Matan Orian
Wwu Münster, Evangelische Theologie, Department Member
- Tel Aviv University, Middle Eastern and North African Studies, Department Memberadd
In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 prohibits any viewing of the “holy,” except by Aaron, the priest, and his sons. Philo of Alexandria, as well as several modern scholars, read... more
In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 prohibits any viewing of the “holy,” except by Aaron, the priest, and his sons. Philo of Alexandria, as well as several modern scholars, read this as a prohibition on any non-priestly viewing of the sacred, Jewish cultic vessels, including the menorah, the shewbread table and the incense altar. Accordingly, a dominant view in research holds that during the Second Temple period these cultic utensils were concealed from the sight of non-priests. However, this view partly overlooks and partly misinterprets our main source in that respect: Josephus indicates that the Jewish holy vessels were actually displayed to the Jewish crowd gathered in the temple court during the Second Temple period. This is supported by the images on certain Hasmonean coins as well as by later texts, such as P.Oxy. 840 and rabbinic literature.
Research Interests: Second Temple Judaism, Philo of Alexandria, Rabbinic Literature, Biblical Interpretation, Josephus, and 8 morePhilosophy and Religious Studies, History and archaeology, Language Culture and Communication, Book of Numbers, Menorah, Jerusalem Temple and Its (High) Priesthood, Hasmoneans, and Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 840
In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 prohibits any viewing of the “holy,” except by Aaron, the priest, and his sons. Philo of Alexandria, as well as several modern scholars, read... more
In discussing the dismantling and transport of the tabernacle and its furnishings, Numbers 4:20 prohibits any viewing of the “holy,” except by Aaron, the priest, and his sons. Philo of Alexandria, as well as several modern scholars, read this as a prohibition on any non-priestly viewing of the sacred, Jewish cultic vessels, including the menorah, the shewbread table and the incense altar. Accordingly, a dominant view in research holds that during the Second Temple period these cultic utensils were concealed from the sight of non-priests. However, this view partly overlooks and partly misinterprets our main source in that respect: Josephus indicates that the Jewish holy vessels were actually displayed to the Jewish crowd gathered in the temple court during the Second Temple period. This is supported by the images on certain Hasmonean coins as well as by later texts, such as P.Oxy. 840 and rabbinic literature.
Research Interests:
A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as inauthentic, since it contains many improbabilities, including the assertion that the Jews and the Spartans are fraternal nations. However, its... more
A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as inauthentic, since it contains many improbabilities, including the assertion that the Jews and the Spartans are fraternal nations. However, its patent implausibility also renders it unimaginable that the correspondence was intended to be understood literally. Hence, the binary choice offered in research, whereby it is either a bizarre fabrication or an authentic correspondence, despite all its peculiarities, is problematic. The Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence thus remains a conspicuous, unresolved enigma in the research of 1 Maccabees and the early Hasmonean period. Based on a textual clue, this article proposes a solution, namely, that the correspondence is, in fact, an ingenious derision of the Jews’ authentic ethnic “brothers”—the Samaritans. This suggestion provides new insights into the history of the early Hasmoneans and the literary creativity of the author of 1 Maccabees.
Research Interests:
A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as inauthentic, since it contains many improbabilities, including the assertion that the Jews and the Spartans are fraternal nations. However, its... more
A majority of scholars view the Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence, reported in 1 Maccabees, as inauthentic, since it contains many improbabilities, including the assertion that the Jews and the Spartans are fraternal nations. However, its patent implausibility also renders it unimaginable that the correspondence was intended to be understood literally. Hence, the binary choice offered in research, whereby it is either a bizarre fabrication or an authentic correspondence, despite all its peculiarities, is problematic. The Hasmonean-Spartan correspondence thus remains a conspicuous, unresolved enigma in the research of 1 Maccabees and the early Hasmonean period. Based on a textual clue, this article proposes a solution, namely, that the correspondence is, in fact, an ingenious derision of the Jews’ authentic ethnic “brothers”—the Samaritans. This suggestion provides new insights into the history of the early Hasmoneans and the literary creativity of the author of 1 Maccabees.
