A Note on the Two Seleucid Eras

A Note on the Two Seleucid Eras By Yehuda Ben-Dor, Tel Aviv The basic outline of the chronology of the early years of Seleucus I Nicator has been established with a reasonably fair degree of certainty. Yet the nature of the era named after him, the so-called Seleucid Era (abbreviated SE), has continued to be problematic for the modern historian. In short, it is not always clear whether a date given in SE refers to the SyroMacedonian or to the Babylonian calendar. In this brief paper I will put forward a solution to this old problem by challenging the common assumption that the SyroMacedonian SE began on Oct 7, 312 BCE. During the wars of the Diadochi, Ptolemy I, the satrap of Egypt, and his then admiral Seleucus I (the former satrap of Babylon), defeated Antigonus Monophthalmus at Gaza in the summer of 312 BCE. That victory provided Seleucus I the opportunity of leading a small force into Babylonia to retake the city of Babylon.1 The precise date of this event is not known. What we do know is that the SE was not created by Seleucus I at this time. He recognized Alexander IV (323–309 BCE) as the king of the entire empire from the death of Philip III Arrhidaeus in Dec of 317 BCE. Seleucus I also carried on, unknowingly, a posthumous count for Alexander IV after the 14-yearold boy-king and his mother Roxane were murdered at Macedon in 309 BCE.2 Regnal years 10 and 11 are attested on contemporary Babylonian tablets.3 The last known record is dated to Feb 27, 305 BCE. The earliest 1 B. Z. Wacholder, ―The Beginning of the Seleucid Era and the Chronology of the Diadochoi,‖ in: F. E. Greenspahn, E. Hilgert, B. L. Mack, eds., Nourished with Peace. Studies in Hellenistic Judaism in Memory of Samuel Sandmel (Chico, Calif., 1984), pp. 183–211. 2 For the dating of Alexander IV’s murder to the year 309 BCE, see Nicholas Geoffrey Lemprière Hammond and Frank William Walbank, A History of Macedonia: 336-167 B.C. Vol. 3 (Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 165–168. The view of Wacholder, op. cit., that because Babylonians dated by Alexander IV down to 305 BCE must mean he did not die until this year, is, to my mind, a perfectly well-reasoned deduction. A second possibility, one endorsed here, is that Cassander was able to conceal the murder for several years. It is not unreasonable that Seleucus I and the Babylonians only became aware of it sometime after Feb 27, 305 BCE. 3 T. Boiy, ―Dating Methods During the Early Hellenistic Period,‖ JCS 52 (2000), pp. 1–7. known tablet dated by the Seleucid Era is dated SE 8 Nisannu 3 (Apr 16), 304 BCE. Hence the earliest Seleucus I could have invented his own dating era was sometime between the above two dates. This would have been after Antigonus Monophthalmus and the other Diadochi took up the title of king (basileus). Seleucus I imitated them and proclaimed himself king in 305 or very early in 304 before Nisannu 3 (Apr 16).4 This much is all clear. It is also clear from the earliest tablet dated year 8 that in terms of the Babylonian calendar Seleucus I gave the SE an imaginary starting point by antedating to Nisannu 1 (Apr 3) of 311 BCE. This is understandable because the date was just before or just after he recaptured Babylon and terminated the year count of Antigonus Monophthalmus. He also usurped the latter’s title ―general‖ (Gk. strategos, Akk. GAL.ERÍN.MEŠ) and initiated a new dating convention in the month of Simanu (31 May–29 Jun) of 311 BCE. This is recorded in the Diadochi Chronicle: [Seleu]cus spoke as follows: ―Year 7 of Anti[gonus the general as Year 6 of Alexander son of] the same (i.e. Alexander III) and Seleucus the general you will count; month of Sim[anu]‖ (rev. col. 4, lines 3ʹ-4ʹ).5 What is not so clear is the starting point of the SE in terms of the Syro-Macedonian calendar. The usual assumption is that it began with the first day of the month of Dios (Oct 7) in 312 BCE, shortly after Ptolemy I (with the help of Seleucus I) defeated Antigonus Monophthalmus at Gaza. The problem with this long-standing view is that it finds no real support from any of the contemporary documentation. It is only an opinion that gained popularity in the year 1695.6 It 4 He followed the example of Ptolemy I who proclaimed himself king during the 444th year of the Nabonassar Era, according to the Ptolemaic canon, which was the Egyptian year Nov 7, 305 BCE to Nov 6, 304 BCE. 5 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975), pp. 25–26, 117. Restorations in brackets provided by Bert van der Spek. 6 This was pointed out by E. J. Bickerman, ―Notes on Seleucid and Parthian Chronology,‖ Berytus 8 (1943–44), pp. 73–83, n. 7. Yehuda Ben-Dor actually complicates attempts to clarify the situation because the popular opinion was based on the belief that the Macedonian year began in the fall and this is not entirely correct. The Macedonian calendar was lunisolar but the year was a regnal year and the day of the New Year was simply the anniversary of whatever day the king became king. It obviously changed from one