Queen Alexandra

249 Pages·2012·1.62 MB·English

by  Main User

Queen Alexandra:
The Anomaly of a
Sovereign Jewish Queen
in the Second Temple Period

Thesis submitted for the degree of
“Doctor of Philosophy”
by Etka Liebowitz

Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
November 2011
This work was carried out under the supervision of:
Professor Daniel R. Schwartz
Acknowledgements

This dissertation commenced almost a decade ago with a conversation I had with the late
Professor Hanan Eshel, of blessed memory. His untimely passing was a great loss to all.
It continued at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where I was privileged to study with
the leading scholars in the field of Jewish History.

First and foremost, I wish to thank my supervisor, Professor Daniel Schwartz, for the
generous amount of time and effort he invested in seeing this dissertation to fruition. I
learned much from his constructive suggestions and valuable insights, from our meetings,
and from his outstanding classes on Josephus at the Hebrew University. I would also like
to express my deep gratitude to the other members of my supervisory committee for their
guidance, encouragement and useful critiques: Professor Lee Levine, who initially served
as my supervisor until his retirement, and Professor Tal Ilan, whose pioneering feminist
studies on the topic of Queen Alexandra led the way for my research. Professor Ilan
devoted much time to this project, and has become a valued colleague, mentor and friend.

My grateful thanks are also extended to Rivkah Fishman-Duker and Dr. Shaul Bauman
for their comments, suggestions and invaluable assistance with various chapters.

Finally, I wish to express my gratitude to my beloved family for their understanding,
encouragement and support throughout my studies – my husband, Moshe, my children
Shlomo, Tzipi and Naomi, and my mother, Rifka, who was an independent (and
anomalous) woman many years before the feminist movement. This work is dedicated to
my daughters – may they grow up to be independent and knowledgeable women who are
genuinely admired and loved.

I give thanks to God for allowing me to reach this milestone:
ודּסְ חַ םלָועלְ יכִּ .בוט יכִּ 'הל וּדוה
Abstract

