#leontopolis

A stela to the lion god Maahes (Mihos, Miysis) at the Allard Pierson Museum, originally from Leontopolis. Their label explains that the pharaoh presenting him with Maat is a Ptolemy, but it’s uncertain which one. Maahes is labelled in hieroglyphs "the living lion", and the Greek writing on the stela says (if I've got this right) "The holy house of the tomb of the lions" - Leontopolis, I presume.

Aseneth then, gratefully and well-mannered, invites the angel for dinner. He advises her to open up her storeroom, and when she does she finds there a mysterious honeycomb (instead of the dismal bread and wine meal initially offered by Aseneth), white as snow and filled with honey.²³ The angel urges Aseneth to eat from the honeycomb, for this angelic food will provide her with eternal life. After Aseneth tasted a piece from the honeycomb it miraculously restored itself. The angelic figure, however, touched the honeycomb once more with his fingers and suddenly funny-looking bees appear which are white, have purplish/scarlet/violet-like, gold-interwoven wings and wear golden diadems. The bees encircle Aseneth from head to toe and some of them build a second honeycomb (that is similar to the first honeycomb) on Aseneth’s mouth and lips. After having completed their work, the bees begin to eat the honeycomb they built on Aseneth’s mouth. Although the angel chases them away (back to heaven), we hear that there are also bees that seek to harm Aseneth; they fall dead on the floor. They are revived by the angel’s staff and return to heaven as well. Aseneth’s conversion is now completed and the whole episode concludes with the heavenly man stretching out his hand for a third time and producing a fire that consumes the (first) honeycomb. He subsequently blesses Aseneth and her virgin maids-women and, like Elijah, departs on a fiery chariot.²⁴

As Burchard notes, “the episode [of the bees, M. P.] has not yet been interpreted satisfactorily.”²⁵ Nonetheless, Bohak suggested interpreting the story in light of the history of the establishment of Onias’ Temple in the mid-2nd century BCE. As such, Bohak surmises that the second honeycomb built by the bees on Aseneth’s mouth is an allusion to the building of Onias’ Temple in Egypt, whilst the harmful bees, who sought to injure Aseneth, should best be identified with Onias’ opponents (perhaps the Jerusalemite priesthood).²⁶ Similarly, Aseneth’s new status as “City of Refuge,” a recurring epithet in the narrative,²⁷ illustrates the plight of the Oniads who fled to Heliopolis, which became their “City of Refuge,” a “New Jerusalem” bearing eschatological connotations.²⁸ Aseneth’s association with Heliopolis, for that matter, did not ebb away for centuries – most probably because of the reception of J & A in later Christian society. So, still towards the end of the 4th century CE (in 382 CE to be precise), there existed the tradition that Aseneth’s house was standing in Heliopolis.²⁹"

Based on an earlier observation by Philonenko,⁴⁵ Bohak has pointed out that the odd reference to the lion in Aseneth’s prayer, in fact, denotes the leonine manifestation of the Egyptian solar deity Atum-Re, who is referred to in some Egyptian texts as “the father of (all) the gods.” Moreover, Atum-Re is said to have begotten other gods of the Great Ennead of Heliopolis.⁴⁶ Thus, the reference to the lion also connects Aseneth’s prayer to Heliopolis. Bohak notes, in addition, that Re is renowned in Egyptian literature for ferociously punishing those who turn their backs on him, a reputation that matches Aseneth’s anxiety expressed in her prayer perfectly well.⁴⁷ Bohak rightfully notes that “the accurate reference to Re’s leonine manifestation, and the general tone of the passage as a whole, vividly demonstrate our author’s familiarity with at least some aspects of Egyptian (Heliopolitan) theology.”⁴⁸ [...]

Thus, Bohak’s interpretation of the lion, the father of the Egyptian gods, which he links to Heliopolis, dovetails with another pun on the toponym as well, namely that of Leontopolis. Based on his Oniad source, Josephus reports in Ant. 13.66–67 that Onias erected his temple on the site of a former Egyptian shrine, which he purged of all zoomorphic images and idols. In addition, Josephus (or rather his source) records that the Egyptian temple purged by Onias was the cultic site of “Bubastis-in-the-field,” an Egyptian feline deity (Bastet, Bast, Pasht) who is usually depicted as a lion-headed woman.⁵⁰ But not only that. For the sake of this discussion, it is intriguing to discern that according to ancient Egyptian mythology, Bastet was considered both the daughter and the consort of Atum-Re and was thus, as “the Eye of Ra who protects her father Ra,” a manifestation of the solar eye.⁵¹ In that way, also she can be linked to Heliopolis, the center of solar-worship. Moreover, while Bohak, in my opinion, is certainly correct in identifying “the lion, the father of the Egyptian gods” with Atum-Re, the fact that Bastet is his daughter, would thus account for the yet unexplained reference to the “lion’s children.”

