Appendix I

APPENDIX I

HISTORY OF CHALCIS, ITUREA, AND ABILENE
LITERATURE
NORIS, Annus et epochae Syromacedonum, iii. 9. 3, ed. Lips. pp. 316-322 (History of the City of Chalcis).
BELLEY, “Observations sur les médailles du tetrarque Zenodore” (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, first series, vol. xxviii. 1761, pp. 545-556).
MÜNTER, De rebus Ituraeorum, Hafniae 1824 (a comprehensive monograph).
WINER, Biblisches Realwörterb. articles “Abilene” (i. 7 f.) and “Iturea” (i. 622).
SCHENKEL, Bibellexicon, articles “Abilene” and “Iturea.”
RIEHM’S Handwörterbuch des biblischen Altertums, articles “Abilene,” “Iturea,” and “Lysanias.”
HERZOG, Real-Encyclopaedie, 2 Aufl. i. 87-89 (article “Abilene” by Wieseler) and vii. 261 f. (article “Ituräa” by Rüetschi).
CLESS, art “Ituräa” in Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie der class. Alterthums-wissenschaft, iv. 337-340.
RITTER, Erdkunde, xvii. 1, pp. 14-16 (on the Itureans).
KUHN, Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs, ii. (1865), pp. 169-174 (on the dynasties of Chalcis, Abilene, and Iturea).
MARQUARDT, Römische Staatsverwaltung, 2 Aufl. i. 1881, pp. 400-403 (on the dynasties of Chalcis and Abilene).
WIESELER, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien (1869), pp. 169-204 (Lysanias of Abilene).
DE SAULOY, “Recherches sur les monnaies des tétrarques héréditaires de la Chalcidène et de l’Abilène” (Wiener numismatische Monatshefte von Egger, 5 Bd. 1 Abth. (1869) pp. 1-34).
REIOHARDT, Numismat. Zeitschrift, edited by Huber and Karabacek, ii. 1870, pp. 247-250 (Review of the treatise of De Saulcy).
RENAN, “Mémoire sur la dynastie des Lysanias d’Abilène” (Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. xxvi. 2, 1870, pp. 49-84).
Among the sons of Ishmael there is mentioned in the Old Testament one יְטוּר (Genesis 25:15; 1 Chronicles 1:31; 1 Chronicles 5:19). It is without doubt the same tribe that is referred to in the later history under the name Ἰτουραῖοι or Ἰτυραῖοι. The earliest mention of this people, so far as I know, is to be found in the writings of the Jewish Hellenist Eupolemus (in the middle of the second century before Christ), who mentions the Itureans among the tribes fought against by David.[1490] Then we know from Josephus and his authorities, Strabo and Timagenes, that the Jewish king Aristobulus I., B.C. 105-104, fought against the Itureans and took from them a portion of their territory (Antiq. xiii. 11. 3). And from this time onward they are frequently mentioned. They were designated sometimes as Syrians, sometimes as Arabians.[1491] The proper names of Iturean soldiers, which are mentioned on Latin inscriptions, are Syrian.[1492]—At the time of the Roman conquest they were still an uncivilised robber tribe,[1493] but greatly celebrated for their skill as bowmen. Even Caesar made use of Iturean bowmen in the African war.[1494] The triumvir Marc Antony had some of them as his bodyguard, and with them he terrorized the Senate to the great scandal of Cicero.[1495] Poets and historians speak of the Iturean bowmen down to the later days of the empire.[1496]
[1490] Eusebius, Praep. evang. ix. 30: Στρατεῦσαι δʼ αὐτὸν καὶ ἐπὶ Ἰδουμαίους καὶ Ἀμμανίτας καὶ Μωαβίτας καὶ Ἰτουραίους καὶ Ναβαταίους καὶ Ναβδαίους.
[1491] Appian, Civ. v. 7: τὴν Ἰτουραίαν καὶ ὅσα ἄλλα γένη Σύρων.—Vibius Sequester, ed. Hessel, p. 155: “Ithyrei vel Itharei Syrii.”—Also Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 23. 81, names the Ituraeorum gentes among the tribes of Syria.—Dio Cassius, lix. 12: τὴν τῶν Ἰτουραίων τῶν Ἀράβων. Strabo, p. 735, joins Ἰτουραῖοι τε καὶ Ἄραβες. So, too, at p. 756.—Epiphanius, Haer. xix. 1: ἀπὸ τῆς Ναβατικῆς χώρας καὶ Ἰτουραίας. Compare Eupolemus in Eusebius, Praep. evang. ix. 30.
[1492] We have, e.g. Bargathes, Baramna, Beliabus, Bricbelus (all four on one inscription, Münter, de rebus Ituraeorum, p. 40 sq., more correctly in Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 4371), Monimus, Jerombal (Münter, p. 42=Corp. Inscr. Rhenan. ed. Brambach, n. 1234), Hanel, Jamlicus (Münter, p. 42 sq.=Brambach, n. 1233=Wilmanns, Exampla Inscr. Lat. n. 1530).—Compare besides, Münter, pp. 8-10.
[1493] Strabo, pp. 755, 756; Cicero, Philipp. ii. 112.
[1494] Bell. Africanum, 20: “sagittariisque ex omnibus navibus Ityreis Syris et cujusque generis ductis in castra compluribus frequentabat sua scopias.”
[1495] Cicero, Philipp. ii. 19: “confiteare hunc ordinem hoc ipso tempore ab Ituraeis circumsederi.”—Philipp. ii. 112: “cur homines omnium gentium maxime barbaros Ituraeos cum sagittis deducis in forum?”—Philipp. xiii. 18: “haec subsellia ab Ituraeis occupabantur.”