Research Interests:
Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalty of death, from proceeding any further inward. This was mounted on a low stone balustrade that encircled an area larger than the actual holy... more
Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalty of death, from proceeding any further inward. This was mounted on a low stone balustrade that encircled an area larger than the actual holy ground. As suggested in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near” to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
Research Interests:
Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalty of death, from proceeding any further inward. This was mounted on a low stone balustrade that encircled an area larger than the actual holy... more
Within the Herodian temenos in Jerusalem, a warning inscription prohibited non-Jews, under penalty of death, from proceeding any further inward. This was mounted on a low stone balustrade that encircled an area larger than the actual holy ground. As suggested
in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near”
to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
in research, the underlying pentateuchal law for the inscription was הזר הקרב יומת, “the unauthorized encroacher shall be put to death.” The subjection of gentiles to this law, in particular, and its application even when they had not, de facto, trespassed on holy ground remain, however, unexplained. The article suggests that the inscription applied הזר הקרב יומת to a זר, in the sense of “a foreigner,” who merely קרב, “draws near”
to sacred ground. A further suggestion is that this reading and implementation of the biblical law reflects a preemptive endeavor to blunt Jewish objection to a major cultic innovation by Herod: granting gentiles access to the Jerusalem temenos.
Research Interests:
After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of impure animals into Jerusalem. Two Qumran Scrolls contain parallels to this injunction but target a different audience, i.e., Jews, as... more
After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of impure animals into Jerusalem. Two Qumran Scrolls contain parallels to this injunction but target a different audience, i.e., Jews, as opposed to the gentile audience of the programma. Consequently, the focus of these texts also differs: pure animals in the scrolls, impure animals in the programma. Nonetheless, the programma, the scrolls, and perhaps also some instructions in the Mishnah reflect a coherent interpretation of the biblical ban on non-sacral slaughter within a certain radius around God’s altar. Furthermore, comparison of these sources reinforces the authenticity of the programma, offers a possible underlying reasoning for a reconstructed ruling in the Temple Scroll, and even alludes to the Vorlage of the biblical text employed for drafting the programma. Further evidence, however, implies that the relevant Jewish halakhah underwent a significant change during the second cent...
Research Interests:
After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of impure animals into Jerusalem. Two Qumran Scrolls contain parallels to this injunction but target a different audience, i.e., Jews, as... more
After his takeover of Judea, Antiochus III issued a programma that prohibits the introduction of impure animals into Jerusalem. Two Qumran Scrolls contain parallels to this injunction but target a different audience, i.e., Jews, as opposed to the gentile audience of the programma. Consequently, the focus of these texts also differs: pure animals in the scrolls, impure animals in the programma. Nonetheless, the programma, the scrolls, and perhaps also some instructions in the Mishnah reflect a coherent interpretation of the biblical ban on non-sacral slaughter within a certain radius around God’s altar. Furthermore, comparison of these sources reinforces the authenticity of the programma, offers a possible underlying reasoning for a reconstructed ruling in the Temple Scroll, and even alludes to the Vorlage of the biblical text employed for drafting the programma. Further evidence, however, implies that the relevant Jewish halakhah underwent a significant change during the second century BCE.
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
First Maccabees 7:34 employs four verbs to describe the offensive speech by Nicanor, the Seleucid general, addressed to the Jewish elders and priests. The third verb indicates that Nicanor defiled his audience. While this has led scholars... more
First Maccabees 7:34 employs four verbs to describe the offensive speech by Nicanor, the Seleucid general, addressed to the Jewish elders and priests. The third verb indicates that Nicanor defiled his audience. While this has led scholars to associate 1 Maccabees with the Jewish concept of gentile impurity, several factors suggest that, at this point, an error found its way into the Greek translation from the original Hebrew. The present argument comprises three steps. First, I use the biblical Sennacherib story, featured in the background of the Nicanor episode in 1 Maccabees, as a means of reconstructing the relevant original Hebrew verb employed by 1 Maccabees. Second, I suggest a possible misreading of one letter on the part of the Greek translator. Finally, I propose that a similar, earlier verse in 1 Maccabees, 1:24b, may have been conducive to the translator’s commission of this mistake, thus offering an insight into his way of thinking.
