Queen Helena of Adiabene and Her Sons in Midrash and History

Trans. Sefaria.org. cf. b. Nazir 19b.

That this rule appears nowhere in the Torah but is “oral law” highlights the rabbis’ message about the impossibility of correctly fulfilling commandments outside their orbit.

Whiston division: chs. 2-4. For a monograph length treatment of the royal family, see Michał Marciak, Izates, Helena, and Monobazos of Adiabene: A Study on Literary Traditions and History (Philippika 66; Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 2014).

For a literary and source critical analysis of the stories about the Adiabene royal family in Josephus and comparisons with rabbinic literature, see Tal Ilan “The Conversion of the House of Adiabene,” in Josephus and the Rabbis, vol. 1 (eds., Tal Ilan and Vered Noam; Between Bible and Mishnah; Jerusalem: Yad Ben Zvi, 2017) 508-520 [Hebrew].

Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2.12; trans. Philip Schaff.

See Doron Ben-Ami and Yani Tchekhanovets, “Has the Adiabene Royal Family ‘Palace’ Been Exposed in the City of David?” in Unearthing Jerusalem, 150 years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City (eds., K. Galor and G. Avni; Winona Lake, Indiana. Eisenbrauns, 2011), 231-239. This was only one of multiple structures that the Adiabene royal family built in Jerusalem. Another palace was built by a relative of Helena named Grapte (Jud. War4:567).

Josephus writes:

Not long-afterwards (=the failed Parthian invasion), Izates passed away, having completed fifty-five years of his life, and having been monarch for twenty-four; he left twenty-four sons and twenty-four daughters. (Ant. 20:92)

The number 24 seems topological or literary here, and the description of his many sons may be tailored after similar depictions of successful leaders in the Bible, such as Ibzan:

^{שופטים יב:ח} וַיִּשְׁפֹּט אַחֲרָיו אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל אִבְצָן מִבֵּית לָחֶם. ^יב:ט וַיְהִי לוֹ שְׁלֹשִׁים בָּנִים וּשְׁלֹשִׁים בָּנוֹת שִׁלַּח הַחוּצָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים בָּנוֹת הֵבִיא לְבָנָיו מִן הַחוּץ וַיִּשְׁפֹּט אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים.

^{Judg 12:8} After him, Ibzan of Bethlehem led Israel. ^12:9He had thirty sons, and he married off thirty daughters outside the clan and brought in thirty girls from outside the clan for his sons. He led Israel seven years.

See R. Steven Notley and Jeffrey P. Garcia, “Is Queen Tsadan to Be Identified with Queen Helena of Adiabene?” in Megan Sauter, “The Tomb of Queen Helena of Adiabene,” Bible History Daily (April 9, 2014).

For more on Berenice, see my, “Queen Berenice: A Woman of Contrasts,” TheTorah.com(2016).

In fact, the rabbis never mention Berenice at all.

Though Josephus tells some positive stories about her, Second Temple Jews were bothered by Berenice, since she did not support the rebellion and ended up as Titus’ lover. Helena, in contrast, was beloved by Judeans for her generosity with the poor and her piety. She was not alive during the rebellion, having died almost a decade before its outbreak, but her descendants decidedly supported it and even fought in it (as will be discussed later).

Helena married her brother, Monobazus I, something that was not anathema in Persian culture; Berenice did not marry her brother, but Agrippa II was a lifelong bachelor, and she lived with him for years after she was widowed, and rumors about a possible physical relationship circled in Rome.

Eisenstin, Otzar HaMidrashim, 535.

The rabbis only ever discuss one Agrippa.

See Abaye’s statement in b. Berakhot 29a.

Trans. Sefaria.org. cf. b. Yoma 37b.

The Tosefta actually has this explanation after the sotah donation, but, as Lieberman already pointed out in his Tosefta Kefeshuta (ad loc.), it is almost certainly meant as an explanation for the candelabra. The Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 37b) explains that the purpose was to show everyone that it was time for morning prayers, but this seems like a later attempt to connect the donation to a mitzvah where no connection was intended.

The early Church Father Eusebius of Caesaria (ca. 260/265 – 339/340 C.E.), commented on this passage as follows:

[Josephus writes that] “at this time it came to pass that the great famine took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen, having purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the needy.” You will find this statement also in agreement with the Acts of the Apostles, where it is said that the disciples at Antioch, “each according to his ability, determined to send relief to the brethren that dwelt in Judea; which also they did, and sent it to the elders by the hands of Barnabas and Paul” (Acts 11:29–30). Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History, 2.12; trans. Philip Schaff.

