Seleucid Akra tormented the Jews

by Damien F. Mackey … many good researchers, closely following the ancient records, have determined that Haram al-Sharif definitely was not where the Jerusalem Temples had been built. A decade ago, in 2015, there was great excitement amongst archaeologists that the hitherto elusive Akra (Acra) fortress built by the Seleucid invaders in Jerusalem had been discovered. Brent Nagtegaal wrote about it enthusiastically a few years later: Fortress of Antiochus Epiphanes Uncovered in Jerusalem | ArmstrongInstitute.org Fortress of Antiochus Epiphanes Uncovered in Jerusalem Hannukah’s nemesis comes to life in 2015 discovery By Brent Nagtegaal • December 20, 2019 His article will require some correction (my comments to be added). He wrote: In November 2015, the Israel Antiquities Authority (iaa) sent a news brief to reporters in Jerusalem, calling for a press conference the following day to announce the “solution to one of the greatest questions in the history of Jerusalem.” The announcement did not disappoint: On site, in Jerusalem’s City of David, archaeologist Doron Ben-Ami announced that the famed Akra (citadel) of Antiochus Epiphanes had been discovered. Up until that announcement, little had been found testifying to the massive Hellenistic intrusion into the city early in the second century b.c.e. Yet here, at the northwestern portion of the City of David, a massive section of a city wall from that very period was found under layers and layers of construction from later civilizations. Damien Mackey’s comment: A chronological correction. While “the second century b.c.e.” is the standard era for Antiochus IV ‘Epiphanes, this will need to undergo some lowering if I am right in my revised identification of this Seleucid king: Time to consider Hadrian, that ‘mirror-image’ of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus (4) Time to consider Hadrian, that 'mirror-image' of Antiochus Epiphanes, as also the census emperor Augustus Brent Nagtegaal continues: Along with the city wall, the base of a fortification tower was unearthed, having a width of over 3.5 meters (12 feet) and a length of over 18 meters (60 feet). Attached to the lower portion of the wall was a sloped embankment known as a glacis. This was made up of layers of soil, stone and plaster designed to keep attackers away from the base of the wall, a key feature of a defensive city wall. According to the press release from the iaa, this glacis extended as far down as the bottom of the Tyropoeon valley, the depression on the western part of the ancient city. Around the massive wall, lead slingstones typical of Antiochus’s army were discovered, as well as bronze arrowheads featuring a trident symbol on them—the mark associated with Epiphanes. Further corroborating the dating of the wall were a number of coins, the earliest of which dates to the time of Antiochus Epiphanes. On top of that, hundreds of pottery handles impressed with markings from Rhodes that were used for wine vessels were also discovered, testifying to the Hellenistic nature of the fortress’s inhabitants. While one can rarely be 100 percent sure of the identification of such a site, the evidence certainly does support the conclusion that this building is indeed the famed Akra. Fortress of Antiochus Following an unsuccessful bid to conquer the Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt in 168 b.c.e., Antiochus iv (Epiphanes) ventured back to Judea and unleashed one of history’s most atrocious anti-Semitic attacks on the fledgling province of Judea. He ransacked the capital city of Jerusalem, sacrificed swine flesh on the altar of sacrifice in the temple courtyard, and then set up a statue of Jupiter in the holy of holies. Afterward, he ravished the countryside in order to destroy any vestige of the Holy Scriptures he could find, as well as killing those who would not comply with his decrees. Then, in order to ensure the Jews didn’t rebel, he constructed a massive fortress in the northern part of the City of David and stationed a permanent garrison of his troops there. Damien Mackey’s comment: Now for a geographical correction. This is where the sensational find starts to unwind in terms of it being the Akra. Its position here “in the northern part of the City of David” is perfectly correct if the standard geography is followed, according to which the Jerusalem Temples had once stood at today’s Temple Mount, Haram al-Sharif. But many good researchers, closely following the ancient records (e.g. Marilyn Sams below), have determined that Haram al-Sharif definitely was not where the Jerusalem Temples had been built. See also my article on this: True location of Jerusalem Temples right near