Furthermore, G. Pinch has discovered that from Pyramid texts onwards, Bastet is associated with the double attribute of nurturing mother and terrifying avenger;⁵² the latter aspect corresponds with Bohak’s findings in case of Re. It is also worthwhile noting that myths of Bastet feature a distinct erotic aspect which bears similarity to the “love-story” in the first part of J & A. In an Egyptian composition of the late first Millennium BCE about a Prince called Setna, the prince encounters a beautiful girl named Taboubu, who happens to be the daughter of the priest of Bastet. Taboubu, then, agrees to meet Setna in the House of Bastet in Memphis, where the dramatic love-story further develops.

Thus, in the spirit of Bohak’s remark about knowledge of local Heliopolitan mythology on the part of J & A’s author, we can reinforce Bohak’s view by adding that Aseneth’s reference to the lion not only bears upon Heliopolis and Atum-Re in general, but also upon Bastet (and the mythology associated with her) and the site of Onias’ Temple (Onias’ foundation “Leontopolis”), in particular. As Bohak has noted, Aseneth’s conversion required the denunciation of idol-worship, in particular that of those gods, who had a local affiliation with Heliopolis (viz.Atum-Re and Bastet). Therefore, Aseneth’s denunciation of her idol-gods, in my view, echoes Onias’ purging of the temple-site as reported by Josephus in Ant. 13.66–67 and may thus be read as a historical allusion in the text referring to this event."

If we recall Onias’ fate and the function of the Ḥezekiah story in the work of Pseudo-Hecataeus, some remarkable parallels emerge.⁷⁷ Firstly, like Ḥezekiah, Onias was an antagonist to the Seleucids (= Assyrians). Also in Onias’ days, Syrians came to Jerusalem in a belligerent manner (the outcome was of course different, for the invasion of Jerusalem by Antiochus IV caused Onias’ flight to Egypt). Moreover, the Bible praises Ḥezekiah for purging the Temple from all pagan influences and cults and stresses that he performed its rededication as well. If Josephus’ report in Ant. 13.67 is reliable, which I am convinced it is, then Onias too purged a temple (a former Egyptian one dedicated to Bubastis) of the worship of a pagan deity and rededicated it to {the Jewish god}.⁷⁸ The only difference between the two is their means of coping with the Temple crisis: Onias fled to Egypt and erected a new one, while Ḥezekiah stayed on and cleansed the old one." (Pg 282)

"But first, and to return to the question of the aim of the story, I have already illustrated that, next to a constitutional concern, the story is deeply interested in legitimizing Jewish residence and Jewish life in Egypt among non-Jewish Greeks and Egyptians. Of note is that the treatise seeks to defend Jewish residence in Egypt on two fronts, namely vis-à-vis fellow Jews (presumably mostly of Judaean origin) and vis-à-vis Greeks (and Egyptians), all of whom opposed Jewish residence in Egypt. The treatise underscores that Jews are perfectly and comfortably embedded in their Diasporan life in Egypt since, so the author claims, the Jews originated there.⁸⁴ Living in Egypt too, does not militate against rigorously following Jewish law and the willingness to defend it by laying down one’s lives for it.⁸⁵ Concerning the relationship between Jews and Greeks, we take note that the treatise highlights the point that some Jews even went to Greece as colonists together with Cadmus and Danaus, while others went to Judaea (Diodorus 40.3.2). This was obviously introduced to reinforce the view that Jews and Greeks not only get along well with each other, but share a common heritage.⁸⁶ The Ḥezekiah story, we recall, is deliberately placed into the chronological context of the time and reign of Ptolemy I in order to promote the view that not only were Jews welcomed since his reign, but they were also present in Egypt ever since the first days of the Ptolemaic dynasty.⁸⁷ In addition to that, the story of Ḥezekiah’s arrival not only legitimizes the foundation of Jewish settlements (the meaning of which most probably refers to military settlements),⁸⁸ but also seeks to explain the prominence and overall presence of Jewish administrators in the Ptolemaic government and court.⁸⁹" (pg 284-285)

3 Maccabees is generally understood as an endorsement of a festival commemorating the deliverance of the Jewish people in Egypt. There are other Jewish texts that, although set in different historical contexts, promote similar celebrations, such as in the biblical Book of Esther and, quite similarly, in 2 Maccabees.¹⁴ If we bear in mind the historical nature of the events rendered by Josephus – minus the author’s depiction of the drunken elephants and the divine miracles – and acknowledge that these events indeed occurred under Physcon’s reign, then we may reasonably assume that Onias and his troops played a significant role in saving the Jews of Alexandria.¹⁵

Upon a closer examination of 3 Maccabees as a text that situates the Jews of Alexandria in an Oniad context and encourages a commemoratory celebration, the following questions arise: Is the festival intended to commemorate Onias’ triumph and the Oniads’ involvement in the deliverance of Alexandrian Jewry? And does 3 Maccabees, therefore, seek to (subtly) aggrandize Onias, his people, and his temple? If the case holds that 3 Maccabees does indeed promote the tradition of a commemoratory festival, an additional question arises: What could have been the incentive for promoting a celebration of the deliverance of the Alexandrian Jews by the Oniads? The very supposition that there existed particular motivations for such a celebration immediately suggests the existence of a tension between the two communities."