[1496] Virgil, Georg. ii. 448: “Ituraeos taxi torquentur in arcus.”—Lucan, Pharsal. vii. 230: “Ituraeis cursus fuit inde sagittis.” Ibid. vii. 514: “tunc et Ituraei Medique Arabesque soluto arcu turba minax.”—A military diploma of A.D. 110 (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 868: “cohors I. Augusta Ituraeorum sagittariorum.—Arrian, Alan. 18: οἱ πεζοὶ τοξόται, οἱ τῶν Νομάδων καὶ Κυρηναίων καὶ Βοσπορανῶν τε καὶ Ἰτουραίων—Vopisc. vita Aureliani, c. 11 (in the Scriptores historiae Augustae): “habes sagittarios Ityraeos trecentos.”—Vibius Sequester, ed. Kessel, p. 155: “Ithyrei vel Itharei Syrii usu sagittae periti.”
The districts inhabited by them may not always have been the same. But during the period of which we have fullest and most accurate information about them, they are never spoken of as resident elsewhere than in Mount Lebanon. Christian theologians indeed endeavour to place it as near as possible to Trachonitis on account of Luke 3:1. Even Eusebius has for this reason identified Trachonitis and Iturea.[1497] But all historical authorities point most distinctly to Lebanon. So pre-eminently Strabo, who repeatedly designates the Itureans mountaineers and inhabitants of that particular mountain which rises upon the plain of Massyas, and says that they had Chalcis as their capital.[1498] The plain of Massyas or Marsyas is the plain between the Lebanon and the Anti-Lebanon,[1499] beginning in the north at Laodicea of the Lebanon and stretching south as far as Chalcis.[1500] Since the Itureans are often named together with the Arabians,[1501] they are to be looked for in the mountain range that bounds the Massyas plain on the east, that is, in the Anti-Lebanon. They appear also in later accounts as inhabitants of the Lebanon. Dio Cassius (xlix. 32) plainly names the older Lysanias king of the Itureans. But he was son and successor of Ptolemy Mennäus, whose kingdom just embraccd the Lebanon and the plain of Massyas with the capital Chalcis (see below, p. 329 f.). On the well-known inscription of the time of Quirinius his subordinate general Q. Aemilius Secundus says of himself: “missu Quirini adversus Ituraeos in Libano monte castellum eorum cepi.”[1502] During the time of the Vespasian war, Josephus in his Life, xi., mentions a Οὐᾶρος βασιλικοῦ γένους, ἔκγονος Σοέμου τοῦ περὶ τὸν Λίβανον τετραρχοῦντος. But this Soemus was probably the same as is designated by Dio Cassius and Tacitus the ruler of the Itureans.[1503] We never find anywhere any indication that the Itureans had dwelt in any other region than in the Lebanon. The opinion of Wetzstein, that they are to be looked for on the eastern borders of the Hauran,[1504] is therefore just as erroneous as the older view that the valley of Dschedur, south of Damascus, had received its name from them. The latter theory is now found on philological grounds to be impossible.[1505]
[1497] Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 268: Ιτουραία ἡ καὶ Τραχωνῖτις. Ibid. p. 298: Τραχωνῖτις χώρα ἡ καὶ Ἰτουραία.
[1498] Strabo, xvi. 2. 10, p. 753: οὐ πόρρω δʼ οὐδʼ Ἡλιούπολις καὶ Χαλκὶς ἡ ὑπὸ Πτολεμαίῳ τῷ Μενναίου τῷ τὸν Μασσύαν κατέχοντι καὶ τὴν Ἰτουραίων ὀρεινήν. Ibid. xvi. 2. 18, p. 755: μετὰ δὲ τὸν Μάκραν ἐστὶν ὁ Μασσύας ἔχων τινὰ καὶ ὀρεινά, ἐν οἷς ἡ Χαλκὶς ὥσπερ ἀκρόπολις τοῦ Μασσύου· ἀρχὴ δʼ αὐτοῦ Λαοδίκεια ἡ πρὸς Λιβάνῳ. τὰ μὲν οὖν ὀρεινὰ ἔχουσι πάντα Ἰτουραῖοί τε καὶ Ἄραβες. Ibid. xvi. 2. 20, p. 756: ἕπειτα πρὸς τὰ Ἀράβων μέρη καὶ τῶν Ἰτουραίων ἀναμὶξ ὄρη δύσβατα (in regard to this see note 16).—Christian lexicographers also explain “Iturea” by “mountain land” (montenae, ὀρεινή). See Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, pp. 64, 176, 193; Apuleius, Florida, i. 6, styles the Itureans frugum pauperes, which precisely represents the condition of dwellers in mountainous regions.
[1499] Polybius, v. 45. 8 f.
[1500] This may be inferred from the passages quoted from Strabo. On the position of both cities, see below, notes 17 and 18.
[1501] Strabo, xvi. 2. 18. p. 755. Compare also above, note 2.
[1502] Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. iv. 1881, p. 538.—On the genuineness of the inscription, see vol. i. of present work, p. 357.
[1503] Dio Cassius, lix. 12; Tacitus, Annales, xii. 23.
[1504] Wetzstein, Reisebericht über Hauran und die Trachonen, 1860, pp. 90-92
[1505] It would seem that Wetzstein’s view is favoured only by the third passage of Strabo (xvi. 2. 20, p. 756), where Strabo mentions the Trachones in connection with Damascus and “those inaccessible mountains in the territories of the Arabians and Itureans.” The order of succession in the enumeration seems to point to the Hauran. In fact, it must be intended at least that this district should be included. But how the matter is to be understood is seen by a comparison of the words of Strabo that follow with Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1-3. Strabo proceeds to say that in these mountains there are enormous caverns, which robbers used as hiding-places. But the robber bands led by Zenodorus were now destroyed by the Romans. This undoubtedly is the same state of matters as is described by Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1-3. From this particular and detailed report we see that the proper domain of Zenodorus was the district of Panias (Antiq. xv. 10. 3), but that he made common cause with robbers haunting Trachonitis and Auranitis (xv. 10. 1). The territory of Zenodorus (on the southern spaces of this Lebanon) is now, as our sketch will show, a portion of the once important Iturean kingdom. When, therefore, Strabo says that this mountain range, full of caverns, lay “in the territories of the Arabians and Itureans” (πρὸς τὰ Ἀράβων μέρη καὶ τῶν Ἰτουραίων), he means by the μέρη Ἰτουραίων evidently the country of Zenodorus. It cannot therefore from his words be concluded that the Itureans themselves dwelt in the Hauran.
