1567, [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• Josephus’ The Jewish War, translated by Martin Hammond. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.
• https://www.livius.org/articles/person/antiochus-v-eupator/ 
• https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095417227 
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Maccabees 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Antiochus-IV-Epiphanes

The Murder Of Moneylender Armentarius

Armentarius was a moneylender who operated in the late 6th century. As a man of the Jewish religion, he was able to work around the medieval Christian stigma against usury, and could lend money, buy government bonds, and charge interest on his loans. Yet, his benefit of being able to receive interest payments came at great risk, especially as Armentarius’ clients could often be at the top of society, with leading nobles and their assistants making up much of his business.  If he pushed too hard for his loan payoff, or if his clients became distressed because of debts, Armentarius could easily find himself in peril. Armentarius had to manage these touchy relationships himself, for the kings and courts of public opinion in medieval Europe were becoming more and more tainted with antisemitism, allowing for angry debtors to fight back against moneylenders by stoking bias, bigotry and the us-versus-them mentality. Despite the dangers, Armentarius continued lending money and the governing nobles and officials continued to be his targeted audience.

In 584, Armentarius arrived in Tours, hoping to collect money that he was owed by Count Eunomius and Vice-Count Injuriosus. The moneylender knew that his mission was potentially dangerous, so he brought two Christian protectors along with him to Tours, and a fellow Jewish friend also joined the party.  Armentarius and his three companions, upon entering Tours, had a meeting with Count Eunomius and Vice-Count Injuriosus, in which the moneylender was assured that his loans would be reimbursed with interest. After the meeting concluded, Injuriosus invited Armentarius and his associates to his nearby estate in Tours, where they could further discuss payment options over dinner. Injuriosus also promised to provide his guests with lodgings on or near his own property.

Injuriosus, keeping his word, held a feast for the moneylender’s party and, when night began to fall, the vice-count had his servants lead the guests toward their promised lodgings. Yet, all was not as it seemed. Injuriosus had ulterior motives for luring Armentarius onto his estate, and the servants that he had leading the guests were not simple butlers. According to Gregory of Tours, the bishop of the city at the time of these events, “the Jews and the two Christians were killed by the servants of Injuriosus and their bodies were thrown into a well which was near the house” (History of the Franks, VII.23).

The murder of Armentarius and his companions did not go unnoticed, but it was outside influence that finally prompted an investigation and trial. Family and friends of Armentarius became concerned when their loved one disappeared. They retraced his steps to Tours and scoured the city for news of what happened. After some admirable sleuthing, they successfully found the well near Vice-Count Injuriosus’ house and recovered the remains of the four people that had been thrown down into the depths. Citing local hearsay, the suspicious location of the body dumping site, and the large debts that the vice-count owed Armentarius, the family and friends of the moneylender brought their case before the local justice system. Injuriosus, however, had friends and clout in the court, and he assumed a simple defense of swearing that he had not been involved in the murders. Bishop and historian Gregory of Tours reported on this lackluster trial, writing, “He was prosecuted: but, as I have said, he denied his guilt vehemently, and the plaintiffs had no evidence on which he could be convicted. He was sentenced to clear himself by oath” (History of the Franks, VII.23). After this disappointing result, Armentarius’ family reportedly followed up by bringing their case directly to King Childebert II of the Franks (r. 575-595). The king and his court ignored the case, however, and no further trials of Vice-Count Injuriosus were held concerning the murder of Armentarius and his associates.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (Scene from Frankish History of Duke Guntram Boso being ambushed on the road, painted by Lawrence Alma-Tadema  (1836–1912), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The History of the Franks by Gregory of Tours, translated by Lewis Thorpe. New York: Penguin Classics, 1971.

The Jewish Khaganate Of The Khazars

One of the most intriguing peoples of the Middle Ages were the Khazars, a Turkic tribe of obscure origin who long dominated the regions above the Black and Caspian Seas. The Khazar Khaganate was a major power that jostled with the Empire of Constantinople and the Arab Empire for influence on the eastern end of the Mediterranean. In the web of international politics, the Khazars often sided with Constantinople against threats such as the Rus, the Bulgars and the encroachment of Muslim forces into the Anatolian and Caucasus region. The Khazar friendship with Constantinople was most evident in the 8th century, when the Khazars provided brides to Emperor Justinian II (r. 685-695, 705-711) and Constantine V (r. 741-775)—Constantine’s son was called Leo the Khazar (r. 775-780). Meanwhile, the Khazars had spent much of the 8th century in a state of hostility against the Umayyad and then the Abbasid Caliphates, raiding as far as Mosul in 730 but finally making peace with the Abbasids in 798. As interesting as Khazar foreign policy may be, the true uniqueness of the Khazars shows most in their religion, specifically the sudden adoption of Judaism among the Khazar elites by the end of the 8th century.