The recent studies referred to above are concerned with the involvement and relationship between the Ptolemaic military, Greek soldiers and Egyptian temples.⁶⁰ These studies have treated the phenomenon of an increased involvement of Ptolemaic military personnel – mostly of Greek and not native Egyptian origin – in the building or reconstruction of Egyptian temples. Oftentimes, we find that the Egyptian temples were overseen by Greek officers, who also served as high priests of those places of worship. In juxtaposition with their religious title/office, they also held important military positions such as strategos or commanders of a fortress (phrouarch).⁶¹ Dietze and Gorre’s studies reveal that Egyptian temples, usually the local center of a certain region, often served as fortresses too, and were deliberately erected for strategic domestic and foreign purposes, especially in the later Ptolemaic period, and specifically under Ptolemy VI Philometor.⁶² Dietze, in particular, has suggested that an Egyptian temple commonly housed a garrison and that the temple structures reflected their defensive purposes also in their architecture.⁶³ In addition, she has provided many examples of Egyptian temples which were built (or refurbished) during Philometor’s reign or shortly thereafter, and which were primarily located and erected in the southern part of Egypt.⁶⁴ The reason for this was Philometor’s (successful) attempts at calming the region following the persistent and irking civil uprisings which plagued the south of Egypt during his early reign. Calming the region was achieved by enforcing Ptolemaic military presence which also meant that more conscripts were needed to man those newly established garrisons. It seems that the Ptolemaic authorities championed the solution of placing military units in temples, by means of which they could bind the local inhabitants to the Ptolemaic state and its rulers through their religious practice. Pairing the security issues with religious matters greatly contributed to forestalling potential future outbursts of violence against the Greek ruling-class of Egypt. Along with those domestic concerns, this strategy also proved itself effective against possible external threats (as illustrated in the example of the south against spontaneous attacks of local Nubian warlords and tribes).⁶⁵ [...]

Viewed from a Ptolemaic perspective, we may once more turn to the Josephan reports on the building of the Oniad Temple and interpret them from a different angle.We recall that Philometor’s reign was plagued by two major security threats already mentioned, namely civil uprisings of the native Egyptian population in the south, and the second, perhaps more serious external threat of a Seleucid invasion from the north (which in fact materialized twice in 169/168 and 168/167 BCE). As I and others have often pointed out, Onias’ flight to Egypt around the time of Antiochus’ IV invasion of Egypt (i.e. in ca. 168/167 BCE) came exactly at the right moment for Philometor. Thus, Onias’ request to build his temple can perhaps be better understood in a Ptolemaic, rather than in a purely Jewish context. That is, the Ptolemaic perspective may explain some minor, yet important, details in the story Josephus relates on the erection of Onias’ Temple (and royal permission to erect it), which perhaps have hitherto been misunderstood.

As such, Josephus tells us in his longer account of Onias’ Temple in his Antiquities – in a much debated and controversial passage – that Onias asked for a specific territory for his temple project. Here we also learn that he erected his temple on the site of an abandoned and apparently damaged Egyptian one.⁶⁶ Seen from a Jewish halakhic perspective, such conduct would render Onias’ Temple impure, which is exactly the point bemoaned by Josephus. We may add that Onias’ actions must have been scorned not only by Josephus, but by other (Jews) too. However, if we set this narrative against the recent evidence from the Ptolemaic papyri and inscriptions, it seems that the refurbishing of pagan native Egyptian shrines and their re-settlement with foreign soldiers had been standard Ptolemaic practice.

It follows that Josephus’ ‘Epistolary Piece’ in fact attests to this specific Ptolemaic policy, but interprets it against the backdrop of Jewish halakhah. The aim was to portray Onias as an impious character, as I have illustrated in Chapter 1. Thus, Onias was given a specific territory by the Ptolemaic king – although he indeed seems to have had a word, as claimed by Josephus, on where exactly to establish his community – which contained a deserted or destroyed Egyptian temple, namely that of Bubastis.⁶⁷ Of course, he must have rejected the idea of actually reestablishing a foreign cult place. This fact emerges from his request to (re‐)build the former temple of Bubastis to make it fit for the worship of Onias’ domestic deity, the Jewish God.⁶⁸

This specific Ptolemaic defense policy may be considered as well to explain Josephus’ datum that Onias, next to his temple, had built “a fortress.”⁶⁹ Our evidence from comparable cases studied by Dietze suggests that temples simultaneously functioned as fortresses, and vice versa.⁷⁰ In that context, it should be noted that Josephus elsewhere writes (BJ 1.31) that Onias also founded (ἔκτισεν) a city which resembled Jerusalem. It is notable that Josephus only once mentions that fact, whereas the resemblance of Oniad edifices to Jerusalem (or the lack thereof – see BJ 7 .427) is noted by him once more in the context of the altar or the Oniad Temple.⁷¹ Josephus’ claim that Onias founded a city is a remarkable detail worth discussing, since, in a Ptolemaic context, the foundation of a city was a restricted act, usually reserved for the king only.⁷² However, recent papyrological and epigraphical evidence reveals that this rule did not necessarily apply generally. "