Gihon Spring (4) True location of Jerusalem Temples right near Gihon Spring Brent Nagtegaal continues: This famed building stood for the next quarter of a century, a constant affront to the Jews as it sat adjacent to the temple. Even after the Maccabean revolt against Antiochus Epiphanes was successful at reclaiming Jerusalem in 165 b.c.e., the Jews still could not take the citadel. Damien Mackey’s comment: The war can be re-dated to the early years of Jesus Christ: Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus (3) Religious war raging in Judah during the Infancy of Jesus Brent Nagtegaal continues: In fact, for the next 20-plus years, long after the death of Antiochus Epiphanes in Babylon, a garrison of Seleucid troops continued to be stationed in the Akra, constantly hounding those visiting the temple grounds. As Flavius Josephus relates in Antiquities of the Jews: [A]nd when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel [Greek: Acra] in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. However, in that citadel dwelt the impious and wicked part of the multitude from whom it proved that the citizens suffered many and sore calamities. It was only after Simon, the elder brother of Judas, came into power over the new, restored Jewish state in 142 b.c.e., that the Seleucid forces were finally ousted from the Akra a year later. Then, to ensure that foreigners would never again hold captive the religious practice of the Jews, Josephus records that Simon led a three-year, night-and-day effort to destroy the Akra completely, even grinding down part of the ground it rested upon. How could these excavators find evidence of the Akra if Simon destroyed it? …. I shall leave Brent Nagtegaal’s article at this point, with this relevant question hanging, to turn to an important article by Marilyn Sams, who far better understands the geography of Old Jerusalem: (4) Did Excavators Find the Seleucid Citadel in the Givati Parking Lot Did Excavators Find the Seleucid Citadel in the Givati Parking Lot? by Marilyn Sams Since 2007, parts of the Givati parking lot excavation on the southeastern hill of Jerusalem, conducted by Doron Ben-Ami and Yana Tchekhanovets, have been characterized as the remains of Queen Adiabene’s palace and also the Seleucid Acra. Both of these faulty identifications are based on a misunderstanding of and/or lack of attention to literary descriptions which place both of these constructions in the lower city, formerly the City of David, called “Acra,” starting in the Greek period. “Acra” (meaning “citadel” in Greek) stands for both the citadel itself and the area it occupied--the lower city. Josephus and First Maccabees place them both south of the temple, which was in the middle of the southeastern hill, and also verify that Simon Maccabee not only destroyed the citadel, but also the hill on which it stood. Therefore, there were no remains remaining. This paper will set forth the literary evidence evidencing the citadel’s actual location, which was also near the location of Queen Adiabene’s palace. Citadels Preceding the Seleucid Citadel Because the Haram esh-Sharif has been falsely identified as the temple mount, rather than the Roman camp Antonia, claimed by eyewitness Eleazar ben Ya’ir to be the only monument remaining after the 70 A.D. destruction (War VII, 8, 376), there have been eight erroneous proposals for the location of the Israelite and Seleucid citadels. However, they were all in the same location, starting with the Jebusite citadel (called “Millo” in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles), where David resided before building his palace across from it in the newly renamed City of David (Antiquities VII, 3, 65). The northern boundary of this city can be assumed to be the Middle Bronze Age II and Iron Age I walls found in Kathleen Kenyon’s Area H at the bottleneck of the southeastern hill. Hence, the City of David covered roughly the lower half of the southeastern hill. In 3 Kings 2: 35 (Septuagint version), we discover that Solomon expanded this city by breaching its northern wall and adding the “wall of Jerusalem,” a fortification which would then protect the northern half of the southeastern hill and the daughter of Pharoah in the palace he had newly built for her, outside the City of David. The crescent shape of the City of David/Jerusalem (the shape of the southeastern hill) is witnessed by accounts in Josephus, Aristeas, Tacitus, and the Venerable Bede, confining the city to the southeastern hill, with no northerly extension described. It is notable from the Septuagint scripture that Solomon did not breach the City of David’s wall until he had already built the temple and his own palace and