Cover Page

The handle http://hdl.handle.net/1887/20137 holds various files of this Leiden University

dissertation.

Author: Marciak, Michał

Title: Izates and Helena of Adiabene : a study on literary traditions and history
Date: 2012-11-20
 12. Chronology of the Adiabene Royalty in the Hellenistic and Parthian Periods

12.1. Introduction

The chronology of the Adiabene narrative has been researched a few times, most notably
by N. Brüll1390 and H. Graetz in the 19th c.1391, and more recently by J. Neusner1392 who
essentially adopted Brüll’s reconstruction which is often cited in modern scholarship that, at least
in passing, refers to the ‘dynasty of royal converts from Adiabene’1393. However, if we take
account of the fact that only two events from Izates’ reign can be precisely dated (the famine in
Jerusalem and the Meherdates campaign), and most of the other data can be fixed only
approximately by Josephus’ references to the contemporary Parthian rulers, it is then a little
surprising to find so many exact dates in Neusner’s publications. Therefore, the aim of this part
is to reevaluate the evidence we have and next to reconstruct a basic chronology of the Adiabene
royalty in the Parthian period. Of special interest to us are figures that show up in our analysis of
sources. However, in order to give us a sense of continuity we also provide basic knowledge on
the other rulers of Adiabene who are known to us before and after ‘the dynasty of royal
converts’1394.

12.2. Abdissar and Artaxares

The first attested ruler of Adiabene is Abdissar[] who is known to us only through his
coinage1395. Based on stylistic features of his coins, his rule could have taken place any time
from the end of 3rd c. BCE to the early 1st c. BCE1396.
The next ruler of Adiabene known to us is Artaxares mentioned by Augustus in Res
Gestae 32 (Monumentum Ancyranum 17.32). He is recalled by Augustus as a suppliant who
came to him together with other kings: Parthian Tiridates and Phraates, the oldest son of Phraates
IV, and Artavasdes, king of Media Atropatene. Unfortunately, the reference is of a very general
nature, and nothing very specific can be said about Artaxares himself. However, some insight
can be gleaned from the context since Artaxares’ company appears to be less anonymous.
Indeed, we again hear of Parthian kings, as well as of Artavasdes in other sources. Both Parthian
princes were sent by their father Phraates IV (38-2 BCE) to Rome as hostages in 10/9 BCE1397,
and acted in 36 CE as pretenders to the Parthian throne against Artabanos II (Tac., Ann., 6.32.36-
37; Cass. Dio, 58.26)1398. In turn, Artavasdes, king of Media (ca. 59 - before 20 BCE) is a well-
known figure from Marc Antony’s campaigns against the Parthian King Phraates IV (39 BCE
1390
Brüll 1874: 65-72.
1391
Graetz 1877: 241-255.
1392
Neusner 1969: 64-65.
1393
E.g. D.R. Schwartz 1992: 189-199 (esp. 192 and n. 45), 220-221, 236-237; Fowler 2010: 60-69.
1394
The two terms used here as synonyms for the members of the Adiabene royalty deserve some explanation since
they are not very clear-cut. First, ‘Josephan rulers’ is meant to include Izates I, Monobazos I, Izates II and
Monobazos II, and the idea is that this phrase denotes rulers who are known to us mainly from Josephus. Of course,
Izates II and Monobazos II show up not only in Josephus, but Josephus in fact remains our main source of
knowledge. ‘The dynasty of royal converts’ in turn refers to the same group and so includes Izates I and Monobazos
I, since they were akin to Izates II and Monobazos II, though they did not convert.
1395
Lipiński 1982: 117-124; de Callataÿ 1996: 135-145.
1396
De Callataÿ 1996: 142.
1397
Debevoise 1938: 143-144; Ziegler 1964: 51; Frye 1984: 236; Hackl 2010: 68.
1398
Bivar 1983: 67-68; Klapproth 1988: 31 and n. 1.
 Part 3: Material and Political Environment of Adiabene from the 3rd c. BCE to the 3rd c. CE