Here Eusebius buttresses the reputations of the Apostles by comparing their generosity to that of Helena.

Tal Ilan makes this observation; Ilan, “Conversion,” 519.

For an analysis of this text, see Gregg Gardner, “How Tzedakah Became Charity,”TheGemara.com (2017). 

The crying at not being a real Jew is reminiscent of the story about the Herodian King Agrippa, who cried when he was told that he was not really “a brother” (m. Sotah 7:8):

אַגְרִיפָּס הַמֶּלֶךְ עָמַד וְקִבֵּל וְקָרָא עוֹמֵד, וְשִׁבְּחוּהוּ חֲכָמִים. וּכְשֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְלֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַל תִּתְיָרֵא אַגְרִיפָּס, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה.

King Agrippa stood and received [the Torah on the holiday of Sukkot]and read standing, and the sages praised him. When he reached, “You shall not place a foreigner over you” (Deut 17:15) his eyes ran with tears. They said to him, “Fear not, Agrippa, you are our brother, you are our brother, you are our brother!”

The rabbis are likely thinking about the pious Agrippa I, though it may be that they elided the two into one person in their tradition (as the Mishnah did with Izates and Monobazus). As noted earlier, Agrippa was not himself a convert, but he descended from Herod the Great, whose father Antipater was an Idumean who converted to Judaism, and rabbinic tradition reflects the ambivalence of some Jews who did not accept the Herodians as “complete” Jews. While it is unclear whether this Mishnah is referring to Agrippa I or his son, Agrippa II, the implication is the same: the Herodian rulers were never totally assimilated into the Jewish community, and that includes those family members who were most committed to Jewish practice. For more on Agrippa in this Mishnah, see Daniel R. Schwartz, Agrippa I: The Last King of Judea (Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 1990), 162.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus of Egypt (285-246 BC) is credited with commissioning the LXX for the Alexandrian library, and this may well be the only Ptolemy with which the rabbis were familiar. Although historically speaking this does not work at all with Izates II and Monobazus II, the rabbis would not have realized this, as they had no clear sense when any of these men lived. See discussion in Tal, “Conversion,” 518.

In Ilan’s source critical analysis of Josephus, the information on the conversion of the royal family likely came from one source whereas the information on Izates II political life came from another. She further suggests that the author of Genesis Rabbah may have had access to that earlier source and was reworking it in his midrash. The political source, and perhaps both sources, probably originated with the royal family itself, many of whom lived in Jerusalem. See Ilan, “Conversion,” 512.

The name means meaning “fortified city (or fortified port) of Asposine”—charax is from the Aramaic כרך—and was named for the founder of the dynasty, Asposine (Greek Hyspaosines; 141-124 B.C.E.), who had been appointed as a governor by Antiochus IV, but rebelled and won independence for Characene when the Parthians went to war with the Syrian-Greeks. 

According to Josephus, this was actually the second time he returned to Adiabene. The first time was when he was in his early twenties, Izates II’s father, King Monobazus I, summoned him back to Adiabene, so he could see and embrace his favorite son before he died. Then the king sent him off to rule the province of Carrae in the west, which Josephus claims is famous for its black cardamom as well as “the remains of that ark, wherein it is related that Noah escaped the deluge, and where they are still shown to such as are desirous to see them” (Ant. 20:25). There he remained until his father’s death, after which he returned to Adiabene and took the throne as Izates II. His older brother Monobazus II had been ruling as regent until his return but he gave his younger brother no trouble. From Josephus’ account, it seems clear that Helena was in control and that her sons and the country’s elders took their cues from her.

The question of when conversion to Judaism became systematized and normative remains under scholarly debate. According to Shaye Cohen, a professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard University, conversion was probably institutionalized in the second century B.C.E., shortly after Judea became an independent Hasmonean state. Cohen suggests that the institutionalization of conversion was an outgrowth of the Greek idea of Politeia, which refers to the adoption of a common, public way of life shared by all Greek citizens. Shaye Cohen,The Beginnings of Jewishness: Boundaries, Varieties, Uncertainties (Oakland: University of California Press, 2001) 137. See also Seth Schwartz, “Conversion to Judaism in the Second Temple Period,” Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism 67 (2006) 223–236. But other scholars, such as Joel Kaminsky, a professor of Jewish Studies at Smith College, argue that conversion became a normative process only in the rabbinic era. Joel S. Kaminsky, “Israel’s Election and the Other in Biblical, Second Temple, and Rabbinic Thought,” in The ‘Other’ in Second Temple Judaism: Essays in Honor of John J. Collins, ed. Daniel C. Harlow, Karina Martina Hogan and Matthew Goff (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2011) 23. This suggestion seems more likely, since there is no indication of the existence of a formal conversion process in Second Temple material.

