The article reexamines the identity of Papa bar Netzer, rejects the identification with Odintus of Palmyra, and suggests that the destruction of Nehardea in the third century CE was the result of a Palmyra invasion motivated by economic motives and competition for trade routes, rather than a punitive move by the Sasanian Empire.
The rise of the Kingdom of Palmyra, also known as Palmyra, named after the Daqlia/Tamriya, known in the ancient world for their great and rich fertility, was one of the most prominent and sensational events in the history of the ancient Roman Empire, and it may serve as clear evidence of the complicated reality that emerged in the East after the intervention of Roman rule there.
This kingdom is mentioned in the Bible, and the author of 1 Kings, Chapter 9 (17-19), writes about it: "And Solomon built Gezer and Lower Beth Horon, and Baalath and Palmyra in the wilderness of the land." King Solomon's control over such distant regions naturally indicates his versatile abilities. It is not without reason that I have brought the above quotation here, to point out, perhaps, later pretensions, and at least at the level of excessive dreams.
It should be noted that the Roman Emperor Hadrian abolished the policy of his predecessor, Emperor Trajan, in the East and re-established peaceful relations with the Parthian Empire, which allowed Palmyra to once again benefit from the merchant caravans that passed through its territory.
At the beginning of the third century AD, the Roman Empire weakened, which led to the expansion of the Sasanian, Persian kingdom westward and a threat to the integrity of the Roman Empire in the East.
The Persian king, the Sasanian, Shapur I (247-241 CE) granted his subjects a great deal of autonomy, especially religious. This move led to the establishment of Jewish communities along the Euphrates, mainly in places such as Nehardea and Sura, and as a result, the relatively close relations between the Sasanian king and the Jews became known, especially in light of the tensions that prevailed between the Parthian kingdom and the Roman Empire. It should be noted that close personal ties existed between Samuel of Nehardea and the Sasanian king. This is at least in light of the testimony of the sages in the sense of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" and in view of the political-economic-settlement entanglement between the aforementioned kingdom and the one that threatened its complete destruction, which was the Palmyra kingdom.
One of the leaders of Palmyra, Septimius Odintus, or in the language of the Sages – “Papa bar Netzer” – made himself king and appointed himself the supreme commissioner of the Roman province in the East, which is Syria and Phoenicia. He, through the intelligent use of his army, forced the Sasanian kingdom into complete submission, and for this reason he earned deep respect from the Roman Empire and received the title “Repairer of the Whole East”, something that had previously been reserved only for the rulers of the Roman Empire.
The growth and rise of this kingdom, and its existence for twelve years, namely between 260 CE and 272 CE, served on the one hand as proof of the decline of the Roman Empire and the diminishing power and might of the Persian Kingdom, and on the other hand, it served as conclusive proof of the rising power of the East, the post-Roman one. The Kingdom of Palmyra was annexed to the Roman Empire at the end of the reign of the Roman Emperor Trajan, but did not lose its considerable economic power as a result. Palmyra, which was established in an oasis and controlled one of the most important world trade routes, is attested to by the Roman historian Pliny in his work, "Natural History," or more accurately presented as "The Chronicles of the Universe" (5, 21). It should be noted, by the way, that in 1980 Palmyra was declared a World Heritage Site by UNESCO.
The doomed kingdom, namely the Kingdom of Palmyra, was first exposed to the Roman Empire in 41 BC and was annexed to it later, that is, in the late first century AD, and during the imperial reign of Hadrian, the city/kingdom enjoyed renewed, almost international, prosperity.
The aforementioned Palmyra Kingdom gained an important status during the reign of the Roman Susa dynasty (235-193 BCE) and acquired the respected Ius Italicum (the right to be included in the Roman Empire) from the aforementioned Roman Empire. It is no wonder that during this period the star of the members of the Palmyra Odint (Odintus) family rose and rose. The power of this family was in the establishment and organization of predatory armies. These armies constituted the bulk of the military power of the Roman Empire in the East, and from this we can of course understand the Roman "courtship dance" towards the Palmyra Kingdom as "all politics."