Under vague circumstances, the khagan (leader) of the Khazar Khaganate, as well as his administrative lieutenant and nearly every chieftain under the khagan’s influence, decided to convert of Judaism between 740 and 800. In the early 9th century, the Khazars took a further step to release a coin that praised Moses. Despite their adoption of Judaism, the Khazar leadership maintained some of their traditional customs, such as the existence of the khagan’s harem, which, according to the Abbasid diplomat Ibn Fadlān, numbered a total of twenty-five wives in the 10th century. As with their willingness to tolerate the harem, the Khazar leaders were also fairly lenient to the many subjects in their domain who did not adopt Judaism. Nevertheless, the Khazar leaders were known to take vengeance against any community that dared harm a synagogue in the Khazar Khaganate.

The downfall of the Khazar Khaganate occurred simultaneously with the rise of the Kievan Rus. The Rus appeared as an emerging power in the 9th century. They showed their boldness and strength by making direct assaults against Constantinople in 860, 907 and 941. Sviatoslav I, who became the Grand Prince or king of the Kievan Rus in the early 940s, would be the man to eventually topple the Khazar Khaganate. From 965-969, Sviatoslav relentlessly campaigned against the Khazars, invading deep into the khaganate, where he sacked the Khazar capital and demolished Khazar political influence in the region. Besides the Rus, the Ghuzz Turks and the Volga Bulgars also profited from the fall of the Khazar Khaganate.

Written by C. Keith Hansley

Picture Attribution: (Volga River trade negotiations between Rus and Khazars, painted by S. V. Ivanov (1864–1910), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• Risala by Ibn Fadlān, translated by Paul Lunde and Catoline Stone. New York, Penguin Classics, 2012. 
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Khazar 
• https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/khazars 
• https://www.historytoday.com/archive/khazaria-forgotten-jewish-empire 
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Kievan-Rus 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Svyatoslav-I  

Multiple Ancient Historians Claimed Vespasian Was A Miraculous Healer Foretold By Oracles

In July and August of the year 69 CE, the legions stationed in the eastern end of the Roman Empire, from the Black Sea region to Egypt, pledged their loyalty to Vespasian in his bid to claim the title of emperor. Ironically, he had been sent to Judea by Nero around the year 66 to crush a rebellion, but now Vespasian was going to become what he had originally been tasked to hunt—a rebel. It was the Year of the Four Emperors (69 CE) and so far two emperors had already died in the opening months of that chaotic year. The only contenders left in the free-for-all were Emperor Vitellius and Vespasian, the rogue governor of Judea. Vespasian and his supporters quickly proved themselves to be the superior force, pushing their way into Rome by December and brutally executing Emperor Vitellius.

Vespasian was brilliant at public relations. He commanded his rebellion from afar, so as to escape any connection to the bloody horrors of Civil War. Therefore, while the prospective emperor’s trusted lieutenants were burning Rome and massacring dissidents, Vespasian was innocently away in Egypt. He was such a master of plausible deniability that the ancient biographer, Suetonius, adoringly stated “My research shows that no innocent party was ever punished during Vespasian’s reign except behind his back or while he was absent from Rome” (The Twelve Caesars, Divus Vespasian, section 15).

Another of Vespasian’s public relations successes was his ability to surround himself with an aura of divinity. It was an idea long used by the emperors—Julius Caesar, Augustus and Emperor Claudius had all been posthumously recognized as gods and the descendants of these men touted their divine lineage for political gain. Vespasian, however, brought this tactic to a new level.

 According to numerous ancient Roman historians, Emperor Vespasian was widely believed to be able to perform holy miracles. Three ancient scholars—Tacitus, Suetonius and Cassius Dio (the first two lived during the reign of Vespasian)—specifically mentioned two instances of miracle healings that Vespasian allegedly performed. The healings were both said to have occurred in Alexandria around June or July of the year 70. As the story goes, two debilitated men approached Emperor Vespasian together and threw themselves to the ground before him. One of the men was blind and the other had an unresponsive hand. Vespasian decided to let the supplicants speak. The result of their interaction would become one of the most talked-about events in the reign of the new emperor.

The pair announced that the god, Serapis, had appeared to them in a dream or vision and had proclaimed that Vespasian possessed the power to heal their disabilities. Serapis had apparently also given specific instructions on how the cures could be achieved. The blind man claimed that he would be healed if Vespasian spat into his eye and the person with the unmoving fingers would be healed if the emperor stepped on his withered hand. According to the tale, the emperor was bashful about attempting the healing, yet his friends and advisors ultimately convinced him to try. Following the procedure provided by the god, Serapis, Vespasian spat into the blind man’s eye, and, to everyone’s amazement, the man exclaimed that he could see again. The emperor then stepped upon the other man’s hand, which, after being stepped on, immediately began to work perfectly.

Suetonius, Cassius Dio and Tacitus did not question if the healing was a historical event and gave the story the benefit of the doubt. Tacitus, however, did attempt to provide a more medical explanation of what might have occurred that day. He mused that perhaps Vespasian’s spittle had cleared an eyelash or some other obstruction from the blind man’s eye and that the injured hand of the other supplicant might have been fixed by Vespasian using his foot to apply pressure to dislocated joints, thereby snapping them back into place. Whatever the case, the story of Vespasian’s healings in Alexandria spread like wildfire, and, regardless of whether it was all a political ploy, pure luck, or truly a divine miracle, the spectacle became the talk of the empire. Tacitus wrote: “The hand was instantly restored to use, and the day again shone for the blind man. Both facts are told by eye-witnesses even now when falsehood brings no reward” (The Histories, Book IV, section 81).