It seems that even as late as the Tannaitic period, multiple opinions were circulating regarding what a man must do to convert to Judaism (b. Yebamot 46a):

גר שמל ולא טבל – ר”א אומר: הרי זה גר, שכן מצינו באבותינו, שמלו ולא טבלו;

A convert who is circumcised by has not immersed: R. Eleazer says: “This counts as a conversion, since we find that our patriarchs were circumcised but did not immerse.”

טבל ולא מל – ר’ יהושע אומר: הרי זה גר, שכן מצינו באמהות, שטבלו ולא מלו;

A convert who immerses but is not circumcised: R. Joshua says: “This counts as conversion, since we find that our matriarchs immersed but were not circumcised.”

וחכמים אומרים: טבל ולא מל, מל ולא טבל – אין גר, עד שימול ויטבול.

The Sages say: “Whether he immerses but is not circumcised, or he is circumcised but does not immerse, it does not count as conversation until he is circumcised and has immersed.”

See discussion in, Moshe Lavee, “The ‘Tractate’ of Conversion—BT Yeb. 46–48 and the Evolution of Conversion Procedure,” EJJS 4 (2010) 169–213. Echoes of the debate between Ananias and Eleazer can be found in the New Testament as well. In the book of Acts, Jesus’ disciples in Jerusalem meet at what is known as the Apostolic Council. At this council, which is thought to have occurred in around 48 CE, the disciples acknowledge that according to Mosaic Law, a man cannot be saved without being circumcised (Acts 15:1). Yet other followers of Jesus, who regarded themselves as committed Jews, did not believe that circumcision was a necessary requirement for Gentiles who sought to follow the teachings of Jesus. Perhaps the most prominent transmitter of Jesus’s teachings, Paul, argued that Gentiles who wanted to join the community of Jesus followers did not have to enter this community through “works,” that is, through taking on Jewish laws such as circumcision (Galatians 3).

Josephus claims that it was this new set of conversions that set the Adiabene noblemen against Izates. Why this had more of an effect than Izates’ circumcision or Helena’s trip to Judea is unclear; perhaps this explanation of cause and effect is merely Josephus’ take and not an accurate depiction of the Adiabene noblemen’s mindset. 

We do not know which Arab polity is being referenced here. On Adiabene’s west was an Arabic province called Osroene, whose capital was in Edessa, and whose king was named Abgar V. But this was a large province, and we do not know of war between Osroene and Adiabene or of Abgar V dying by suicide. Some scholars assume it is a reference to a small province in the Hatra region, what Xenophon calls “Arabia of the two rivers.” See discussion in Jan Retso, The Arabs in Antiquity: Their History from the Assyrians to the Umayyads(New York: Routledge, 2013), 412-414.

According to Josephus, before actually invading, Vologases sent a list of unreasonable demands, meant to humiliate Izates, which he knew Izates would refuse; the demands were only a pretext for an invasion. Izates understands all this,

[A]nd so he decided, in his present danger, to commit himself to God the protector. Reflecting that he had in God the greatest of all allies, he deposited his children and wives in the most secure of his fortresses, stored all the grain in towers, and burnt the grass for pasturage. (Ant. 20:85)

Here, Josephus has set up the battle of Izates and his nation against the Parthian king in terms reminiscent of Hezekiah vs. Sennacherib or Judah vs. the Syrian-Greeks.

Josephus writes (Ant. 20:89-91):

He gave himself to supplicating God’s favor. He flung himself on the ground, and befouled his head with ashes; he fasted, together with his wife and children, calling upon God with these words: “If it is not in vain, O sovereign Lord, that I have had a taste of Your goodness, and that I have made it my belief that You are the first and only rightful Lord of all, come to my aid not only for my sake to defend me from my enemies, but also because it is Your power that they have had the audacity to challenge.” Thus he cried aloud with tears and lamentation, and God hearkened to him. 

מַעֲשֶׂה בְהִילְנִי הַמַּלְכָּה, שֶׁהָלַךְ בְּנָהּ לַמִּלְחָמָה, וְאָמְרָה, אִם יָבֹא בְנִי מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה בְשָׁלוֹם אֱהֵא נְזִירָה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים, וּבָא בְנָהּ מִן הַמִּלְחָמָה, וְהָיְתָה נְזִירָה שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים.