and 33 BCE)1399. After the battle at Actium in 31 BCE he took refuge in Rome with Augustus,
and died shortly before 20 BCE1400. How much can we then infer about Artaxares from the
context of Res Gestae 32? To begin with, Artaxares holds the royal title which could suggest that
he had reigned before coming to Rome. Here, however, one reservation has to be made. Namely,
Phraates is also said to hold this title, although he had never reigned in Parthia, and had never
been proclaimed king of Parthia. Therefore, it is possible that the text uses this term in a broad
sense as a name pointing to one’s royal background in general. Next, all royal figures that show
up in Res Gestae 32 are in fact contenders who are forced by the political constellation to go into
exile but, if possible, who seek help in regaining their lost positions. Further, Artaxares appears
among those who came to Rome between 30 BCE and 10/9 BCE. All this, especially the timing
of Artaxares’ appearance in Rome, can be referred to what we otherwise know about the
chronology of the Adiabene royalty in the 1st c. CE. Specifically, though we do not know the
exact years of the reigns of Izates I and Monobazos I (see below pp. 186-188), it is very likely
that the sum of their reigns (especially the reign of Izates I) spanned the last few decades of the
1st c. BCE. Thus, Artaxares apparently came to Augustus when Izates I was still in power in
Adiabene. This would make Artaxares a contender to the Adiabene throne occupied by the
earliest known member of the dynasty of royal converts. Thus, Artaxares would be either a
member of the dynasty preceding the dynasty of royal converts, or someone of distant kinship to
the lineage holding the succession in Adiabene in the 1st c. CE.

12.3. Izates I and Monobazos I

Another ruler of Adiabene is known to us only thanks to Josephus’ brief remark in Bell.
5:147 where Helena is called daughter of Izates, king of Adiabene. Since we know from Ant.
20:18 that Helena and Monobazos Bazaios were siblings, this Izates must be the father of
Monobazos Bazaios and his predecessor at the throne of Adiabene. Therefore, he can function in
our list as Izates I1401. Likewise, Monobazos Bazaios (or Monobazos I) is known to us only
thanks to Josephus’ description of his role in the up-bringing of Izates son of Helena. It is then
possible to establish the dates of Monobazos I’s reign only with regard to the data we have for
Izates II, especially on the beginning of his reign.

12.4. Izates II and Monobazos II

Both sons of Helena, Izates II and Monobazos II are recalled not only in Josephus but
also appear in other ancient sources. Let us examine each single reference that could help us
establish the dates of their reigns.
1. Izates II is said to be sent by his father Monobazos I to the friendly ruler of Characene,
Abennerigos. This reference can help us to approximately date the youth of Izates II (Ant. 20:23:
Izates called neani,aj) and the reign of Monobazos I. There is only one ruler of Charakene with
this name in the first c. CE and his reign is attested by coins whose legends contain a
1399
Debevoise 1938: 121-135; 146; Frye 1984: 234-235.
1400
Frye 1984: 235; Schmidt 1986: 653. By contrast, see Debevoise 1938: 121-135; 146, n. 15 who distinguishes
two Arsacid kings bearing this name (Artavasdes, king of Media and “a certain Artavasdes II, perhaps a brother of
Tigranes II”) and thinks that only the second was installed by Augustus as king of Armenia.
1401
Barish 1983: 90, n. 85 is surely right in remarking that Bell. 5:147 is the only piece of evidence for the existence
of Izates I and as such, it is not based on very solid grounds. However, as long as it is not proven to be Josephus’ or
a copyist’s error, the evidence of Bell. 5:147 cannot be dismissed out of hand.