In the last decades before the arrival of Pompey, the Itureans belonged to an important confederacy, which recognised as its head Ptolemy the son of Mennäus (Πτολεμαῖος ὁ Μενναίου); for his kingdom, according to the first passage quoted from Strabo (xvi. 2. 10, p. 753), embraced “the mountain lands of the Itureans” and the plain of “Massyas” with the capital Chalcis.[1506] The plain of Massyas runs north as far as Laodicea of Lebanon.[1507] But it would seem from the other passages that Ptolemy, like Alexander Jannäus, pushed his conquests beyond this limit. His territory (for to him applies what Strabo, xvi. 2. 18, p. 755, says of the inhabitants of the Lebanon) extended westward to the sea. Botrys and Theuprosopon (Θεοῦ πρόσωπον) belonged to him. Byblus and Berytus were threatened by him. In the east the Damascenes suffered at his hands.[1508] In the south the district of Panias, as may be inferred from the history of Zenodorus (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 10. 1-3, compare with this passage also below, p. 333), belonged to him. Indeed in the time of the Jewish king Aristobulus I., the kingdom of the Itureans seems to have embraced even Galilee (see vol. i. of present work, pp. 293, 294). In any case the Itureans were in that direction immediate neighbours of the Jews. We have therefore before us a State constructed precisely in the same fashion as was the Jewish State of that time, only that Ptolemy, son of Mennäus, was in point of civilisation a good way in advance of Alexander Jannäus.
[1506] Josephus also names Chalcis on the Lebanon as the capital of Ptolemy (Antiq. xiv. 7. 4: δυναστεύων Χαλκίδος τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ Λιβάνῳ ὄρει; Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 2: ὃς ἐκράτει τῆς ὑπὸ τῷ Λιβάνῳ Χαλκίδος). It lay on the route of Pompey’s march, Antiq. xiv. 3. 2, south of Heliopolis. Compare also: Robinson, Bibliotheca Sacra, v. 90; Later Biblical Researches, p. 500; Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 1, p. 186 ff.; Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, viii. 1885, p. 35.—There is one other Chalcis not to be confounded with this one, from which the province of Chalcidice haa its name. This Chalcis lay much farther north, according to the Itinerarium Antonini only 18 mil. pass. south of Beröa(Vetera Romanorum itineraria, ed. Wesseling, p. 193 eq.). Pliny, Hist. Nat. v. 23. 81, calls it Chalcidem cognowinatam ad Belum. Compare also v. 26. 89. Generally: Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 2, 1592 ff.—On both cities, Noris, Annus et epochae, p. 316 sqq.; Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 400.
[1507] Strabo, xvi. 2, 18, p. 755.—Laodicea on the Lebanon (not to be confounded with Laodicea by the sea) lay, according to the Itinerarium Antonini (ed. Wesseling, p. 198), 18 mil. pass. south of Emesa. Compare Pauly’s Real-Encyclopaedie, iv. 763 f.; Furrer, Zeitschrift des DPV. viii. 31.
[1508] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 16. 3: ὃς βαρὺς ἦν τῇ πόλει γείτων.
Ptolemy, son of Mennäus, reigned from about B.C. 85 to about B.C. 40. About B.C. 85, from fear of him, the Damascenes called in the aid of Aretas, king of the Arabians (Antiq. xiii. 15. 2; Wars of the Jews, i. 4. 8). About B.C. 78, Aristobulus, son of Queen Alexandra, made a journey to Damascus, avowedly with the object of protecting it against Ptolemy (Antiq. xiii. 16. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 5. 3). When Pompey arrived, Ptolemy purchased immunity from him by the payment of a thousand talents (Antiq. xiv. 3. 2). Pompey, however, destroyed the fortified places in the Lebanon (Strabo, xvi. 2. 18. p. 755), and undoubtedly also curtailed the territory of Ptolemy in a way similar to that in which he dealt with the Jewish territory.[1509] In B.C. 49, Ptolemy took under his personal care the sons and daughters of the Jewish king Aristobulus II., who had been deposed and quite recently murdered by the party of Pompey (Antiq. xiv. 7. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 9. 2). In B.C. 42, when Cassius had left Syria, Ptolemy supported Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, in his endeavour to secure to himself the government of Judea (Antiq. xiv. 12. 1). Ptolemy died during the progress of the Parthian war, B.C. 40 (Antiq. xiv. 13. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 1). As he is never designated “king” (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 7. 4: δυναστεύων), it is possible that the coins, which for the most part have the incomplete superscription Πτολεμαίου τετράρχου ἀρχ(ιερέως), belong to him.[1510]
[1509] Reference is made to the subjugation of Ptolemy in the accounts given of the subjugation of the Itureans by Pompey in Appian, Mithridat. 106; Eutropius, vi. 14; Orosius, vi. 6.
[1510] Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 263 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 145, Suppl. viii. 119; Münter, De rebus Ituraeorum, p. 37; Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique, p. 116, pl. lvi. n. 14; Renan, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscr. xxvi. 2, p. 62; De Saulcy, Wiener numismat. Monatshefte, v. 1, pp. 26-28; Mélanges de Numismatique, t. iii. 1882, p. 198 sq. (on the coins there given is to be read … λεμαι … ετραρχο αρχι).—Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe auf antiken Münzen, 1885, p. 44, contends that the word Χαλκιδ is to be found on the coins. All the more then, in consequence of our defective knowledge of these matters, it still remains a posribility that the coins belong to some unknown Ptolemy. Head, Historia Numorum (1887), p. 655.