Introduction
The nine-year reign (76-67 BCE) of Queen Alexandra (or Shelomzion HaMalkah as she
is popularly known) represents a turning point in Jewish history. It marks the final stage
of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel – following her death the Hasmonean
kingdom started to disintegrate due to a war of succession between her sons and Judaea
was conquered by the Roman Empire. Moreover, it signals the beginning of a division
between political and religious power in Israel, an issue with which the modern State of
Israel again struggles today. It also represents a unique event both in Jewish history and
antiquity in general: notwithstanding the fact that they had two adult sons, Alexander
Jannaeus bequeathed the throne to his wife Alexandra.
Despite the rarity of a woman holding absolute power in antiquity, numerous basic
questions concerning her identity, political actions, and presentation in various historical
sources have not yet been addressed. This dissertation aspires to provide answers to these
issues by analyzing the descriptions of Queen Alexandra in primary sources and
examining the development of her image from the Second Temple Period until the
modern period. Such an investigation will also reflect the changing attitude towards
women and political power throughout the centuries.
Biographical Outline
Biographical data concerning Alexandra are based on Josephus’ Antiquities and War, the
primary sources for most of our knowledge. Born circa 140 BCE, Alexandra experienced
a period that encompassed revolutionary events, both in her internal (Jewish) and external
(Hellenistic) surroundings. She lived during the epoch of the first independent Jewish
(Hasmonean) state in the Second Temple Period, which most probably influenced her
political actions later on when she became queen. She was a contemporary of the
Seleucid Queen Cleopatra (Selene) of Syria (ca. 130 BCE - 69 BCE), a strong and
powerful queen, which undoubtedly influenced her acceptance by Hasmonean society as
well as her own conviction that she too could also rule as a queen
i
Alexandra probably married Alexander Jannaeus around 111 BCE, a year before the
birth of her eldest son, Hyrcanus II. Subsequently, probably not later than 100 BCE, she
gave birth to her younger son, Aristobulus II. She was thirty-seven years old when her
husband, Alexander Jannaeus, ascended the throne in 103 BCE. At the age of sixty-four,
Alexandra inherited the throne following Alexander Jannaeus’s death and ruled for nine
years, passing away at the age of seventy-three.
Research Questions and Hypothesis
This study addresses the following questions:
1. What explains the contradictory descriptions of Queen Alexandra in Josephus’
writings?
2. Why did Alexander Jannaeus bequeath the kingdom to Alexandra and not to one of
his sons as was the accepted practice in most ancient societies?
3. What factors influenced the patriarchal Hasmonean Jewish society to accept
Alexandra as an independent queen? How did the different segments of Jewish society in
the Second Temple period view her role as a queen?
4. How has Queen Alexandra’s image changed over the centuries, from its inception in
the Second Temple Period up until the early modern period?
This dissertation argues that Alexander Jannaeus bequeathed the throne to his wife
since he believed that she would rule the kingdom better than either of their sons. He
realized that Alexandra would be an astute queen, and that her piety and willingness to
delegate authority would unite the nation behind her. The fact that Ptolemaic queens
often inherited the throne may have influenced Alexander’s decision to some degree.
Likewise, apocryphal literature shows the readiness of Hasmonean society to accept a
pious woman leader such as Queen Alexandra. Still, the decisive factor was Alexandra’s
capability to be a strong and wise ruler, and this hypothesis is supported by Josephus.
This work will also demonstrate that the status of women in Byzantine society, in
particular the presence of female rulers, affected the outlook of historical accounts of
Queen Alexandra’s reign. And, of all the primary sources, rabbinic literature has played
the decisive role in a positive portrayal of Queen Alexandra up until the present time.
ii
The methodology of this study includes an analysis of the language and content of
primary sources: Josephus’ writings, Qumran documents and rabbinic literature.
Inasmuch as these primary source materials provide only a limited amount of
information, an interdisciplinary approach is also applied. This entails a comparison of
other ancient literary works dealing with female sovereigns as well as of Jewish-
Hellenistic literary works in the apocryphal literature that portray female leaders. A
feminist perspective that focuses upon women and their role in society due to the
marginalization of women in history as written by men will provide the framework for
this study. A focus upon Queen Alexandra’s reign is important not only in its (or her)
own right but also for the implications it may have for Hasmonean society and its attitude
towards women.

Chapter 1: Scholarly Research to Date
Modern scholarly studies on Queen Alexandra commenced with Johann Müller’s
thirty-nine page Latin monograph, published in 1711 and continued in the nineteenth
centuries with studies by German-Christian scholars such as Heinrich Ewald (1851),
Ferdinand Hitzig (1869), Julius Wellhausen (1874), and Emil Schürer (1891). Prominent
Jewish scholars of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, such as Joseph Derenbourg,
Heinrich Graetz, Simon Dubnov, and Joseph Klausner, based their studies on both
Josephus’ writings and rabbinic literature. Disagreements among scholars over an
evaluation of Alexandra’s reign are usually due to their acceptance or rejection of
rabbinic literature’s favorable description, or to the contradictions within and among
Josephus’ writings.
The development of women’s/gender studies in the twentieth and twenty-first
centuries stimulated a growing interest regarding women in antiquity in general, and
Queen Alexandra in particular. From 1989 onwards, Queen Alexandra has been the focus
of about ten scholarly articles, mostly dealing with specific issues related to her reign.
She features in several books dealing with the Hasmonean period and women in
antiquity, has served as the inspiration for two M.A. theses and one Ph.D. dissertation on
the Book of Judith, and plays a leading role in Tal Ilan’s recent book, Silencing the Queen
(2006), on women in rabbinic sources. Still, to date, no in-depth comprehensive historical
iii
analysis following the development of Queen Alexandra’s image from its inception in
ancient sources up until the early modern period has been written. This dissertation
endeavors to fulfill such a desideratum.