186
 Chapter 12: Chronology of the Adiabene Royalty in the Hellenistic and Parthian Periods

fragmentarily preserved name - ABINHRGL[OU] or ADINNRGLO[U]1402. This is clearly a

Semitic name connected with god Nergal: the first version would mean “Diener des Nergal”, and
the second could be translated as “Nergal läßt richten, Recht schaffen”1403. Abennerigos’ earliest
coins come from 10/11 CE, and the next numismatic findings are dated to 11/12, 13/14 and
22/23 CE. The coins of his successor, Attambelos III appear only in 37/38 CE, so the reign of
Abennerigos can be dated from ca. 10/11 CE to ca. 37/38 CE, the latter being the terminus ante
quem for the end of Abennerigos’ reign. However, one important detail has yet to be included.
During that period, there was a short interval when a different ruler was in power at
Characene1404. It was Orabazes I whose reign is attested by coins dated to 18/19 CE and by a
short reference in the Palmyra inscription of Germanicus also dated to 18/19 CE. Orabazes could
reign no longer than until 22/23 CE (the next emission of Abennerigos’ coins). Thus,
Abennerigos’ reign can be divided into two periods – from 10/11 CE until ca. 18/19 CE, and
again from 22/23 until ca. 37/38 CE. The second part of Abennerigos’ reign seems to be more
suitable for Izates’ stay at Charakene1405, since this period offers a longer span of time when
Abennerigos’ power was firmly established and Charakene apparently started to prosper again.
What is more, it may be hard to definitely determine the age of someone called neani,aj, since the
use of this term may vary, but if we ask which age is most commonly implied by this term, it is
an age beyond puberty and before marriage1406, someone in his twenties1407. This interpretation
fits well the other data we have on Izates (especially his age at the moment of death – see below
p. 191). Further, the reign of Abennerigos is relevant for dating of the reign of Monobazos I.
However, the value of this clue is limited. All we can say is that Monobazos I reigned over
Adiabene at some point when Abennerigos was king of Charakene, that is between 10/11 – 18/19
CE and/or 22/23 – 37/38, but the very beginning of the reign of Monobazos I in Adiabene, and
its end, cannot be dated only on the basis of Ant. 20:22-23.
2. The beginning of Izates’ I reign in Adiabene is referred by Josephus (Ant. 20:37) to the
reigns of the emperor Claudius in Rome (41-54 CE) and king Artabanos II in Parthia (10-38 CE)
to whom Izates is said to have sent his rivals in Adiabene. This reference is, however,
problematic in two ways. First, the periods of the reigns of Claudius and Artabanos do not seem
to overlap. This difficulty could perhaps be alleviated: although Artabanos’ death is most
frequently dated to 38 CE1408 (at least since the contribution of Debevoise1409), there is good
reason to date it later, to 40 CE or even to early 41 CE1410. First, Artabanos is still mentioned in
regard to the accusations against Herod Antipas in Rome in 39 CE (Ant. 18:250)1411; secondly,
the earliest coinage struck on behalf of Vardanes comes from October of 41 CE1412.
Nevertheless, this solution used for Ant. 20:37 still produces another problem – the narrative
places the handover of hostages to Parthia (Ant. 20:37) before Izates II’s help to Artabanos

1402
Schuol 2000: 320.
1403
Schuol 2000: 320.
1404
Schuol 2000: 320-326.
1405
Schuol 2000: 325-326.
1406
Louw-Nida 1988: 108.
1407
Thayer 1979: no. 3584.
1408
Debevoise 1938: 166; Bivar 1983: 75; Karras-Klapproth 1988: 34; Thommen 2010: 233.
1409
See Schottky 1991: 85 and n. 155.
1410
So Olbrycht 1997a: 82. Likewise Schottky 1991: 86-87.
1411
Schottky 1991: 86.
1412
Sellwood 1980: 207-212. The fact is also that before 41 CE Seleukeia was in rebellion and did not mint royal
coinage.