reign to the next and was by no means constant. Therefore, if the Syro-Macedonian SE commenced on Dios 1 this would only be so because Seleucus I dated his accession to Dios 1, not because Dios 1 was supposedly the day of the New Year in the Macedonian calendar. The Babylonian version of the SE is without question a common era reckoned from the recapture of Babylon in the spring of 311 BCE by Seleucus I as the reinstated satrap. It is not a royal era as he was not claiming to be a co-king alongside Alexander IV in 311 BCE. However, the Syro-Macedonian SE is a royal era reckoned from the point where Seleucus I believed he succeeded Alexander IV. It seems the only logical starting point would be the month of Alexander IV’s death in 309 BCE, a fictitious accession date for Seleucus I to be sure but since Cassander appears to have kept the boy king’s death hidden for several years and it was only announced in Babylon after Feb 27, 305 BCE, it was fitting that the accession of Seleucus I should be antedated to the actual time of Alexander IV’s death once that date became known. The above solution has never been suggested that I am aware of but it deserves a serious look. The only obstacle would be that 1 and 2 Maccabees show the two Seleucid eras were at odds with each other by one year at the most in the second century BCE. For example, SE 149 (Babylonian) in 1 Maccabees is SE 148 (SyroMacedonian) in 2 Maccabees. If the Syro-Macedonian SE began in 309 BCE the difference should be two years and not just one. This is assuming the Macedonian calendar was kept in line with the seasons by intercalation, although one may assume with some justification that the calendar fell into neglect in Macedonia and among the Macedonian colonies of Asia after the death of Alexander III and during the tumultuous Diadochi Wars. Given the state of the Macedonian calendar in Egypt this seems entirely reasonable grounds upon which to build a case.7 7 Cf. E. Grzybek, Du calendrier macédonien au calendrier ptolémaïque: problèmes de chronologie hellénistique (Schweizerische Beiträge zur Altertumswissenschaft, 20. Basle: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1990), pp. 69ff., who supposes that intercalations to the Macedonian calendar in Egypt were 2 A letter written in the year 87 CE during the SyroMacedonian month of Panemos records a transaction for the month of Dios ―of the same year.‖ This proves the Syro-Macedonian SE changed somewhere between Loos 1 and the last day of Dios.8 In other words, the death of Alexander IV took place in the Macedonian calendar between Loos 1 and Dios 30 in 309 BCE. Assuming there were no intercalations made to the calendar after the death of Alexander III on Jun 11, 323 BCE (Daisios 28) during the chaotic Diadochi Wars, Loos 1 and the end of Dios fell on Feb 11 and Jun 7 in 309 BCE, respectively. Cassander ordered Glaucias to secretly murder Alexander IV and his mother Roxane in 309 BCE as Alexander IV had just turned 14 in the month of Gorpiaios (10 Apr–9 May on this interpretation) and word was beginning to spread throughout Macedonia that it was time to release the boy from custody and give him his father’s empire. 9 A further precision is provided by the Parian Chronicle which assigns the death of Alexander IV to the Athenian archon year of Hieromnemon—Jun 310 to Jun 309 BCE.10 This would put the murder in the month of Hyperberetaios (i.e. 10 May–7 Jun). It is a simple matter of calendrical calculation to project forward from this point and realize that although the Syro-Macedonian SE would have started out in Hyperberetaios of 309 BCE two years behind the common SE in Babylonia it would eventually gain a year as the calendar months cycled backwards into their proper alignments with the seasons.11 The re-alignment would have taken place in 291 BCE and perhaps it is no coincidence that Seleucus I made his son Antiochus I co-regent that year. This would also have been the most opportune moment for Macedonians in Syria to adopt the fixed Babylonian and Persian intercalation system, effectively cementing the synchronization of the SyroMacedonian months of Hyperberetaios and Dios with the Babylonian months of Ululu and Tašrîtu.12 If this is correct the common SE 21 (Babylonian) beginning with Nisannu 1 on Apr 21 in 291 BCE was followed by the omitted between year 6 of Philip III Arrhidaeus and the accession of Ptolemy I. 8 P. Dura 21, cf. Bickerman, op. cit., n. 8. 9 Diod. 19.105.2. He would be 15 in Grecian reckoning. 10 FGrH 239 B 18. 11 It takes roughly 33 years for a strictly lunar calendar to cycle through the seasons of the solar year and return to the same point. 