One of the greatest contributions to Vespasian’s aura of divinity, however, was his claim to be the fulfillment of biblical messianic prophecy. As a governor of Judea that had gone on to rule the Roman world, Vespasian milked the messianic prophecies of the Middle East for all their worth. Such theories linking Vespasian to Jewish prophecies and oracles appeared in the works of several ancient historians. Suetonius wrote: “An ancient superstition was current in the east that out of Judea would come the rulers of the world. This prediction, as it later proved, referred to the Roman emperors, but the Jews, who read it as referring to themselves, rebelled” (Divus Vespasian, section 4). Tacitus made the same assumption in his work. He stated: “This mysterious prophecy had in reality pointed to Vespasian and Titus, but the common people, as is the way of human ambition, interpreted these great destinies in their own favour, and could not be turned to the truth even by adversity” (The Histories, Book V, section 13). Interestingly, even the Jewish historian and priest, Josephus (c. 37-100), joined the bandwagon with the Roman scholars. In his text, The Jewish War, Josephus wrote, “Now, this oracle certainly denoted the government of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea” (Jewish War, Book VI, chapter 5, section 4 (6.313)).

Written by C. Keith Hansley.

Picture Attribution: (Triumph of Vespasian and Titus, by Giulio Romano (1499–1546), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons).

Sources:

• The Twelve Caesars by Suetonius, translated by Robert Graves and edited by James B. Rives. New York: Penguin Classics, 2007.
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Histories/4D*.html#ref4 
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Tacitus/Histories/5A*.html#13 
• http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/65*.html#66-1.4 
• https://www.gutenberg.org/files/2850/2850-h/2850-h.htm 
• https://lexundria.com/j_bj/6.313/wst 
• https://www.livius.org/articles/religion/messiah/messianic-claimant-14-vespasian/ 
• https://www.britannica.com/biography/Flavius-Josephus  

The Catholic Fourth Lateran Council (In 1215) Proposed Eerie Ideas That Would Be Revived Around WWII

(Painting of the Fourth Lateran Council, by Cesare Nebbia (Italian, Orvieto ca. 1536–1614 Orvieto), [Public Domain] via Creative Commons, Free Art License)

In 1215, Pope Innocent II (r. 1198-1216) called into session the Fourth Lateran Council. The council was made up of around 400 bishops, 800 other priests of high rank, and a large contingent of representatives on behalf of the monarchs of Christendom. The Fourth Lateran is lauded as one of the greatest church councils preceding the Council of Trent (1545-1563). The members of Pope Innocent II’s council debated reforming church theology, tithes and church lands. They also confirmed the idea of transubstantiation in the Eucharist, the Christian religious meal—transubstantiation argues that the bread and wine taken in the Eucharist transforms into the essence of Jesus’ blood and body. While the Fourth Lateran Council clarified and reformed the Catholic Church in many positive ways, it was in no way perfect. The council’s decisions concerning the treatment of Jews were especially awkward.

Canons 67 through 70 of the Fourth Lateran Council stated the church council’s decisions concerning what to do with the Jewish populations living in Christian lands. Canon 67 decreed that Jews could no longer loan money in return for an interest rate (usury), and the council argued that some Christians should be pressured by the church to end their commerce with Jews. Banning usury was not an uncommon occurrence, as the church thought usury was sinful (even for Christians) for much of history. Yet, Canon 67 specifically singled out Jews. The Council also proposed that if a Jew bought a home or building belonging to a Christian, the Jew would be required to continue paying the tithes of the Christian from which they were buying property—therefore the church would not loose any tithe money if Christians left their local parish.

In Canon 68, Jews and Muslims were ordered to wear clothing that distinguished their religion. The canon stated that this was to end intermarriage between Christians, Jews and Muslims. A copy of the Fourth Lateran Council found on The Global Catholic Network (EWTN) states,

“Whence it sometimes happens that by mistake Christians join with Jewish or Saracen women, and Jews or Saracens with Christian women. In order that the offense of such a damnable mixing may not spread further, under the excuse of a mistake of this kind, we decree that such persons of either sex, in every Christian province and at all times, are to be distinguished in public by the character of their dress” (Fourth Lateran Council, Canon 68).

Canon 69 forbade Jews from holding public office, arguing that Jews should not be given positions of power over Christians. At the end of the canon, the council decreed that pagans could not hold public office, either. Muslims were not mentioned in the canon, but were likely excluded from public office, as well, or at least faced discrimination. Canon 70 called for priests to be on the lookout for new Jewish converts to Christianity and to closely observe them for any sign of backsliding into their old religious habits. If a faltering convert was found, the priest was given permission to use “salutary or necessary coercion” (Fourth Lateran Council, 70). After Canon 70, the council diverged from the topic of Judaism and moved on to planning another Crusade.

Sources:

• The European Reformations (Second Edition) by Carter Lindberg. Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010.  
• https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/LATERAN4.HTM 
• http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09018a.htm  
• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Lateran-Council-Roman-Catholicism