187
 Part 3: Material and Political Environment of Adiabene from the 3rd c. BCE to the 3rd c. CE

during the coup d'etat in Parthia (Ant. 20:54-68). Thus, if the former takes place in 41 CE, there
is no time left for Izates II’s intervention for Artabanos. Another suggested solution is that Izates
II sent hostages to Rome and Parthia in turns, first to Artabanos and then to Claudius. But this
does not fit very well with the logic of the narrative of Ant. 20:37: Izates is said to arrive quickly,
and to handle the problem once and for all. Therefore, the only plausible answer is that Josephus’
reference in Ant. 20:37 is simply imprecise and as such does not allow us to date the very
moment of Izates II’s inauguration1413. It rather looks like Josephus gives us in Ant. 20:37 only
the general timing of Izates II’s early reign, or even refers to the reign of Izates II’s at large by
providing only the most general chronological context of his reign (that is, Izates II reigned at the
time of both Artabanos II and Claudius).
3. The reign of Izates II is mentioned in reference to a few contemporary Parthian kings
by Josephus. These are Artabanos II (10/1 - ca. 40/41 CE1414), Vardanes (41-45 CE), Gotarzes
(45-51 CE)1415 and Vologases (51-76/80 CE)1416. Only Gotarzes is mentioned by Josephus in
passing, all others are described in Ant. 20:17-96 by Josephus in more detail.
First, Artabanos is said to flee Parthia due to the plot of the satraps and to find shelter in
Adiabene (Ant. 20:54-68). Moreover, only thanks to Izates II’s diplomatic intervention could
Artabanos regain his throne from the hands of a certain Kinnamos who had stepped aside for
Artabanos. This event does not find any parallel in other ancient sources, and we do not know
any coins struck on behalf of Kinnamos either1417. We do, however, know a similar episode from
the reign of Artabanos in 35-36 CE (Tac., Ann. 6: 31‐37, 41‐44 and Josephus, Ant. 18:86-105 as
main sources, as well as some references in Suetonius, Tiberius 66, Vitelius 2 and Cass. Dio,
58.26.1-4; 59.27.3-4) when Artabanos was forced to leave the kingdom because of the rebellion
and the Roman intervention which led to the installment of Tiridates III, grandson of Phraates IV
on the Parthian throne1418. By 37 CE Artabanos returned from exile in Hyrkania with a strong
army of Dahan auxiliaries, regained his throne again, and came to an agreement with the
Romans1419. The historicity of the episode in Ant. 20:54-68 is accepted by most scholars1420.
Most scholars include the episode as another case of a rebellion against Artabanos, and they date
it after the first one, that is after 36 CE and before Artabanos’ death1421. This dating is based
mainly on Josephus’ statement in Ant. 20:68 that “not long afterwards” Artabanos died and was

1413
So already Graetz 790.
1414
See Olbrycht 1997a: 81.
1415
The dates of Vardanes’ and Gotarzes’ reigns do not have to be seen as exclusive of each other, since in 44 and
45 the royal mint at Seleukeia simultaneously produced a series of coins on behalf of both Vardanes and Gotarzes;
this fact cannot be explained in a different way than by assuming some kind of power sharing arrangement between
both Arsacids – see Olbrycht 1997a: 86.
1416
Thommen 2010: 233-234.
1417
The lack of coins struck by a contender could be a strong, though not inarguable premise against the historicity
of such an episode. On the other hand, we know another case when a pretender has not left any coins, and this case
also refers to the reign of Artabanos II (Tiridates II). Furthermore, the name Kinnamos appears to be rare, but it is
still attested. See McCown (1936: 2-4 and 1937: 19-20) on the name Kaneimoj found in the Greek inscription on a
basalt sarcophagus found at Marwa (Meru) in northern Transjordan. See also Wuthnow 1930: 64 on the form
Kinnamw found in the Egyptian papyri of the 3rd c. CE.
1418
Karras-Klapproth 1988: 33-34, 176-178; Schottky 1991: 82 and n. 136.
1419
Karras-Klapproth 1988: 33-34, 176-178; Hackl 2010: 70.
1420
See Kahrstedt 1950: 80 and Schottky 1991:102-103 (both acknowledging the historicity of Ant. 20:54-68) who
suggest that Kinnamos should be interpreted as Gotarzes II.
1421
Debevoise 1938: 165-166; Kahrstedt 1950: 64-66; Schippman 1980:52-53; Dąbrowa 1983: 91; Bivar 1983: 74-
75; Frye 1984: 238; Karras-Klapproth 1988: 33-34, 69-70; Schottky 1991: 83-87.