Ptolemy was succeeded by his son Lysanias (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 13. 3; Wars of the Jews, i. 13. 1), who therefore obtained the kingdom with the same extent of territory as had been left to his father by Pompey. Dio Cassius styles him “King of the Itureans” (Dio Cassius, xlix. 32). His reign falls in the time of Antony, who also laid the Itureans under a heavy tribute (Appian, Civ. v. 7). At the instigation of Cleopatra, Antony caused Lysanias to be executed in B.C. 36 (on the reckoning of the date, see vol. i. p. 402), on the pretence that he had been conspiring with the Parthians, and gifted a large portion of his territory to Cleopatra (Josephus, Antiq. xv. 4. 1; Wars of the Jews, i. 22, 3; Dio Cassius, xlix. 32).[1511] Since Dio Cassius and Porphyry call him “king,” it is doubtful whether the coins bearing the superscription Λυσανίου τετράρχου καὶ ἀρχιερέως belong to him, for there were one or more younger princes of this name.[1512] At the same time writers were accustomed to apply the title of βασιλεύς in a loose way even to tetrarchs.
[1511] To this also refers the statement of Porphyry in Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 170: Τὸ δʼ ἑκκαιδέκατον (scil. “year of Cleopatra”) ὠνομάσθη τὸ καὶ πρῶτον, ἐπειδὴ τελευτήσαντος Λυσιμάχου τῆς ἐν Συρίᾳ Χαλκίδος βασιλέως Μάρκος Ἀντώνιος ὁ αὐτοκράτωρ τήν τε Χαλκίδα καἰ τοὺς περὶ αὐτὴν τόπους παρέδωκε τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ. Instead of Λυσιμάχου it is now generally admitted that we should read Λυσανίου.
[1512] See the coins in Mionnet, Suppl. viii. 119 f.; Münter, De rebus Ituraeorum, p. 38; Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique, p. 116 sq. lvi. n. 15, 16; Renan, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscr. xxvi. 2, p. 62 sq.; De Saulcy, Wiener numismat. Monatshefte, v. 1, p. 29; Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe, p. 44, table vi. 18; Head, Historia Numorum, p. 655.—In settling the question as to whether our Lysanias bore the title of Tetrarch the inscription given in note 26 has to be taken into account.
The further history of the country cannot be followed out in more detail. But it is certain that the once important kingdom of Ptolemy and Lysanias was gradually cut up more and more into smaller districts. We can quite definitely distinguish four different districts, all of which originally belonged to the one kingdom of Chalcis.
1. About the year 23 B.C. (with regard to the chronology, see vol. i. p. 409) Josephus tells of a certain Zenodorus who had taken on lease the possessions that previously belonged to Lysanias (Antiq. xv. 10. 1: ἐμεμίσθωτο τὸν οἶκον τοῦ Λυσανίου; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4: ὁ τὸν Λυσανίου μεμισθωμένος οἶκον). This Zenodorus took part in the robberies in Trachonitis, on account of which Trachonitis was separated from the dominions under the sway of Zenodorus, and was conferred upon Herod (Antiq. xv. 10. 1-2; Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4).[1513] Three years later, in B.C. 20, Zenodorus died, and then Augustus conferred upon Herod also the territories over which he had ruled, namely, Ulatha and Panias (Antiq. xv. 10. 3: τὴν τούτου μοῖραν οὐκ ὀλίγην οὖσαν … Οὐλάθαν καὶ Πανιάδα καὶ τὴν πέριξ χώραν; compare Wars of the Jews, i. 20. 4; Dio Cassius, liv. 9: Ζηνοδώρου τινὸς τετραρχίαν)[1514] A difficulty arises here inasmuch as Zenodorus is mentioned at first only as lessee or farmer of the οἶκος Λυσανίου, whereas mention is afterwards made of his own country, Dio Cassius speaking of his tetrarchy, which was obtained by Herod. The difficulty might be explained by regarding the two as different territories. But against this may be alleged the circumstance that Josephus most decidedly, at least in his first reference to him, would have designated him by his own territory, if that territory had been different from the one which he had farmed out. We are therefore constrained to regard the two as identical. That the district of Ulatha and Panias had formerly belonged to the dominion of Lysanias, i.e. to the Iturean kingdom, is highly probable, since the latter extended as far as the borders of the Jewish country (see above, p. 330). It seems therefore that Zenodorus, after the death of Lysanias, had received on rent a portion of his territory from Cleopatra, and that after Cleopatra’s death this “rented” domain, subject to tribute, was continued to him with the title of tetrarch.
[1513] Compare Straba, xvi. 2. 20, p. 756: καταλυθέντων νυνὶ τῶν περὶ Ζηνοθωρον λῃστῶν.
[1514] Ulatha is the district on the Merom or Semechonitis Lake which if now called Beer-el-Huloh, and is clearly identical with the ימא דחולתא mentioned in the rabbinical literature (Neubauer, La géographie du Talmud, 1888, pp. 24, 27 sq.).
On a monument to the dynasty of Lysanias at Heliopolis, of the inscription on which we have indeed only fragments, mention is made of a “Zenodorus, son of the tetrarch Lysanias.”[1515] The reference has almost universally been supposed to apply to our Zenodorus, and he has therefore been regarded as a son of the Lysanias executed by Antony. Although this also is uncertain, because Lysanias is designated as tetrarch (see above, p. 332), yet there is proved from the inscriptions a genealogical connection between the two families, in which the same name may have been often repeated.—It may be taken as certain that the coins with the superscription Ζηνοδώρου τετράρχου ἀρχιερέως belong to our Zenodorus.[1516] They have the year numbers ΠΣ, ΒΠΣ, ΖΠ[Σ]], i.e. 280, 282, 287 aera Seleuc. or B.C. 32, 30, and 25, which precisely fit our hypothesis.[1517]
[1515] See the inscription in Corpus Inscr. Graec. n. 4523, in De Saulcy, Voyage autour de la mer morte, atlas (1853), pl. liii. n. 5; Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, t. iii. n. 1880; most correctly in Renan, Mission de Phenicie, pp. 317-319, and with a complete commentary in the Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, xxvi. 2, pp. 70-79. The legible portions run, with Renan’s filling up of lacunae, as follows:—
[1516] See the coins in Belley, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscr. et Belles-Lettrés, first series, t. xxviii. 1761, pp. 545-556; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 496 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 576, Suppl. viii. 381; Münter, De rebus Ituraeorum, p. 38 sq.; Renan, Mémoires de l’Académie, xxvi. 2, p. 63; De Saulcy, Wiener numismat. Montashefte, v. 1 [1869], pp. 29-32; Annuaire de la Société française de Numismatique et d’Archéologie, t. v. (= second series, t. 1), fasc. 3, 1879, p. 182 sq. [coins with the date ΖΠ]; Madden, Coins of the Jews (1881), p. 124 Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe auf antiken Münzen, 1885, p. 44, table vi. 19; Head, Historia Numorum (1887), p. 663.