Research Interests:
The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, envisaged a need to explain its absolute exclusion of two foreign nations (the Ammonites and the Moabites), alongside its more lenient... more
The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, envisaged a need to explain its absolute exclusion of two foreign nations (the Ammonites and the Moabites), alongside its more lenient approach towards members of two other foreign nations (the Edomites and the Egyptians), as expressed in their temporal exclusion from the Assembly. The eternal exclusion of the Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
Research Interests: Philosophy, Hebrew Bible, Male Circumcision, Biblical Studies, Deuteronomy, and 15 moreTorah/Pentateuch, Numbers, Book of Deuteronomy, Philosophy and Religious Studies, Biblical criticism, History and archaeology, Pentateuch, Vetus Testamentum, Book of Numbers, Pentateuch Studies, Covenants Bible, Old Testament - Pentateuch, Composition of the Pentateuch, Priestly source of the Pentateuch, and inner-Pentateuchal polemic
The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, envisaged a need to explain its absolute exclusion of two foreign nations (the Ammonites and the Moabites), alongside its more lenient... more
The law of Deuteronomy 23:2-9 (MT), stipulating who is to be excluded from the Assembly of God, envisaged a need to explain its absolute exclusion of two foreign nations (the Ammonites and the Moabites), alongside its more lenient approach towards members of two other foreign nations (the Edomites and the Egyptians), as expressed in their temporal exclusion from the Assembly. The eternal exclusion of the
Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
Ammonites and the Moabites is justified by their historical, unfriendly treatment of Israel on its march from Egypt to the Promised Land. The immediate question, however, is whether the other two nations mentioned in this law treated Israel any better, prior to that march and during its course. Indeed, answering this question in the negative appears to be the goal of another Pentateuchal text, Numbers 20:14-21. Underlying the criticism of Deuteronomy 23:4-9 in Numbers 20:14-21 is the Priestly-Deuteronomic fundamental controversy over the meaning of the covenant of circumcision.
Research Interests: Male Circumcision, Biblical Studies, Deuteronomy, Torah/Pentateuch, Book of Deuteronomy, and 11 moreBiblical criticism, Pentateuch, Book of Numbers, Pentateuch Studies, Covenants Bible, Old Testament - Pentateuch, Composition of the Pentateuch, Priestly source of the Pentateuch, inner-Pentateuchal polemic, Deuteronomy 23:4-9, and Numbers 20:14-21
Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit by King Ptolemy III to Jerusalem. This paper suggests, firstly, that in all likelihood Ptolemy III did not visit Jerusalem during the Third... more
Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit by King Ptolemy III to Jerusalem. This paper suggests, firstly, that in all likelihood Ptolemy III did not visit Jerusalem during the Third Syrian War, and secondly, that Josephus’ report echoes King Ptolemy IV’s visit to Jerusalem following the battle of Raphia, as paralleled in III Maccabees. This would make Josephus’ Against
Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.
Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.
Research Interests:
Abstract:Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and his contender, Alexander I Balas, to win the support of the Jews in Judea. Verses 25b-45 quote a letter, allegedly sent by the king,... more
Abstract:Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and his contender, Alexander I Balas, to win the support of the Jews in Judea. Verses 25b-45 quote a letter, allegedly sent by the king, containing numerous overwhelming promises. Following an accepted view in research, which regards the letter as a fake, this paper raises the possibility that it was written as an ironic text, the irony being at times evident and at others more covert. The article suggests that in the composition of this array of promises, its author consulted, collected, and borrowed elements, even entire clauses from several other, authentic, Seleucid letters sent to the Jews in Judea. Of these letters, the resemblance in content between the text in question and two letters of Antiochus III, quoted by Josephus in book 12 of his Antiquity of the Jews, is especially striking. The apparent reliance on such authentic Seleucid documents, which are not quoted in I Maccabees, indicates that the author of the letter and the author of I Maccabees used the same official Temple archive, and quite likely, are the same person.
