Dating and time-reckoning has always meant a lot more than simply keeping track of time. It is of course true that from very early times onwards all people, either pastoralists or agriculturalist, had to take the seasons – which means the solar cycle – into account for the simple reason of bare survival. Since a year is far too long for many practical arrangements the omnipresence of the moon provided a perfect solution; the moon’s phases turned out to be an ideal length to divide one year into smaller units. The integration of a lunar cycle into the solar system is not self-evident though and the astronomical knowledge of people can often be judged by the way they tried to solve this dilemma. Still, a lot more factors come into play when time-reckoning and dating systems come into being. Both in the calendar – the division of every individual year – and in year-counting – some kind of superstructure for several years – religious, cultic, ideological and political elements played an important role. Since the sun, the stars and the moon were regularly worshipped in most religions in Antiquity, their cycles often determined religious festivals and other cultic events and therefore the calendar was closely linked with religion. Ideology, especially royal ideology, is found mainly in the system of year-counting.

The second half of the 3rd century saw the Seleucid monarchy weaken considerably. The reign of Seleucus II brought diffi cult battles against Ptolemy III Euergetes (the Third Syrian War) and attempts to overcome massive internal problems. During the war against Egypt, he ultimately managed to recapture northern Syria but Ptolemy III held on to the port of Seleucia Pieria, which was key for the Seleucids, and captured a number of places in Asia Minor. It was there that the Seleucids suffered their greatest territorial losses – they lost almost all their footholds on the coasts of Cilicia, Lycia, Caria and Ionia. The Egyptian king even seized Ainos and Maronea on the Thracian coast. What also had an impact on Seleucus II losing his infl uences in Asia Minor was his fratricidal war against Antiochus Hierax, backed by the kings of Pergamon, Capadocia and Bithynia. The defeated Seleucus had to reconcile himself with his brother’s independence in Asia Minor; the latter, however, subsequently suffered a defeat in his war against Pergamon, which ultimately led to the Seleucids losing their Asian Minor territories. The dynasty also faced enormous challenges in the East, where Bactria and Sogdiana seceded, and Parthia was seized by the Parni.

Text Fragment

Absence of sources is why we know little about the last kings of the Seleucid dynasty and their reigns. One exception is Demetrius III (97/96–88/87 BC), a son of Antiochus VIII Grypus. What knowledge we have of him we owe to his role in the history of Judea at the end of Alexander Jannaeus’ reign (103–86 BC). Josephus’ historical works suggest that the king of Syria became involved in a confl ict which broke out in Judea between Alexander Jannaeus and a group of his opponents led by the Pharisees. In doing so, he lent the latter his powerful military assistance. It proved so substantial that in a battle near Shechem Alexander Jannaeus’ army was defeated. Only a lucky coincidence enabled him still to stay in power and soon to suppress his opposition (cf. Jos. BJ 1, 92–95; AJ 13, 376–379). This historical episode is exceptional in that Demetrius III was the fi rst king of Syria since Antiochus VII Sidetes to stand on Judean soil and, at that, as an ally of one of local religious groups. It is this fact that makes the event worth looking at through the lens of not only the confl ict between Alexander Jannaeus and the Pharisees, but also of Demetrius III’s objectives in interfering in Judea’s internal affairs