12 R. Hannah, Greek and Roman Calendars. Constructing Time in the Classical World (London, 2005), pp. 94–95. A Note on the Two Seleucid Eras royal SE 20 (Syro-Macedonian) on some unknown day in the month of Hyperberetaios (i.e. 16 Sep–14 Oct). The one year difference between the two SE counts became set in stone from here on and that would account for the apparent conflict between the SE dates appearing in 1 and 2 Maccabees. These literary works employ two completely different eras, not one era reckoned two different ways depending on locality or scribal whim. One is a common era with a starting point in the spring of 311 BCE because Seleucus I recovered his satrapy at that time. I would argue it is the only era that is used by the author of 1 Maccabees throughout. The other era is a royal era reckoned from the death of Alexander IV and it is the only era that is used by the author of 2 Maccabees. Two eras also co-existed in Egypt under Ptolemy I, a common era reckoned from the point he became satrap of Egypt and a royal era reckoned from the point he proclaimed himself king and Pharaoh. It should come as no surprise Seleucus I copied Ptolemy I and invented two eras. The only differences are the epochs of Ptolemy I were two decades apart and were not extended beyond his lifetime, whereas we must credit Antiochus I for continuing his father’s eras after his death in 281 BCE. Anticipating the objection that two systems, a common era and a royal era, are not evidenced by any double dates in the Seleucid empire is to be countered by pointing out that a single era cannot logically have two different starting points in two different calendar years.13 So regardless of the absence of double dates, there definitely were two different epochs and year reckoning systems maintained within the vast Seleucid empire after the death of Seleucus I. The impact the above thesis has on Maccabean chronology is that it potentially solves all problems previously encountered by historians attempting to reconstruct the Jewish-Seleucid wars. It may also vindicate the Babylonian compiler of the Seleucid king list.14 According to the scribe there were seven kings 13 For this reason K. Bringmann, Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverflogung in Judäa: Eine Untersuchung zur jüdisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (175-163 v. Chr.) (Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Phil.-hist. Klasse, 3. Folge, Nr. 132; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983), pp. 15–28, attempted to argue that only one SE with only one starting point existed (Oct 312 BCE) and underlies both 1 and 2 Maccabees. 14 For the text of the Seleucid king list, see A. Sachs and J. Wiseman, ―A Babylonian King List of the Hellenistic Period,‖ Iraq 16 (1954), pp. 202–212. 3 named Antiochus who preceded Antiochus V Eupator: (1) Antiochus I, son of Seleucus I; (2) Antiochus II, son of Antiochus I; (3) Antiochus III, son of Antiochus II; (4) Antiochus, son of Antiochus III; (5) Antiochus, son of Seleucus IV; (6) Antiochus IV Epiphanes, son of Antiochus III; and (7) Antiochus, son of Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The king list states Seleucus IV died on Ululu 10 in Babylonian SE 137 (Sep 3, 175 BCE) and was succeeded that same month by ―his son‖ Antiochus (rev. lines 9-10). This is thought to be an error for ―brother,‖ but it may very well mean son in the literal sense. In the same year, in the month of Arahsamnu (23 Oct–20 Nov), Antiochus IV Epiphanes and his son Antiochus became kings (rev. line 11). Three kings named Antiochus at one time is admittedly an unusual oddity but hardly an impossibility in a situation where Seleucus IV’s son may have been removed. In SE 142, in the month of Abu (31 Jul–28 Aug, 170 BCE), Antiochus IV murdered his son (rev. line 12). In SE 143 ―Antiochus is king,‖ i.e. the nephew was restored to coregent (rev. line 13). The last preserved entry on the reverse of the tablet in line 14 is badly broken but appears to read in [SE 148] ―in the month of Kislimu it was heard that An(tiochus) the k[ing had died].‖ This has been taken to signify the death of Antiochus IV (between 20 Nov–18 Dec 164 BCE) and backed up by an astronomical diary which mentions a king’s corpse being escorted to Babylon in SE 148 in Tebetu (19 Dec 164 BCE–16 Jan 163 BCE).15 The alternative is the royal corpse was actually the king’s deceased nephew (king no. 5). The king list explicitly states in rev. line 10 that he lasted 11 years. Antiochus IV died in SE 149 (Babylonian) according to 1 Macc. 6:16-17 and his son and successor Antiochus V Eupator was just nine years old at the time.16 Indeed, in order for Antiochus IV to have heard about the altar he erected in Jerusalem being torn down by Yehuda ―the hammer‖ on Kislimu 25 (Dec 13, 164 BCE), as plainly stated in 1 Macc. 6, he must have lived well beyond this date. The news would have taken a minimum of three weeks to leave Jerusalem and reach him in Ecbatana by fast mounted relay couriers. 15 Astronomical Diary III no. -163 C2 r. 17ʹ. Appian, History of Rome: The Syrian Wars, §66. Appian also writes that Antiochus IV died just shy of 12 full years. Combined with the king list this means he died in the common SE 149 (Babylonian) prior to the month of Arahsamnu. The window is Apr 16 to Oct 10, 163 BCE. The royal SE 148 (Syro-Macedonian) began in the fall during the month of Hyperberetaios (11 Sep–10 Oct, 163 BCE). 16