Research Interests:
Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and his contender, Alexander I Balas, to win the support of the Jews in Judea. Verses 25b-45 quote a letter, allegedly sent by the king,... more
Chapter 10 of I Maccabees tells of the competing efforts of Seleucid King Demetrius I Soter and his contender, Alexander I Balas, to win the support of the Jews in Judea. Verses 25b-45 quote a letter, allegedly sent by the king, containing numerous overwhelming promises. Following an accepted view in research, which regards the letter as a fake, this paper raises the possibility that it was written as an ironic text, the irony being at times evident and at others more covert. The article suggests that in the composition of this array of promises, its author consulted, collected, and borrowed elements, even entire clauses from several other, authentic, Seleucid letters sent to the Jews in Judea. Of these letters, the resemblance in content between the text in question and two letters of Antiochus III, quoted by Josephus in book 12 of his Antiquity of the Jews, is especially striking. The apparent reliance on such authentic Seleucid documents, which are not quoted in I Maccabees, indicates that the author of the letter and the author of I Maccabees used the same official Temple archive, and quite likely, are the same person.
Research Interests:
Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit by King Ptolemy III to Jerusalem. This paper suggests, firstly, that in all likelihood Ptolemy III did not visit Jerusalem during the Third... more
Scholars are divided on the reliability of the report by Josephus, in Against Apion, of a visit by King Ptolemy III to Jerusalem. This paper suggests, firstly, that in all likelihood Ptolemy III did not visit Jerusalem during the Third Syrian War, and secondly, that Josephus’ report echoes King Ptolemy IV’s visit to Jerusalem following the battle of Raphia, as paralleled in III Maccabees. This would make Josephus’ Against Apion parallel the two acmes of III Maccabees, namely, this visit and the elephant story.
Research Interests:
The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III Maccabees (henceforth III Macc.) has long been at the center of a debate in research, i.e., whether it should be dated to the Hellenistic... more
The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III Maccabees (henceforth III Macc.) has long been at the center of a debate in research, i.e., whether it should be dated to the Hellenistic period in Egypt, or to the Roman period. This paper suggests that III Macc. was composed not too long after the inauguration of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem — hence an additional support for its dating to the Roman period.
Research Interests:
The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III Maccabees (henceforth III Macc.) has long been at the center of a debate in research, i.e., whether it should be dated to the Hellenistic... more
The date, and following it, the proper interpretation of the Alexandrian composition known as III Maccabees (henceforth III Macc.) has long been at the center of a debate in research, i.e., whether it should be dated to the Hellenistic period in Egypt, or to the Roman period. This paper suggests that III Macc. was composed not too long after the inauguration of the Herodian Temple in Jerusalem — hence an additional support for its dating to the Roman period.
Research Interests:
This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerusalem temple: one from Josephus’s Jewish War, books 1 and 5, where the relevant hierarchy is referred to as the seven purities, and the other,... more
This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerusalem temple: one from Josephus’s Jewish War, books 1 and 5, where the relevant hierarchy is referred to as the seven purities, and the other, in Mishnah Kelim 1:6-9, titled (the) ten holinesses. After analyzing the guiding principles behind the seven purities, this paper will examine the two hierarchies against the background of the biblical instructions for the exclusion of impure persons from the desert camp, and the interpretation of these instructions according to Josephus, the Temple Scroll from Qumran, and rabbinic literature. It will show that, while the seven purities is a cultic perception coherent to the exclusion of different categories of people from the temple, the ten holinesses follows different guiding principles.