188
 Chapter 12: Chronology of the Adiabene Royalty in the Hellenistic and Parthian Periods

succeeded by his son, Vardanes. Thus, the period between 37 CE and the death of Artabanos
(tentatively dated to 40 or early 41 CE) is the most appropriate setting of Ant. 20:54-68.
Likewise, Izates II’s conflict with Vardanes does not find any parallels in sources other
than Josephus himself. However, Tacitus reports Vardanes’ plans to recover Parthian control
over Armenia. According to Tacitus, Vardanes had such plans but was forced to abandon them
by the Roman governor of Syria, Vibius Marsus, who threatened Vardanes with war (Ann.
11.10). Vibius Marsus’ tenure in Syria is dated to 41/42-44/451422, and this is the most
appropriate setting for Ant. 20:69-731423. Specifically, a political plan of such scale and difficulty
could only be undertaken when one’s power is secured at home. Therefore, it is only after
Vardanes came to an agreement with Gotarzes, and after he regained control over Seleukeia,
when he could think of any campaign against Armenia. Seleukeia was subjugated by June of
421424, so the summer of 42 is the earliest possible date of Vardanes’ plans. At the same time,
Vardanes’ conflict with Gotarzes is again reported to be in full swing in 44 CE; to be precise, in
44 CE Vardanes took on a long-distance campaign against Gotarzes into the Trans-Caspian
steppes1425. Consequently, the period from the summer of 42 until the fall of 43 CE is most
probable. What is more, we can infer from Josephus’ testimony that Vardanes could not
undertake any steps against Izates II due to internal problems. Thus, a date closer to Vardanes’
campaign is highly likely, that is 43 CE. Finally, let us only add that Josephus (and Tacitus too)
does not in fact speak of military activities between Vardanes and the Romans, or between Izates
II and Vardanes, but presents everything in terms of Vardanes’ plans1426.
Finally, when it comes to the relationship between Izates II and Vologases II, we have the
war per se in Ant. 20:81-91. Again, no other sources confirm the war between Adiabene and the
Parthian king Vologases1427. Therefore, Brüll suggested that the Dahae and the Sacae recalled in
Ant. 20:91 (whose attack on Parthian soil forced Vologases to withdraw his forces from
Adiabene) can be identified as Hyrcanian tribes1428 and consequently the diversion that
apparently saved Izates could match the rebellion in Hyrcania about which we are informed from
Tacitus (Ann. 13.37.6; 14.25.2; 15.1.1) and whose beginning is dated to around 57 CE1429. Yet,
Brüll’s interpretation contains a geographical misinterpretation. In fact, the Dahae tribes were
settled on the northern border of Hyrcania, between the Usboi River and Parthiene, but the Sacae

1422
Vermes/Millar/Black 1973: 263-264.
1423
See Graetz 1887: 788; Ziegler 1964:64-65, n. 141; Karras-Kapproth 1988: 188, n. 3; Bivar 1983: 76; Schottky
1991: 107; Thommen 2010: 234.
1424
McDowell 1935: 225-226; Schottky 1991: 105; Wiesehöfer 1994a: 196.
1425
Kahrstedt 1950: 27, Schottky 1991: 107.
1426
By contrast, Neusner 1969: 63 speaks of Vardanes’ invasion of Adiabene, and says that a simultaneous
campaign of Gotarzes against Vardanes prevented the invasion of Adiabene from being “a vigorous campaign”. This
interpretation probably goes back to Debevoise 1938: 170.
1427
Boehmer/von Gall 1973 points to the rock relief in Batas-Herir and suggests that it depicts Izates II in
commemoration of his victory over Vologases. Indeed, the worn-out monument portrays a single standing figure,
probably in a religious context, but the relief has no inscription and therefore its interpretation must remain very
tentative. In fact, it entirely rests on identifying the figure’s headdress as a royal Parthian upright tiara (tia,ra ovrqh,
or ki,darij) which, according to Ant. 20:66-67, was worn by Izates II due to the privilege received from Artabanos II.
However, stylistic similarities between the Batas-Herir monument and the so-called Mithridates relief at Bisutun
may suggest an earlier dating of the Batas-Herir relief at the turn of the 2nd and 1st centuries BCE (see Mathiesen
1992a: 23–24). For the Batas-Herir relief, see Edmonds 1931; Boehmer/von Gall 1973; Mathiesen 1992a: 23–24;
Wiesehöfer 1994b: 103, n. 13, 131.
1428
Brüll 1974: 71; Neusner 1969: 65.
1429
Schottky 1991: 117, 119.