[1517] The year number ΠΣ=280, aera Seleuc., or B.C. 32, is indeed incomplete (Mionnet, v. 576: “cette date ne paroit pas entière”). It would be strange indeed if Zenodorus should have received the title of Tetrarch so long as Cleopatra continued to rule.
… θυγάτηρ Ζηνοδώρῳ Λυσ[ανίου τ]ετράρχου καὶ Λυσ[ανίᾳ] … [καὶ τοῖ]ς υἱοῖς μ[νήμη]ς χάριν [εὐσεβῶς] ἀνέθηκεν.
After the death of Herod the Great, a portion of the former tetrarchy of Zenodorus went to Herod’s son, Philip (Antiq. xvii, II. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3).[1518] This is the portion referred to by the evangelist Luke (Luke 3:1), when he says that Philip was governor of Iturea (τῆς Ἰτουραίας).—The tetrarchy of Philip was subsequently obtained by Agrippa I. and Agrippa II.
[1518] In the passage, Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3, instead of Ἰάμνειαν we should read Πανειάδα, according to Antiq. xv. 10. 3.
2. Another tetrarchy was sliced off from the earlier Iturean empire in the East between Chalcis and Damascus to form the district of Abila in the Lebanon. This Abila, according to the Itinerarium Antonii[1519] and the Peutinger tables, lay 18 mil. pass. from Damascus on the road from that city to Heliopolis, consequently on the site of the present village of Suk on the Barada, where are still to be seen the ruins of an old city. In the neighbourhood on the wall of rock is engraved an inscription, on which it is said that the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and L. Verus viam fluminis vi abruptam interciso monte restituerunt … impendiis Abilenorum.[1520] In the same neighbourhood, too, they point out the so-called grave of Abel (Nebi Abil), evidently a legendary creation, which had its origin in the name of the place Abel. The identity of Abila and Suk, therefore, is placed beyond all doubt.[1521] Much more uncertain is this identification with our Abila of a city Leucas, urged by many numismatists, of which several coins are still extant. In support of this, reference is made to a coin on which, besides the words [Λευκ]αδιων Κλαυ[διεων], is to be read also the name of the river Χρυσοροας. In ancient times, certainly, the Barada was called Chrysorrhoas, and it had upon its banks, besides Damascus, no other city than Abila. But the name Chrysorrhoas is also met with elsewhere, e.g. on the inscription of the Gerasenes, Div. II. vol. i. p. 118; and it should be particularly observed that on the coin in question the designation of the city is restored only by means of filling up the lacunae.[1522]
[1519] Vetera Romanorum itineraria, ed. Wesseling, p. 198.
[1520] See the inscription, e.g. in De Saulcy, Voyage autour de la mer morte, atlas (1853), pl. li.; Robinson, Later Biblical Researches, p. 480; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, p. 20; Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, t. iii. n. 1874; Corpus Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 199; Facsimile in Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aethiopien, Bd. xii. Blatt 101; Inscr. Lat. n. 64.—The inscription, from its reference to the two emperors in its formula, belongs to A.D. 163-165. See Waddington on n. 1874, and Mommsen in the Corpus Inscr. Lat.
[1521] See on Abila generally: Reland, Palaestina, p. 527 sqq.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 2, p. 1278 ff.; Porter, Five Years in Damascus (1855), i. 261ff.; Robinson, Later Biblical Researches, pp. 479-484; Sepp, Jerusalem, 2 Aufl. ii. 393 ff.; Baedeker-Socin, Palästina, 1 Aufl. p. 511; Ebers and Guthe, Palästina, i. 456-460; Furrer, Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, viii. 1885, p. 40.
[1522] See on the coins: Belley, Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, first series, t. xxxii. 1768, pp. 695-706; Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 337 sq.; Mionnet, Description de méailles, v. 308-310, Suppl. viii. 214-216; De Saulcy, Numismatique de la Terre Sainte, pp. 20-29.—The identification of Leucas and Abila was first suggested by Belley, and has been specially favoured by De Saulcy. Eckhel expresses himself in a hesitating manner (“quae aliud non sunt quam conjecturae probabiles”).
Our Abila was before the time of Caligula the capital of a tetrarchy which is often spoken of by Josephus. When Caligula ascended the throne in A.D. 37, Agrippa I, besides the tetrarchy of Philip, received also “the tetrarchy of Lysanias” (Antiq. xviii. 6. 10: τὴν Λυσανίου τετραρχίαν). By this is meant the tetrarchy of Abila. For when Claudius came to the throne in A.D. 41, he confirmed and increased the domain of Agrippa by handing over to him the whole empire of his grandfather Herod as his hereditary possession, and adding thereto: Ἀβίλαν τὴν Λυσανίου καὶ ὁπόσα ἐν τῷ Λιβάνῳ ὄρει (Antiq. xix. 5. 1; compare Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 5: βασιλείαν τὴν Λυσανίου καλουμένην).[1523] After the death of Agrippa I., in A.D. 44, his territory was administered by Roman procurators. But in A.D. 53, in the thirteenth year of Claudius, Agrippa II. obtained what had been the tetrarchy of Philip, together with Abila, the tetrarchy of Lysanias (Antiq. xx. 7. 1: σὺν Ἀβίλᾳ, Λυσανία δὲ αὕτη ἐγεγόνει τετραρχία. Compare Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8: τήν τε Λυσανίου βασιλείαν).
[1523] There is no word here in reference to Abila about a new donation, but only about a confirmation of the donation of Caligula.