It is related the Queen Helena, when her son went to war, said, “If my son returns in peace from the war, I shall be a Nazirite for seven years.” Her son returned from the war, and she observed a naziriteship for seven years…

The Babylonian Talmud’s version of this baraita adds a second point to R. Judah’s response (Sukkah 2b):

ועוד: כל מעשיה לא עשתה אלא על פי חכמים

Moreover, all her actions were only taken in consultation with Torah sages.

It is worth noting that here again R. Judah seems to be more favorably disposed to Helena than his colleagues. Just as here he assumes she was not mistaken about the laws of sukkah, in the Mishnah he assumes she did not ruin her second attempt to fulfill the nazirite vow.

Early in his kingship, Izates II became a favorite ally of Parthia when he helped the deposed king of Parthia, Artabanus III (ca. 10-35 C.E.), regain his throne, by communicating his support of the deposed king to the nobleman of Parthia (Ant. 20:54-65). In the meantime, Tiridates III ruled for a year or so, but agreed to return the throne to Artabanus III without a fight. This redounded to Izates’ favor, since during his short second rule (36-38 C.E.), Artabanus showed Izates much courtesy (Ant. 20:66-68).

Refusing Parthia was itself a dangerous choice, however, and infuriated at Izates II’s refusal, Vardanes I declared war on Adiabene. Luckily for Izates II, the story ends well. As Josephus tells us, “he (Vardanes I) did not derive any advantage from his campaign since God cut short all his expectations” (Ant. 20:72). When Vardanes I’s subjects realized he was bent on attacking Rome, they executed him. The throne passed first to his brother Gotarzes II (40-51 C.E.), who was also executed (according to Josephus), then briefly to his uncle, Vonones II, who only ruled a few months, and after his death, to Vonones II’s son, Vologases I (51-78 C.E.) Josephus’ account seems confused here, as he skips over Vonones II, and assumes Vologases is Vardanes I’ brother, as opposed to his cousin. This Vologases I is the Parthian King who eventually laid siege to Adiabene, towards the end of Izates II’s life, another Parthian campaign against Adiabene that went nowhere, as described in a previous section. Further details about Izates II’s involvement with the Parthians during the reign of Gotarzes II appears in Cornelius Tacitus, The Annals 12:13-14, which describes his shifting allegiances in ca. 49 C.E. Tacitus’ version differs from that of Josephus in a number of particulars (Gotarzes dies naturally, Izates II is in league with the Arab king, etc.), and his attitude toward Izates II is not positive. (He also says nothing about Izates II being Jewish, only “barbarian.”)

Steven Mason, in his commentary to the Brill edition (ad loc.), makes this suggestion.

Another Adiabenite is said to have attacked Roman siege engines with a torch:

A certain Gephtaeus of Garis, a town in Galilee, and Magassarus, a soldier of the king and henchman of Mariamme, along with the son of a certain Nabataeus from Adiabene, called from his misfortune by the name of Ceagiras (חיגר), signifying “lame,” snatched up torches and rushed forth against the engines. No bolder men than these three sallied from the town throughout this war or inspired greater terror; for, as though racing for friendly ranks and not into a mass of enemies, they neither slackened nor turned aside, but, plunging through the midst of the foe, set light to the machines. Assailed by shots and sword-thrusts from every quarter, nothing could move them from the field of danger until the fire had caught hold of the engines.

Josephus does not clarify whether the unnamed lame son of Nabataeus was from the royal family, and if so, what relation he had to Helena and her sons.

Josephus writes:

On the same day the sons and brothers of king Izates, who were joined by many of the eminent townsfolk, entreated Caesar to grant them a pledge of protection. Though infuriated at all the survivors, Titus, with the unalterable humanity of his character, received them. For the present, he kept them all in custody; the king’s sons and kinsmen he subsequently brought up in chains to Rome as hostages for the allegiance of their country. (Jud. War 6:356-357)

Josephus describes a speech, given by Agrippa II (2:345-401), aimed at convincing his Judean kinsmen that a rebellion against Rome would be pointless, he claims that Judah will receive no help from anybody (Mason trans.):

Which allies, then, will you take in? From the uninhabited [region]? Certainly all those in the inhabited earth are Romans, unless someone extends his hopes beyond the Euphrates and supposes that his compatriots from Adiabene are joining the defense. But they will not embroil themselves in so serious a war for an irrational cause. (Jud. War. 2:388-389)

As noted above, although Adiabene does not, in fact, send an army to support the war against Rome, Agrippa II was not fully correct here, since the Adiabenites of Jerusalem fought on the side of the Jews. 

The death date of Monobazus II is unknown, but as he was still ruler during the Great Rebellion, his reign likely lasted into the 70s C.E.