Chapter 2: Translation and Discussion of Josephus’ Descriptions of Alexandra in
War and Antiquities
Josephus’ descriptions of Queen Alexandra in Jewish War and Jewish Antiquities are the
main primary source of information on her life. Yet it is difficult to obtain a clear picture
inasmuch as these accounts contain numerous variations and inconsistencies. War
emphasizes the queen’s piety while Antiquities highlights her strategic moves and adds
new episodes to the narrative, including a scathing summation of her rule at the end of
book 13. Scholars view War as presenting a more positive appraisal of Queen Alexandra
and Antiquities a more negative one. Various explanations have been proposed for these
divergent descriptions, in particular, the influence of Josephus’ sources.
Based upon a new original translation alongside a philological and source-critical
analysis, I propose the following hypotheses: 1) War does not provide a totally favorable
portrait of Queen Alexandra; 2) Antiquities, for the most part, does not condemn her;
3) and although the most derogatory statements about Queen Alexandra in Antiquities
originated in Josephus’ source, their very inclusion in the narrative indicates some
expression of Josephus’ own opinion. This chapter demonstrates that, contrary to the
claim of many scholars, Queen Alexandra’s image in Antiquities is not significantly more
negative than in War. Furthermore, it shows that Josephus’ criticism of Queen Alexandra
is similar to his criticism of other Hasmonean rulers. Finally, a comparison of Josephus’
summation of Alexandra’s rule at the end of Antiquities 13 with those of other
Hasmonean monarchs reveals that gender considerations did indeed influence Josephus’
descriptions of the queen.

Chapter 3: The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls and Archaeology
Several Qumran documents are the only other Second Temple period source on Queen
Alexandra’s reign, apart from Josephus’ comprehensive accounts in War and Antiquities.
Yet, they only add some fragmentary information to Josephus’ narrative. Calendrical
iv
Documents 4Q331 and 4Q322 twice mention Alexandra’s Hebrew/Aramaic name,
Shelamzion; they also indicate that the Qumranites considered her an important historical
figure worthy of mention. Metaphors of sexual promiscuity in Pesher Nahum 3-4 II: 5-9
may allude to Queen Alexandra as well as the Pharisees, whom she supported. Some
scholars have suggested that a passage from the prophecy of doom in Pesher Hosea A
(4Q166) also alludes to Queen Alexandra. The derogatory context of these allusions was
probably due to the negative outlook of the Qumran sect towards Hasmonean leaders and
the Pharisees in general, as well as Queen Alexandra in particular.
To date, there are no coins extant from Queen Alexandra’s reign. Scholars believe
that coins from the year 25 (79-78 BCE) of Alexander Jannaeus’ rule could have
continued to be minted during the reign of Queen Alexandra. Alexandra may have chosen
not to mint coins due to her desire to distance herself from imitating the Hellenistic
practice of minting artistically realistic coins, which contradicted the Jewish prohibition
against the portrayal of human images.
The late Ehud Netzer ascribed the Twin Palaces in Jericho to the reign of Queen
Alexandra and, based on Josephus’ writings, suggested that the construction of the two
identical palaces was due to Alexandra’s desire to ease the rivalry between her two sons.
Yet Josephus’ description of Queen Alexandra does not mention any desire on her part to
avoid jealousy between her sons. Furthermore, the fact that most of the ceramic finds
from the Twin Palaces date from 85/75 – 31 BCE supports a broad time period for the
Twin Palaces’ inhabitation, therefore, we cannot be sure of the exact year of their
construction. Consequently, due to the uncertainty as to the exact time for the
construction of the Twin Palaces, there are no archeological remains that can be
definitely ascribed to the reign of Queen Alexandra.