From these passages we see that the tetrarchy of Abila had belonged previously to A.D. 37 to a certain Lysanias.[1524] And seeing that Josephus nowhere previously makes any mention of another Lysanias, except the contemporary of Antony and Cleopatra, B.C. 40-36, theological criticism has endeavoured in various ways to show that there had not afterwards been any other, and that the tetrarchy of Abilene had its name from that older Lysanias. But this is impossible. Lysanias I. had possessed the Iturean kingdom with the same boundaries as his father Ptolemy. The capital of his kingdom was Chalcis (compare also especially the passage quoted from Porphyry on p. 332). The domain of Abila did indeed belong to that territory; for the empire of Ptolemy bordered on the territory of Damascus. But it certainly formed only a small portion of that important kingdom which embraced almost all of the Lebanon. It is therefore impassible that the district of Abila could have been characterized as “the tetrarchy of Lysanias.” It must therefore be assumed as certain that at a later date the district of Abilene had been severed from the kingdom of Chalcis, and had been governed by a younger Lysanias as tetrarch.
[1524] The designation βασιλεία, in Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 5 and 12. 8, is evidently inexact.
The existence of a younger Lysanias is also witnessed to by the following inscription found at Abila:—[1525]
[1525] Corpus Inscr. Grace. n. 4521 (compare Addenda, p. 1174=Renan, Mémoires de l’Académis des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, t. xxvi. 2, p. 67.
Ὑπὲρ τῆς τῶν κυρίων Σε[βαστῶν]
σωτηρίας καὶ τοῦ σύμ[παντος]
αὐτῶν οἴκου, Νυμφαῖος ….
Λυσανίου τετράρχου ἀπελε[ύθερος]
τὴν ὁδὸν κτίσας κ.τ.λ.
Since the correctness of the filling up of the word Σε[βαστῶν] cannot be doubted, the inscription cannot be placed earlier than the time of Tiberius. For the title Augusti in the plural was never before given. The first contemporary Σεβαστοί were Tiberius and his mother Livia, who from the death of Augustus, in consequence of the last expressed wish of her husband, took the title of Augusta.[1526] In the time of Tiberius, therefore, at least fifteen years after the death of Lysanias I, it is, indeed, hardly conceivable that a freedman of his would have built a street and erected a temple, as is said on the inscription. Undoubtedly Nyraphäus was the freedman of the younger tetrarch Lysanias.—Also the inscription from Heliopolis, quoted on p. 334, makes it probable that there had been several princes of the name of Lysanias.—The evangelist Luke is thoroughly correct when he assumes (Luke 3:1) that in the fifteenth year of Tiberius there was a Lysanias tetrarch of Abilene.[1527]
[1526] Tacitus, Annales, i. 8: “Livia in familiam Juliam nomenque Augustum adsumebatur.” Tiberius and Livia (Julia) are named on a Palestinian coin as Σεβαστοί (Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 497); its reading, however, is doubtful (Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 180).—For further criticism see also Corpus Inter. Graec. t. iii. p. 1174 (Addenda to n. 4521); Renan, Mémoires, p. 63 sq. (with reference to Renier and Waddington); Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, p. 191, understands the two Σεβαστοί to be Augustus and Tiberius, the latter having only in the last years of Augustus received the title of Σεβαστός. But this is in contradiction to everything else that we know, and, owing to the uncertain date of the coin to which Wieseler himself refers, is incapable of proof. Compare against Wieseler’s hypothesis, Mommsen, Römisches Staatsrecht, ii. 2 (1 Aufl. 1875), pp. 731-733, 772 f., 1064 ff.
[1527] On the existence of this younger Lysanias, and generally on Luke 3:1, see the pro and contra in the following treatises, in addition to the literature mentioned on p. 325: Frid. Gott. Süskind, “Symbolae ad illustr. quaedam evangeliorum loca” (in Sylloge commentt., ed. Pott, vol. viii. 1807, pp. 90-99; Schneckenburger, Ueber Luc. iii. 1 (Theol. Stud. und Krit. 1833, p. 1056 ff.); Süskind (son of above—named), “Einige Bemerkungen zu den Worten u. s. w. Luc. iii. 1” (Theol Stud. und Krit. 1836, pp. 431-448); Strauss, Leben Jesu, i. (4 Aufl. 1840) p. 341 ff.; Hug, Gutachten über das Leben Jesu von Strauss, 1840, pp. 119-123; Wieeeler, Chronological Synopsis of the Four Gospels, pp. 159-167; Ebrard, Gospel History, Edin. 1869, § 30, pp. 143-146: “Lysanias of Abilene;” Lichtenstein, Lebensgeschichte des Herrn Jesu Christi (1856), pp. 130-136; Winer, Realwörterb. art. “Abilene;” Kneucker in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, i. 26-28, art. “Abilene;” Sevin, Chronologie des Lebens Jesu (2 Aufl. 1874), pp. 106-112; Keim, Jesus of Nazara, ii. 381-384; Aus dem Urchristenthum (1868), pp. 9-13; Bleek, Synoptische Erklärung der drei ersten Evangelien, i. 1862, pp. 164-157. See Commentaries on the New Testament by Meyer and others on Luke 3:1.
The tetrarchy of Lysanias I. remained in possession of Agrippa II. down to his death in A.D. 100; but the name of Lysanias long clung to the place. Also in Ptolemaeus, v. 15. 22, Abila is called Ἄβιλα ἐπικληθεῖσα Λυσανίου, as may be supposed because Lysanias was not only a previous possessor, but the new founder of the city (compare Caesarea Philippi).
3. The domains of Zenodorus and Lysanias lay on the circumference of the earlier Iturean kingdom. In the time of Quirinius, his subordinate general, Q. Aemilius Secundus, undertook a warlike expedition against the Itureans proper, as is told us on an inscription (“missu Quirini adversus Ituraeos in Libano monte castellum eorum cepi”).[1528] Perhaps just at that time a breaking up of the Iturean kingdom took place. At any rate, in the time of Claudius we find a kingdom of Chalcis and a kingdom of Iturea alongside of one another. In A.D. 38, Caligula deprived a certain Soemus of the government of the Itureans (Dio Cassius, lix. 12: Σοαίμῳ τὴν τῶν Ἰτυραίων τῶν Ἀράβων … ἐχαρίσατο).[1529] This Soemus died in A.D. 49, and then his territories were incorporated with the province of Syria. Tacitus, Annales, xii. 23: “Ituraeique et Judaei defunctis regibus Sohaemo atque Agrippa provinciae Suriae additi.” But at the same time a Herod reigned in Chalcis, so that now the one kingdom of Ptolemy and Lysanias was partitioned into, at least, four divisions. The kingdom of Soemus is supposed to have embraced the northern part, from about Heliopolis to Laodicea in the Lebanon.[1530]
[1528] Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. iv. 1881, p. 538.
