regulations defined by “the ancestral law” and prescribing a fine to be paid
in the event of their violation (Ant.12.145-46).
The first of these documents is presented as a letter from Antiochus to
a “Ptolemy” (probably to be identified with the Seleucid governor of
Coele-Syria and Phoenicia attested in other contemporary sources). Its
historicity is today generally accepted on the grounds that it conforms in
most respects to known patterns of Seleucid beneficence. The second doc-
ument is more problematic because it lacks a preamble identifying the
king as its author. Some of the prohibitions it mandates find echoes in the
Temple Scrollfrom Qumran (thought to have been composed half a cen-
tury later). If Antiochus did promulgate such a decree, its stipulations were
clearly governed by Jewish conceptualities, rather than conventional Helle-
nistic notions of temple inviolability.
Having secured his southern frontier against Egypt, Antiochus trained
his gaze westward to the remaining Ptolemaic dependencies along the
coasts of Anatolia. But his ambitions went beyond neutralizing the Ptole-
maic Empire. In that same year (197), the Romans defeated Philip V of
Macedon, erstwhile hegemon of Antigonid Greece. Stepping into this po-
litical vacuum, Antiochus crossed the Hellespont in 196 and began project-
ing Seleucid power into Europe. Four years later, the king’s involvement in
Greece precipitated war with Rome. Repulsed by Roman arms, Antiochus
withdrew to Asia, where he was defeated at the Battle of Magnesia late in- Two years later, the humbled monarch ratified the Peace of Apamea,
whose terms included a sizable war-indemnity, the transfer to Rome of
royal hostages as surety for the king’s good behavior, and a total ban on
military involvement in Anatolia or Europe.
Antiochus himself died the following year on campaign in the east.
But the terms of Apamea remained in force, and would have a significant
impact on Seleucid relations with Judea for the next twenty-five years. The
imperative to raise money to pay off annual installments of the indemnity
frequently strained Seleucid resources. It may be that the attempt by
Seleucus IV (Antiochus’s son and successor) to plunder the Jerusalem
Temple treasury a decade after Apamea reflects these pressures (2 Macca-
bees 3). The shadow of Apamea undoubtedly also increased the willingness
of Antiochus’ descendants to accept monetary bribes from rival Jewish as-
pirants to the high priestly office, setting a precedent that would persist
even after the indemnity was paid off. Another long-term effect of Apamea
on Jewish-Seleucid relations was the political instability it engendered.
The treaty’s stipulation that a scion of the House of Seleucus be held hos-
38chris seeman and adam kolman marshakEERDMANS -- Early Judaism (Collins and Harlow) final text
Tuesday, October 09, 2012 12:03:50 PM