Hellenistic Inter-state Political Ethics and the Emergence of the Jewish State

Doron Mendels

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780567701428
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Teología y religión
• Subtopic: Estudios bíblicos

Against the background of a reconstructed inter-state ethical code, the rise of the Hasmoneans, Judea's ruling dynasty, is given a new perspective. Doron Mendels explores how concepts such as liberty, justice, fairness, loyalty, reciprocity, adherence to ancestral laws, compassion, accountability and love of fatherland became meaningful in the relations between nations in the Hellenistic Mediterranean sphere, as well as between ruling empires and their subject states. The emerging Jewish state echoed this ethical system.

Part I Mapping the Hellenistic Political Inter-state Ethical Code

Introduction

The emergence of a nonwritten inter-state ethical code in the first thirty years of the second century bce can be defined as one of those hidden revolutions in Western cultural history. Why revolution? Because the thirty years discussed in the following signified a relatively fast process in which an evolved set of ethical principles, many of which had sporadically been on the historical scene beforehand, turned into an inter-state arsenal of values that became gradually embedded in the collective system.¹ But what do I mean by system? Rome and the Greek states to her east became an international system, if we follow Buzan and Little’s “sources of explanation.” They claim that “sources of explanation refer to variables that explain behavior. In the study of international relations, three sources of explanation encompass most of the debate: interaction capacity, process, and structure. They are the key to theory on any given level of analysis and in any sector.”² Since this analysis is crucial for the understanding of what follows, we will elaborate a bit.

Examples of the processes that can be observed in the international system extend across fighting, political recognition, trade, and identity formation. Process is distinct from structure, which is about how units are arranged in a system, and which is therefore more static and positional. In the following the authors conclude that:

perhaps the most interesting aspect of process for IR [International Relations, the discipline] is the durable of recurrent patterns that occur in relations among units … Other processes, which we label process formation … These are durable or recurrent patterns in interactions among units. Process formations include war, arms racing, balance of power, the security dilemma, security complexes, alliance, diplomacy, regimes, international organizations … Process formations often embody action-reaction theories of unit behavior, and so are conditioned by structure, both at the system level (whether anarchic or hierarchic), and at the unit level (for example whether units are ideologically compatible or incompatible).³

Interaction capacity:

refers to the amount of transportation, communication, and organizational capability within the unit or system: how much in the way of goods and information can be moved over what distances at what speeds and at what cost? It is about the technological capabilities (e.g. caravans, ships, etc.), and the shared norms, rules, and institutions, on which the type and intensity of interaction between units in a system, or within units, depends. Interaction capacity is about capabilities that are spread throughout any given system or unit (for simplicity sake we will just talk about systems). It refers to the carrying capacity of a social system, its physical potential for enabling the units within it to exchange information, good, or blows. If process defines what units actually do when they interact, interaction capacity defines what they can do … interaction capacity is implicit in definitions of systems, all of which stress that units must be interacting in order for a system to exist. Interaction is fundamental to any conceptualization of a system. But other than pointing out that this interaction must be sustained, and in some way influential, the literature is generally silent about the nature of interaction. It can be inferred from some realist writings that the ability to wage war is the key to interaction that defines international systems … From this perspective, a set of states that cannot pose each other a military threat fail to constitute an international system. It is the ability of states to create and communicate mutually credible military threats which generates a systematic relationship.⁴

Structure:

suggests that the behavior of units is shoved and shaped not only by their internal processes and their interactions with other units, but also by the way in which their environment is constructed. Structure focuses on the principles by which units are arranged into a system, how units are differentiated from each other, and how they stand in relation to each other in terms of relative capabilities … Although the structures of military-political systems, economic systems, and socio-cultural systems are different (e.g. anarchy, market, international, and world society), they all share these general characteristic.⁵

All of these give us a good theoretical framework. Henceforward we can say that what we are going to relate in the following is a history of an inter-state system that shared an embedded ethical code. Let me clarify my last statement.

During 200–168 bce, as a result of the encounter of the Greek world with the interventionist activities of Rome in the Hellenistic east, a network that included all states, enemies, as well as allies was created, which shared an ethical inter-state code. This is at least the impression we get from the historiography of the period. In contradistinction to ethical codes that were and still are created and written down by committees at companies and institutions, this ethical code came into existence as a result of historical processes and underwent a gradual development during the evolving events. Early on during this period, it was realized by almost all states in the region that the Roman senate actually took upon itself the role of arbitrator and what we call today the regulator of the right conduct in world affairs. This view was conducive for the creation of an ethical inter-state code recognized by many states that cherished its operational mechanisms. There is no precedent to it in the world before the rise of Rome.⁶ Even in Rome’s interventionist actions in the West such a code was not apparent. Since this inter-state ethical code remained oral during its emergence, we are lucky that ancient historians on whom we rely for our survey have written down and enhanced its emergence.⁷ By doing so they actually converted the code from an oral into a written one. This enabled us to reconstruct much of this ethical code and map its ingredients.