The bearers of this name, namely the descendants of the Odintus dynasty, are also mentioned in our sources, apparently, as stated above, under the name "Bar Netzer". The form of government in Palmyra, according to which the head of the government was also a king, according to the author of the Latin "Historia Augusta" (24:15:2) and he was the commander of the predatory troops in his army, also caused a duality in the Jews' attitude towards Odintus. Thus we read in the Gemara = "And Ben Netzer Hatam (there) is called Lia (he is called, he is called) a king, and here (here, that is, in the Land of Israel and in Babylon) is called Lia (he is called) a robber (that is, a robber and a usurper)" (Talmud Babylonian Ketubot, 51:2).
Queen Zenobia's Fortress
The aforementioned ruler of Palmyra was secretly murdered in 267 CE, and after him Zenobia (Zenobia) – that is, Septimia Zenobia – ruled Palmyra between 272-267 CE. It should be noted that Zenobia ruled there in the name of her son and Ahabalatus, literally as independent rulers over the eastern part of the Roman Empire. However, at the end of 271 CE, the Roman Emperor Aurelian conquered Palmyra, thereby putting an end to Zenobia's rule in the Land of Israel. It should be noted, incidentally, that in Christian sources Zenobia appeared as a sympathizer of the Jews, and perhaps even as someone who converted, and perhaps because of this, Henna was rejected in the eyes of the Romans, and this, perhaps, parallels the position of the Jerusalem Talmud, which defined her in a completely negative way, namely - "Zenaveh of her kingdom who persecuted the Jews" (Yerushalmi Talmud, Contributions, Chapter 8, 47, p. 1). And this, perhaps, without connection to the aforementioned Roman position.
As mentioned, Jewish tradition throughout its generations viewed Papa bar Netzer as a robber, and even his actions were described as "a robber, and he captured towns and became king over them and became the leader of robbers (Archilitas in Greek). And his troops (and the troops there) gave captives of the kingdom of Aten as captives" (Genesis Rabba. Theodore-Albeck edition, 1655). A later source, although considered accurate and reflecting historical situations, namely Rav Sharira Gaon, as is known, conveys to us the following tradition: "And Samuel (the head of the community of Nehardea) rested in the year 1544, which is the year 4,000 years of creation (= creation) ... and in the year 1570, Papa bar Netzer came and destroyed ... in Nehardea" (Letter of Rav Sharira Gaon, BM Levin edition), Haifa, 1951, p. 82).
Accordingly, there are several reasons why Odinathos should not be identified with Papa bar Netzer: First – the Talmud does not mention Odinathos by name at all; Second – according to the tradition of Rav Sharira Gaon, the city was destroyed in the year 1773 according to the number of the notes. That is, between the years 258 and 259 of the year (In "The Order of the Sages and Chronicles of the Ages". Edition by A. Neubauer, Jerusalem 1927, Part 1, p. 177): "And the state of Nehardea was settled from the days of (King) Jehoiachin (so in the text) until Samuel was gathered, which was 1544 years. And Papa bar Netzer came and brought polemical and destroyed it in the year 1570. That is, Nehardea was apparently destroyed between the years 258 and 259.
So, was the act of destruction the work of the Persians? This is apparently possible for the following two reasons: First, the Persians' custom when attacking cities was to destroy them first and then set them on fire. An example of this is found in the war campaign against Caesar Valerian, the second campaign between the years 252 and 253 CE; Second, we must consider the various peoples who lived in the various regions of Persia, and who served as a historical stage for the events that took place between Persia and Rome. Also, if we look back about a hundred and thirty years to the war of the Roman Emperor Trajan, which was waged in the East, it seems that the Jews rebelled in the general uprising along with the rest of the inhabitants of the regions against Rome. Perhaps the Sasanian kingdom also feared that now, during the Persian-Roman war, the Jews would also launch a rebellion, this time against Persia. The people of Nehardea, however, could have launched a rebellion, as this city was well fortified, as Josephus says (Jewish Antiquities 18:91), had a historical past of major rebellion (such as the Hanilai and Hasinai rebellion, one published in "Haydan", October 2025) and was the center of Babylonian Judaism at the time. Its final suppression, on the other hand, could have silenced any atmosphere and spirit of rebellion among the Jewish people.