[1529] The name Soemus is found also in the dynasty of Emesa. An Iturean Soemus of the time of Herod the Great is spoken of in Antiq. xv. 6, 5, 7. 1-4.
[1530] The city of Heliopolis cannot have belonged to this kingdom of Soemus, since it was from the time of Augustus a Roman colony (Marquardt, Römische Staatsverwaltung, i. 1881, p. 428).
When, upon the death of Soemus, his territory was confiscated, it would seem that his son Varus (or Noarus, as he is called in Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 6) was portioned off with a small part of his ancestral domains, and even this he held only till A.D. 53. In that year Claudius bestowed upon Agrippa, in addition to the tetrarchies of Philip and Lysanias, τὴν Οὐάρου γενομένην ἐπαρχίαν (Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8; in regard to the date, Antiq. xx. 7. 1). This Varus was, according to Josephus, Life, xi., probably the son of that Soemus who died in A.D. 49 (Οὐᾶρος βασιλικοῦ γένους, ἔκγονος Σοέμου τοῦ περὶ τὸν Λίβανον τετραρχοῦντος).[1531]
[1531] The identity of the Soemus referred to in the latter passage with the one who died in A.D. 49 is not, indeed, quite certain, since there was during the time of Nero and Vespasian a Soemus of Emesa (Josephus, Antiq. xx. 8. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 18. 9, iii. 4. 2, vii. 7.1; Tacitus, Hist. ii. 81, v. 1). The present τετραρχοῦντος might be used with reference to the latter. But this grammatical argument is not decisive (comp. Winer’s Grammar, § 45. 7); and Josephus would scarcely have designated the ruler of Emesa as τὸν περὶ τὸν Λίβανον τετραρχοῦντα, especially if, as from Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 7, we must assume to have been the case, he ruled over Sophene that lay far off across the Euphrates to the north of Edessa.
After the Iturean territories had been amalgamated with the province of Syria, regular Roman troops were enlisted there. We meet with Iturean alae and cohortes from the last decades of the first century in this farthest distant province of the Roman empire.[1532]
[1532] The inscriptions in regard to this matter afford us the following data (compare the list of Mommsen, Ephemeris epigraphica, vol. v. 1884, p. 194):—
The ala I. Augusta Ituraeorum was stationed during A.D. 98 in Pannonia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 862, Dipl. xix.), in A.D. 110 in Dacia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 868, Dipl. xxv.), in A.D. 167 again in Pannonia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 888, Dipl. xlvi.).—Compare also Corp. Inter. Lat. t. iii. n. 1382, 3446, 3677, 4367, 4368, 4371; Corp. Inscr. Rhenan., ed. Brambach, n. 2003.—An inscription of Heliopolis dedicated to Jupiter by a vexillatio alae Ituraeorum, therefore by a detachment of this ala under a separate command, has been found at Rome (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. vi. n. 421).
The cohors I. Augusta Ituraeorum was, in A.D. 80, stationed in Pannonia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 854, Dipl. xi.), in A.D. 98 it was still in Pannonia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 862, Dipl. xix.), in A.D. 110 in Dacia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 868, Dipl. xxv.).—Compare also Corp. Inscr. Rhenan., ed. Brambach, n. 1099.
The cohors I. Ituraeorum, distinct from the above, was stationed in A.D. 110 in Dacia (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. p. 868, Dipl. xxv.).—Compare also Corp. Inscr. Rhenan., ed. Brambach, n. 1233, 1234, 1289. Notitia dignitatum Occidentis, xxvi. 16 (ed. Seeck, p. 178).
The cohors II. Ituraeorum was stationed, in A.D. 83, in Upper Egypt (Ephemeris epigr. vol. v. 1884, p. 612 sq.). Greek inscriptions in the temples at Talmis, Pselchis, and Hiera-Sycaminus (all on the borders of Upper Egypt and Ethiopia) tell, with reference to the time of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, that these soldiers of this cohort had offered their devotions (Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 5050, 5081, 5110).—Subsequently it was stationed in Lower Egypt (Notitia dignitatum orientis, xxviii. 44, ed. Seeck, p. 60).
The cohors III. Ituraeorum was stationed, in A.D. 83, in Upper Egypt (Ephemeris epigr. vol. v. p. 612 sq.).—Compare also Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. viii. n. 2394, 2395, t. ix. n. 1619.
A cohors VII. Ituraeorum is supposed to be referred to in an inscription on the Memnon statue at Thebes (Corp. Inscr. Lat. t. iii. n. 59). But it has been conjectured that there instead of VII. we should read III.
Reference perhaps is made to the sending of Iturean troops to Moesia in the fragmentary inscription in Le Bas and Waddington, Inscriptions grecques et latines, t. iii. n. 2120 (ed. el-Hit, north of the Hauran):—
. . ηξιλάου τοῦ εἰς Μοισία …
. . τουραίων καὶ στρατη …
4. The history of Chalcis, the centre of the former Iturean kingdom, is unknown to us from the death of Cleopatra down to the date of Claudius’ accession. The Emperor Claudius, on his coming to the throne in A.D. 41, gifted it to a grandson of Herod the Great, who was also called Herod.[1533] He was a brother of Agrippa I, and so a son of Aristobulus, the son of Herod the Great.[1534]
[1533] Josephus, Antiq. xix, 5.1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 5.
[1534] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4; Wars of the Jews, i. 28. 1.