189
 Part 3: Material and Political Environment of Adiabene from the 3rd c. BCE to the 3rd c. CE

tribes were located in the West-Bactrian region1430. Indeed, both the Dahae and the Sacae were
allied with the Hyrcanian tribes during the 1st c. CE dynastic struggles in the Parthian
Kingdom1431. But there is no good reason to identify each single case of the cooperation between
the Dahae and Sacae with the rebellion in Hyrcania1432. Instead, the attack of the Dahae and the
Sacae can be better understood as the first reaction of the anti-atropatenean coalition once
supporting Gotarzes. Thus, the early years of the reign of Vologases, before Vologases’
engagement in Armenia in 531433, the coup d'etat of Vardanis filius in 55 CE1434 and the
beginning of trouble in Hyrcania in 58 CE1435, is the most appropriate dating of Vologases’
campaign against Adiabene1436. Therefore, the date for Vologases’ campaign can be placed most
likely in 52 CE1437.
7. Izates II and Monobazos II also appear in Roman sources, especially in Tacitus. This
fact is very helpful since Roman history has a relatively well-established chronology. Thus,
Izates shows up in Tacitus’ episode (Ann. 12.10‐14) on the Roman expedition ordered in 48 CE
by Emperor Claudius to install Meherdates on the Parthian throne instead of king Gotarzes1438.
The campaign started in winter of 49 CE1439, and probably lasted into the first months of 50
CE1440. In turn, Izates’ II brother, Monobazos II appears in the context of the Roman–Parthian
Wars of 58–63 (the Corbulo wars) over control of Armenia (Tacitus, Ann. 13:34-41, 14:23-26,
15:1-17, 15:24-31; and Cass. Dio 62:19-23)1441. He is particularly mentioned on the occasion of
the Armenian incursion into Adiabene in 61 CE, the siege of Tigranokerta in 61 CE and the truce
agreement between Paetus and Vasakes (winter 62 CE)1442. He is also briefly mentioned by Dio
as sending “hostages” to the Romans during the peace talks at Rhandeia in 63 CE and on the
occasion of the crowning ceremony of Tiridates as king of Armenia in Rome in 66 CE1443.