However, in contrast to these things, it seems that it cannot be said that this was a Persian act, and this is because the Persians, throughout the entire period in question, benefited from Nehardea, both from its economic status and from its location as a border city on the edge of the desert, serving as a loyal buffer between Mesopotamia and the desert robbers on the one hand, and the Roman invasions on the other, as emerges from interesting descriptions embedded in the Babylonian Talmud (such as Avoda Zara 8, p. 2, Moed Katan 25, p. 2, Gitin 38, p. 1, and Iruvin 34, p. 2).
Looting and captivity are typical of the Palmyra
It must therefore be said that this was apparently a Palmyrian act, one that was carried out for the purpose of plunder and conquest on the one hand, and for the purpose of eliminating a competing economic factor, one that stood as a stumbling block to Palmyrian trade on the other. The crowning glory of Palmyrian economy was trade, and hence the importance of the destruction of Nehardea to the people of Palmyrenes is understood, and in this regard it is interesting to be impressed by the map of international trade routes of that period. This point is well understood against the background of a study of a number of Palmyrian documents and inscriptions.
In one inscription that appears in the Corpus Inscriptionum Semiticarum, (II, No. 4202 and also the above-mentioned number 23) we notice that above one door of a Palmyra tomb two lines were written in Greek and Palmyra. The Greek one states that "This monument was built by the third senator, the son of Hiran (son) of Vehelet (he and Balatos), the son of Natsor", while the Palmyra inscription states that "(He created) the son of Adinath Skaltica, son of Hiran, and Vehelet Natsor, let him (keep it) and let him build it
In another inscription we learned from its beginning about "the image of (his) Dana (Zen) Di (of) Septimius Hiran bar Adinath Soklatica." While in another place we learned of the inscription which is - "The image of Septimius Adinath Nahira" (ibid.).
It seems, therefore, that we are witnesses to the existence of a dynasty of kings, which included several rulers who were called Odint or Adinat. And according to the inscription: "Kebra Dana benu Adinat Skaltica bar Hiran and Belet Netzur la and Benuhe(i) and Labana benuhi" we have learned that the Adinat dynasty gave its name to all its kings, in terms of the name of the royal family, either the name "Adinat" or the name "Netzur". We have also learned that in a document from 271 CE - namely - "Septimius Septimius Adinat(nat) Melch Malka (=King of Kings). And it is known that Odint, a rebel of Palmyra, was murdered before the date of this document in 268 CE. However, his dynasty was cut short and continued to bear the name "Adinat" or "Netzur".
To summarize our issue, we can say that it seems that the destruction of Nehardea was the product of a clearly armed and destructive Palmyra invasion, one whose trends were clearly economic. Papa bar Netzer was one of the princes in the dynasty that bore the name "Netzer", and in transliterated Greek - "Nasurus", or some incarnation of one of those who bore the name "Adinat" as a dynastic name. However, in my humble opinion, he should not be identified with the famous Odinat, the rebel and architect of Palmyra between the years 267-260 CE.
It should also be said and emphasized that Shmuel, the legendary leader of Nehardea, died in 257 CE, and shortly thereafter, Nehardea experienced a major disaster when the Palmyra armies invaded Nehardea. As a result, most of the city's leadership, led by Rav Nachman, left Nehardea outside the city's borders and after a few years returned and rebuilt its public and community institutions, but the city and the community in general never returned to its "early" days.
In any case, we can determine the date of the decline and final destruction of Nehardea, the city and Jewish community - the resting place of Samuel's soul, founder and rebel, on the aforementioned date, namely between the years 260 and 267 CE, when in fact its destruction was caused by economic competition between it, between Nehardea and Palmyra, which is Palmyra, and the latter did not know any restoration and life throughout the following years of history. Its destruction, it turns out, was actually a kind of demonic, imperial economic-commercial move by one of the later princes of Palmyra.
More of the topic in Hayadan:
2 תגובות
Please.
Thanks