But how did I manage to locate the evidence for such an inter-state ethical code and even map it? The answer is quite simple: In the many speeches, assemblies, and deliberations throughout the three wars that occurred during 200–168 bce and between them, the representatives of the participating states frequently refer to inter-state values, manners of conduct, and stately etiquette. For instance, when in dialogues it is contested that the state of which a discussant was representative has breached or fulfilled something, such as loyalty or promises for liberty, an inter-state value system as distinct from a code of local laws is referred to. In other words, as the following survey will demonstrate, we are dealing here with what Habermas called “discourse ethics,” which is achieved by procedural processes in which “moral rules are liable to justification through agreement by all those affected by them in a discourse situation characterized by symmetry, reciprocity and mutual perspective-taking.”⁸ His proceduralist discourse theory can easily be applied to inter-state relations where the states are viewed as individuals within a community who talk constantly to each other. In our present research we have mapped a code of values serving as a framework for an inter-state network that developed its own discourse and political ideas. Thus, we can speak here of a significant ethical revolution created by dialogue during circa thirty years.⁹

* * *

The (Greek) Hellenistic world at the end of the third and during the second centuries bce was a world that enjoyed intense inter-state relations led by a few dominant powers: Macedonia, the Seleucid and Ptolemaic kingdoms, and Rome. Other states such as Pergamum and a few leading states such as Athens, Sparta, Rhodes, the Achaean, and Aetolian leagues were dominant as well within the inter-state scene. Relationships between states at that time were mainly orderly and sequential, but in general not anarchical as Arthur Eckstein once argued.¹⁰ This political backdrop will serve us to demonstrate how the Hasmonean brothers, and/or the authors of 1–2 Maccabees, corresponded with the narratives of behavior prevalent in the Hellenistic environment. Not again the familiar topics of the Hellenization of their court and etiquette, but a much broader picture will be discussed. That is, against the background of the creation of a virtual inter-state ethical political code and patterns of conduct on the one hand, and the lack of a systematic international law code on the other, the question will be raised whether the emerging Hasmonean state was exceptional or in line with general Hellenistic political ethics and conduct. Before starting our survey, a concise survey of the historical background is needed.

The era of the Hasmonean brothers, the years 168–134 bce, followed a great shake-up of all the inter-state relationships in the territories east to the Italian peninsula (henceforward the “Hellenistic world/era”). Rome defeated Carthage led by Hannibal in 201 bce, and shortly thereafter entered a war with the Macedonian king Philip V who had concluded a pact with the Seleucid king Antiochus III with the aim of dividing the treasures and subject territories of Ptolemaic Egypt.¹¹ The latter empire showed signs of weakness toward the end of the third century bce, hence the roving eyes of both powers is understandable.¹² In line with this policy Philip V pursued a series of conquests to his east whereas Antiochus III started a conquest of Palestine, the latter being under Ptolemaic rule for a century as of c. 300 bce. After the decisive victory, the Seleucids annexed Palestine, while its king Antiochus III behaved benevolently toward the Jews and their Temple as we know from the account of Josephus (he was euergetes).¹³ At that time, with the invitation of Greek cities and the king of Pergamum, Rome intervened and fought for three years on Greek soil against Macedonia. The so-called Second Macedonian War ended in 197 bce at the battle of Cynoscephalae with a decisive Roman victory. Then, the Roman victor, Titus Quinctius Flamininus, announced at an impressive gathering at Corinth that the Greek leagues and cities (henceforward “states”) will be free. Yet Rome did not hurry to evacuate Greece since she wanted to settle affairs with Nabis the tyrant of Sparta who still posed a threat to the peace achieved in Greece. When this was done, Rome evacuated Greece, but not for long. Some years later Rome returned and had defeated Antiochus III who invaded Greece in the so-called Roman-Syrian War (192–189 bce). The settlement reached at Apamea between Rome and the Seleucid kingdom in 188 bce resulted in a peace treaty that had severe repercussions for the Jews almost twenty years later when the Seleucids were short of money which they were obliged to pay to Rome as reparations; the attempts made by Antiochus IV to extract money from the Temple in Jerusalem ignited the Hasmonean upheaval against the Seleucids. In 171 bce the Third Macedonian War broke out, this time of Rome in cooperation with several states in the Greek sphere against Perseus king of Macedonia, Philip V’s son. This war ended yet again with a Macedonian defeat at Pydna in 168 bce. We shall see in Part II that the Hasmonean war against the Seleucids should be told against the background of the peace at Apamea and the Third Macedonian War, its end being a point at which change of balance between the powers was created. In addition, we should mention that twenty years after the outbreak of the Hasmonean uprising (168 bce), a revolt of the Achaean league against Rome broke out in 146 bce (probably mentioned in 2 Maccabees 8). Subsequent to its suppression, Greece finally became a Roman province. Not long thereafter the last king of Pergamum (Asia Minor) bequeathed his kingdom to the Romans (133 bce). This is a short historical outline of the international scene in the Hellenistic east during 200–146 bce. Now we have reached our main topic in this part of the book.

In our modern world, political inter-state ethics has become a major topic since universal morals are breached daily and very little is done to repair it even though an international law code exists and a central institution, the United Nations, is responsible for its enforcement. Yet at the time under discussion when a political inter-state ethical code was not written down in codices or inscriptions, it comes to the fore in speeches, agreements, and dialogues that are adduced by the historiography of the period. It is quite clear that talk about ethical inter-state relations cannot be dissociated from current events, as we learn once and again in the course of human history. Hence in order to unveil and to map the components of such a code, we will write here for the first time a linear survey of the development of an inter-state ethical code as linked to the events, something like “the history of inter-state political ethics of the Hellenistic world during the years 200-168 bce as adduced by historians of the period.” It should be emphasized that for centuries the concept of law (oral and written) was deeply rooted in the city-states of the Greek world as well as in the Roman Republic whose codes of law had a prominent visibility in the poleis.¹⁴ That makes the absence of a systematic written international law code quite surprising.¹⁵ However, two factors helped build up an inter-state ethical code while the encounter with Rome and the ensuing wars became the catalyst for its formation. First, representatives of states during the years 200–168 bce entertained a vast and intensive dialogue about political ethics in conferences and presentations in the Roman senate as well as in assemblies of Greek states. They frequently used ethical terminology drawn from the ethical systems of the individual states, thus creating an arsenal that became a rich source for inter-state ethical discourse. In other words, before 200 bce, sophisti...