rebuilt the citadel. Since the temple was built on Mount Zion at the border between Benjamin and Judah, above En Shemesh (Spring of the Sun--the Gihon Spring), Solomon’s citadel replaced the former Jebusite citadel and acted as a landmark (along with the temple) demarcating the Benjamin/Judah borderline. Hezekiah repaired this citadel (2 Chronicles 32: 5), Nehemiah mentioned it in the Persian period (Nehemiah 7: 2), and Josephus described it during the conquest of Jerusalem by Antiochus the Great (Antiquities XII, 3, 133). Antiochus Epiphanes IV, the son of Antiochus the Great, replaced the citadel of these descriptions with a new one in the same place. The “Lower City,” “Acra,” and the “City of David” As noted by archaeological excavations or the lack thereof, the “city” of the Persian and Greek periods reverted to the southeastern hill only. Therefore, the “lower city” of those periods was the area south of the temple, which edifice Hecateus of Abdera (c. 4th century B.C.) described as occupying the “middle” of the city (Contra Apion I, 22, 198), a location shared by the Gihon Spring (Shiloah), as noted in Hagigah 76a of the Jerusalem Talmud. The Letter of Aristeas also implies the temple’s bifurcation of the city by describing “upper towers” and “lower towers.” …. In Antiquities XII, 5, 252, Josephus recounts Antiochus Epiphanes’ 168 B.C. conquest of Jerusalem, after having overthrown the walls, and his building a citadel in “the lower part of the city:” He also burned down the finest buildings; and when he had overthrown the city walls, he built a citadel [Acra] in the lower part of the city, for the place was high, and overlooked the temple; on which account he fortified it with high walls and towers, and put into it a garrison of Macedonians. (italics and bracketed Greek terms or other information mine, as in all further quotations) The towers and immense stones of the citadel are described by Aristeas and the height of the “place” of the citadel recalls the 3 Kings 2: 35 passage which says Solomon built his citadel “above” the temple, implying the Seleucid citadel replaced the former Solomonic citadel in the same place. The descriptions of the citadels’ location as being “above” and “high” and “overlooking the temple” are factors which have been minimized, ignored, or dismissed in the false locations posited for all the citadels. The literary evidence is clear that the citadels were in a place higher than the temple in the lower city--that part of the city, in both the Israelite era and the Greek era, being limited to the lower half of the southeastern hill. The reason for the height of the citadel being greater than the temple appears to derive from the difference in height between two natural hills, which were likely augmented by occupational tels (because of the spring), dating from 3,000 B.C., with Mount Zion, the hill on which the temple was built, being the lower of the two. Antiochus Epiphane’s destruction of Jerusalem is also set forth in Maccabees 1: 31-36, but in these verses, Acra, or the “lower part of the city” is referred to as the City of David: And when he [Antiochus] had taken the spoils of the city, he set it on fire, and pulled down the houses and walls thereof on every side…Then builded they the city of David with a great and strong wall, and with mighty towers, and made it a strong hold for hem,…For it was a place to lie in wait against the sanctuary, and an evil adversary to Israel. Hence, the citadel built by Antiochus and occupied by his soldiers became a snare to the Jews, rather than a protection to the temple, as had been its previous role. The tide turned, however, when Judas Maccabeus made an assault on the garrison of Macedonians in the “upper city…[and] drove the soldiers into the lower, which part of the city was called the Citadel [Acra]” (War I, 1, 39). Since the city of this period occupied only the southeastern hill, the “upper city” was north of the temple, and the “lower city” was south of the temple and called Acra, because the citadel stood there (just as the area around the citadel called Millo had also been called Millo). It appears from later descriptions that the Macedonian soldiers driven into the lower city were forced to reside in Antiochus Epiphanes’ citadel. Hence, the War passage explains why the Givati parking lot (located in the “upper” area of the southeastern hill) yielded lead sling shots, bronze arrowheads, and catapult stones stamped with Antiochus IV’s symbol, and coins from his era (Fessenden, 2015). The Macedonian soldiers had been there, in the “upper city,” before Judas drove them into the “lower city.” But it was in the lower city, not the upper, where the Seleucid citadel stood. ….