Herod of Chalcis had the title βασιλεύς, and praetorian rank.[1535] He was twice married. His first wife was Mariamme, a granddaughter of Herod the Great. By her he had a son, Aristobulus,[1536] who married Salome, the daughter of Herodias, and widow of the tetrarch Philip, and obtained from Nero the government of Lesser Armenia.[1537] The second wife of Herod was Berenice, the daughter of his brother Agrippa, who gave her to him in marriage after the death of Marcus, son of Alexander, the alabarch of Alexandria, to whom she was first betrothed.[1538] By her he had two sons, Berenicianus and Hyrcanus.[1539]
[1535] He is always designated βασιλεύς by Josephus. Dio Cassius, lx. 8, speaks of his praetorian rank (στρατηγικὸν ἀξίωμα).
[1536] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4, xx. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6.
[1537] Josephus, Antiq. xviii. 5. 4, xx. 8. 4; Wars of the Jews, ii. 13. 2; Tacitus, Annales, xiii. 7, xiv. 26.
[1538] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 5. 1: Ταύτην μὲν (τελευτᾷ γὰρ Μάρκος ὁ τοῦ Ἁλεξάνδρου υἱός) παρθένον λαβὼν ἀδελφῷ τῷ αὑτοῦ Ἀγρίππας Ἡρώδῃ δίδωσι. This is the correct reading, and we should not put marks of parenthesis round παρθένον λαβών, as Bekker does. Compare Ewald, History of Israel, vii. 197. Berenice therefore was not actually married, but only betrothed to Marcus.
[1539] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 6. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6.
At the assembly of princes which was once convened by Agrippa I. at Tiberias, but had been so rudely treated by the Roman governor Marsus, we find our Herod also present.[1540] After the death of Agrippa I. in A.D. 44, he besought from the emperor—and this is the point that makes him an object of interest in the Jewish history—the oversight of the temple and the temple treasury, as well as the right of nominating the high priest. His prayer was granted, and he exercised his right by frequent appointments and depositions of high priests.[1541]
[1540] Josephus, Antiq. xix. 8. 2.
[1541] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 1. 3, 5. 2. Compare Div. II. vol. i. p. 196.
On his coins he is named Φιλοκλαύδιος—a natural compliment to the emperor, to whom he owed all his advancement.[1542] Whether an honorary inscription of the Athenians to a Ἡρώδης Εὐσεβὴς καὶ Φιλόκαισαρ, refers to him, seems doubtful.[1543]
[1542] The coins are given in Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 492; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 569 sq., Suppl. viii. 380; Lenormant, Trésor de numismatique, p. 127, pi. lx. n. 8-10; Imhoof-Blumer, Porträtköpfe auf antiken Münzen (1885), p. 44, table vi. 20.—Many numismatists have assigned to one Herod a small copper coin with an eagle, and the superscription Βασιλ. Ηρωδ. (so Cavedoni, Biblische Numismatik, ii. 35; Levy, Geschichte der jüd. Münzen, p. 82; Madden, History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 111-113). But the fact that the coins have been found in Jerusalem is in favour of the assigning of them to Herod the Great, and the figure of the eagle is not decisive against this view (De Saulcy, Recherches sur la Numismatique judaïque, p. 131; Wieseler, Beiträge zur richtigen Würdigung der Evangelien, pp. 86-88; Madden, Coins of the Jews, p. 114, in which he retracts his earlier opinion.
[1543] Corp. Inscr. Attic. iii. 1, n. 551, at Athens: [[Ὁ δ]ῆμος [βασιλ]έα Ἡρώδην Εὐσεβῆ καὶ Φιλοκαίσαρα [ἀ]ρετῆς ἕνεκα καὶ εὐεργεσίας.—Another inscription at Athens (Corp. Inscr. Attic. iii. 1, n. 550) honours in a similar manner a βασιλέα Ἡρώδην Φιλορώμαιον—On account of the diversity in the title, these two references might be applied to two different men; and it seems to be most in accordance with otherwise demonstrable antiquity of the titles to refer n. 550 to Herod the Great, and n. 551 to Herod of Chalcis. But difficulties arise over the fact that the latter on coins calls himself Φιλοκλαύδιος.
He died after a reign of about seven years, in the 8th year of Claudius, A.D. 48. His nephew, Agrippa II., obtained his kingdom, but probably only at a somewhat later period.[1544]
[1544] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 5. 2; Wars of the Jews, ii. 11. 6, 12. 1.
Agrippa continued in possession of Chalcis only till A.D. 53, when he, in return for the surrender of this country, obtained a larger kingdom:[1545] The history of Chalcis thereafter recedes again into obscurity. In the time of Vespasian there is, indeed, a King Aristobulus of Chalcidice mentioned, who possibly may be identical with the son of Herod of Chalcis and king of Lesser Armenia.[1546] But even if this were so, it is very doubtful whether by Chalcidice we are to understand the territory of our Chalcis ad Libanum, or the territory of Chalcis ad Belum. On both see above, p. 329 f.
[1545] Josephus, Antiq. xx. 7. 1; Wars of the Jews, ii. 12. 8.
[1546] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, vii. 7. 1: τῆς μὲν Χαλκιδικῆς λεγομένη Αριστόβουλος—A coin with the superscription Βασιλεως Αριστοβουλου ET IZ (year 17), Τιτω Ουεσπασιανω Αυτοκρατορι Σεβαστω, is communicated by De Saulcy (Mélanges de Numismatique, t. iii. 1882, pp. 339-349); Babelon (Revue Numismatique, troisième série, t. i. 1883, p. 145, pl. iv. n. 9), and Imhoof-Blumer (Porträtköpfe, p. 44, table vi. 21-22, where mention is also made of Aristobulus’ wife, Salome).
The city of Chalcis, according to the coins, has an era beginning with A.D. 92, which probably was the year of its incorporation with the province of Syria.[1547]
[1547] Norris, Annus et ep chae, iii. 9. 3 (cd. Lips. p. 316 sqq.); Eckhel, Doctr. Num. iii. 264 sq.; Mionnet, Description de médailles, v. 143 sqq., Suppl. viii. 115 sqq.