Chapter 4: The Influence of Hellenism and Apocryphal Literature
Ptolemaic queens, from Cleopatra I till Cleopatra VII, played a pivotal political role in
the ancient Hellenistic world in general, and in countries under Ptolemaic influence in
particular, including Judaea. Several queens of Hellenistic dynasties led armies,
determined foreign policy and minted coins. Hellenistic society’s favorable outlook on
v
independent aristocratic women may have influenced Josephus’ description of Queen
Alexandra in War.
Similar to Hellenistic queens, Alexandra gained power by virtue of her husband who
designated her as his successor. Nonetheless, her status was different. Male heirs (sons)
were often included in Hellenistic testaments while Alexander Jannaeus bequeathed the
throne solely to his wife, excluding their adult sons, Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II,
which is quite unusual for the Hellenistic world. The disparity between the Hellenistic
and Hasmonean inheritance customs may be connected to the widespread Ptolemaic
practice of the joint reign of a king and queen who were next of kin – a brother and sister,
father and daughter, mother and son/s, etc. Such a joint reign often entailed marriage
between these relatives, which is forbidden in Judaism. Thus the differing approaches of
Judaism and Hellenism to such marriages may offer another explanation as to why
Alexander Jannaeus chose his wife as the sole heir to the Hasmonean kingdom.
Literary Hellenistic works from the Hasmonean period paved the way for the
acceptance of Queen Alexandra’s reign, even though they were probably not explicitly
written for this purpose. In particular, three somewhat similar apocryphal books with
female protagonists – the Greek translation of Esther (which deviates significantly from
the Hebrew), Judith and Susanna – indicate the positive way in which Judaean society in
the first century BCE viewed pious female leaders. These books, which tell stories in a
post-exilic setting and were composed close to the time period of Queen Alexandra,
contain numerous similarities. They have beautiful pious female heroines; their names
and topics focus on women’s acts; and the protagonists transcend their subordinate
position and assume a position of leadership.
The descriptions of Queen Alexandra in War and Antiquities reflect the differing
status of women in Hellenistic as opposed to Roman society as well as the diverse social
realities in which Josephus lived and worked. Josephus finished writing War at the end of
the 70s CE, when he was a “new immigrant” to Rome and therefore most likely still
strongly influenced by Jewish-Hellenistic society. Antiquities, on the other hand, was
composed later, circa 93-95 CE, when Josephus had already lived in Rome for a
considerable period of time and had probably assimilated Roman norms, in particular, its
view of women. This transition from a Hellenistic culture, which was open to women as
vi
supreme rulers, to a Roman society, which was opposed to such a role for women and
espoused the feminine domestic ideal, may have influenced Josephus’ change in attitude
to Queen Alexandra at the end of Antiquities 13.
Roman historical and literary accounts, such as Seneca’s De Clementia, Tacitus’
Annals and Cassius Dio’s Roman History, even if composed after Josephus wrote his
works, may either characterize literary themes that were popular during the time that
Josephus composed his works or represent well-established views of powerful queens in
Roman society. In particular, the negative tradition regarding Emperor Augustus’ wife,
Livia, which is found in Roman literary sources, may have shaped Josephus’ narrative
condemning Queen Alexandra at the end of Antiquities 13.

Chapter 5: The Depiction of Queen Alexandra in Rabbinic Literature
Following Josephus’ writings and the Qumran documents, tannaitic midrashim (Sifra
Leviticus and Sifrei Deuteronomy) represent the earliest sources that directly mention
Queen Alexandra. They also exerted a formative influence upon Jewish historians’
favorable attitude towards Alexandra. As compared with other women, Queen Alexandra
appears relatively often in rabbinic texts. The sages viewed her reign as an idyllic era
during which the Jewish people kept the commandments, and this resulted in agricultural
prosperity. Events concerning Queen Alexandra and her reign, as told by Josephus, are
echoed in many rabbinic texts, which apparently drew, either directly or indirectly, upon
Antiquities and War. Still, without Josephus’ historical context, rabbinic literature would
only offer us short vignettes on Queen Alexandra’s purported deeds. Both the parallels as
well as the historical background that Josephus provides are indispensable for
understanding rabbinic texts on Queen Alexandra. Unlike earlier tannaitic literature, the
Babylonian Talmud (BT) appears to allude to historical events connected to Alexandra
mentioned in Josephus’ works.
Many leading historians of the nineteenth and early twentieth century accepted the
laudatory portrayal of Alexandra in rabbinic literature, and this was mirrored in historical
works, such as those by Schürer, Dubnov, and Graetz. More recent historians, however,
are more circumspect as to the reliability and impartiality of rabbinic texts.
vii