Research Interests: Jewish Studies, Biblical Studies, Second Temple Judaism, Judaism, Jewish Ritual Purity Law, and 10 moreJosephus, Tannaitic Literature, Mishnah, Second Temple Period, Philosophy and Religious Studies, History and archaeology, Language Culture and Communication, Acts of the Apostles, Holiness, and Herodian Temple
This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerusalem temple: one from Josephus's Jewish War, books 1 and 5, where the relevant hierarchy is referred to as the seven purities, and the other,... more
This paper compares two descriptions of the Jewish hierarchy of holiness in relation to the Jerusalem temple: one from Josephus's Jewish War, books 1 and 5, where the relevant hierarchy is referred to as the seven purities, and the other, in Mishnah Kelim 1:6-9, titled (the) ten holinesses. After analyzing the guiding principles behind the seven puri-ties, this paper will examine the two hierarchies against the background of the biblical instructions for the exclusion of impure persons from the desert camp, and the interpretation of these instructions according to Josephus, the Temple Scroll from Qumran, and rabbinic literature. It will show that, while the seven purities is a cultic perception coherent to the exclusion of different categories of people from the temple, the ten holinesses follows different guiding principles.
Research Interests:
One of the key events marking the demise of the Hasmonean state ‒ namely, the siege Hyrcanus II laid on his brother, Aristobulus II ‒ is described in a passage of Book 14 of Josephus’ Antiquitates (Ant.) that has long been recognized as a... more
One of the key events marking the demise of the Hasmonean state ‒ namely, the siege Hyrcanus II laid on his brother, Aristobulus II ‒ is described in a passage of Book 14 of Josephus’ Antiquitates (Ant.) that has long been recognized as a poorly edited pastiche. The Babylonian Talmud (BT), edited centuries after Josephus, offers a partial parallel. In this article a source-critical analysis of these two texts identifies a prerabbinic Palestinian source as common to both, thus laying to rest other theories about Josephus’ sources in this case and the relations between his account and its BT parallel. Finally, by focusing on the content of this suggested pre-rabbinic source, I argue that the kernel of information thus provided makes historical sense when set in the context of the Jewish belief in the inviolability of Jerusalem and the Temple, which was rooted in the biblical account of the siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE and prevailed during the time of the Hasmonean state and further, until the destruction of the Second Temple.
Research Interests:
One of the key events marking the demise of the Hasmonean state ‒ namely, the siege Hyrcanus II laid on his brother, Aristobulus II ‒ is described in a passage of Book 14 of Josephus’ Antiquitates (Ant.) that has long been recognized as a... more
One of the key events marking the demise of the Hasmonean state ‒
namely, the siege Hyrcanus II laid on his brother, Aristobulus II ‒ is
described in a passage of Book 14 of Josephus’ Antiquitates (Ant.) that
has long been recognized as a poorly edited pastiche. The Babylonian
Talmud (BT), edited centuries after Josephus, offers a partial parallel. In
this article a source-critical analysis of these two texts identifies a prerabbinic Palestinian source as common to both, thus laying to rest other theories about Josephus’ sources in this case and the relations between his account and its BT parallel.
Finally, by focusing on the content of this suggested pre-rabbinic
source, I argue that the kernel of information thus provided makes historical sense when set in the context of the Jewish belief in the inviolability of Jerusalem and the Temple, which was rooted in the biblical account of the siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE and prevailed during the time of the Hasmonean state and further, until the destruction of the Second Temple.
namely, the siege Hyrcanus II laid on his brother, Aristobulus II ‒ is
described in a passage of Book 14 of Josephus’ Antiquitates (Ant.) that
has long been recognized as a poorly edited pastiche. The Babylonian
Talmud (BT), edited centuries after Josephus, offers a partial parallel. In
this article a source-critical analysis of these two texts identifies a prerabbinic Palestinian source as common to both, thus laying to rest other theories about Josephus’ sources in this case and the relations between his account and its BT parallel.
Finally, by focusing on the content of this suggested pre-rabbinic
source, I argue that the kernel of information thus provided makes historical sense when set in the context of the Jewish belief in the inviolability of Jerusalem and the Temple, which was rooted in the biblical account of the siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE and prevailed during the time of the Hasmonean state and further, until the destruction of the Second Temple.