1430
Olbrycht 1997a: 84-85, 87-88; Olbrycht 1998b: 15-20 and 20, n. 70.
1431
Schottky 1991: 81-134; Olbrycht 1997a: 81-100.
1432
Kahrstedt 1950: 36 and 69, n. 46; Schottky 1991: 116-117; Olbrycht 1997a: 84-85, 87-88; Olbrycht 1998b: 15-
20 and 20, n. 70.
1433
See Dąbrowa 1983: 131-134; Olbrycht 1998a: 179-180.
1434
Dąbrowa 1983: 134.
1435
Dąbrowa 1983: 133-134; Dąbrowa 1984: 141-147; Schottky 1991: 117-119.
1436
Another rebellion against Izates is Abias’ invasion (Ant. 20:75-80). There are no clues in the text as to when
precisely the invasion took place. Abias himself is hard to identify. He is called VAra,bwn basileu,j and his capital -
:Arsamon. The title of “king of Arab” or “king of the Arabs” (mlk’ dy ʻrb and mlk’ dʻrby’) is known to be used by
the kings of Hatra (but only from the second half of the 2nd c. CE on). Otherwise titles like VArabarch,j (“ruler of the
Arabs” or “of the Arab”, the steppe) and šlyṭ’ dʻrb (“ruler of Arab”) are attested in Dura Europos and Edessa.
Generally speaking, Abias is believed to be either an anonymous local dynast from the north Mesopotamian desert
region (see Strabo 16.1.8), or, more specifically, a ruler of Edessa. For the titles, see Teixidor 1967-68: 9; Frye
1984: 280-281; Millar 1993: 447-448, 497-498. For possible identifications, see Kahrstedt 1950: 70, n. 48 (who
identifies :Arzamon with Arzamon known the 6th c. CE Procopius of Caesarea, Bellum Persicum, 1.8.10); Fowler
2010: 68, n. 38.
1437
So Hansman 1987: 277 and Olbrycht 1998a: 177-178; see also Debevoise 1938: 177-178 and 182; Kahrstedt
1950: 69, n. 46; Karras-Klapproth 1988: 192, n. 1; Schottky 1991: 116-117; Hackl 2010: 72.
1438
Ziegler 1964: 65-66; Dąbrowa 1983: 121-124; Hackl 2010: 71.
1439
Schippman 1980: 53; Dąbrowa 1983: 122; Bivar 1983: 77; Hackl 2010: 71.
1440
Schottky 1991: 109.
1441
For the very complicated issue of the chronology of Corbulo’s campaigns, see B.W. Henderson 1901a: 159-165;
B.W. Henderson 1901b: 204-213; Schur 1925: 75-96; Schur 1926: 215-222; Ziegler 1964: 67-78. Especially B.W.
Henderson and Schur laid foundations for two different interpretations of the chronology of Corbulo’s campaigns.
Here I follow Ziegler 1964: 67-78 and Dąbrowa 1983: 131-161.
1442
Ziegler 1964: 67-74; Bivar 1983: 81-85; Dąbrowa 1983: 131-153; Frye 1984: 239; Schottky 1991: 121.
1443
Ziegler 1964: 67-74; Bivar 1983: 81-85; Dąbrowa 1983: 131-153; Frye 1984: 239-240; Schottky 1991: 121.

190
 Chapter 12: Chronology of the Adiabene Royalty in the Hellenistic and Parthian Periods

8. Monobazos II is also indirectly mentioned by Josephus as the current king of Adiabene

in the context of the Jewish-Roman War of 66-70 (Bell. 2:520, Bell. 2:252). The first reference
concerns the very beginning of the Jewish uprising in 66 CE, while the second text refers to the
final destruction of the Lower City of David that took place in the summer 70 CE1444.
9. Last of all, in Ant. 20:92 we find a very interesting statement that can potentially be
very useful for the dating of the chronology of the Adiabene dynasty, but, at the same time, is
highly controversial. Namely, according to Josephus, by the moment of his death Izates II had
lived fifty-five years and reigned for twenty-four. Some scholars take this data at face value and
use it as a starting point for their reconstructions1445. However, the problem is that we have here
a round number, twenty-four, the significance of which many be purely symbolic, especially in
the Biblical tradition (see that in the next sentence Izates is also said in Ant. 20:92 to have
twenty-four sons and twenty-four daughters). On the other hand, the number fifty-five is not
known to have any symbolic use whatsoever. Can one then use one number of symbolic
significance (a twenty-four year reign, that is a long and fruitful reign) and the other one that
conveys down-to-earth data within one sentence? It is not very likely. All in all, we think that we
should not begin our reconstruction starting from such doubtful data. By contrast, it can be now
taken into account after having settled all other reliable data and so its definite value can be
decided in the light of other plausible premises. Thus, we could observe that Izates II was still
king of Adiabene in the early 50s, most probably between 52 and 54 CE. The first appearance of
Monobazos II as king of Adiabene can be dated to 61. Apparently, Izates II died between 55 and
60 CE, but if we take Josephus’ remark literally that Izates II died not long after Vologases
campaign, then it may be appropriate to narrow our range of possible choices down. Let us then
assume that Izates died around 55 CE1446.
If we use the information about his twenty-four years of reign, then the beginning of the
reign of Izates II can be dated to ca. 30 CE1447. Before 30 CE Izates II must also have ruled in
Gordyene, and spent some time in Characene. How much time did he spend in Characene and
Gordyene? There are two possibilities depending on which part of the reign of Abbenerigos we
assume as the time of Izates’ residence there. If we assume that he went to Adiabene between
10/11 CE and 18/19 CE, and left Characene because of dynastic struggles there, then it must
have happened in 18/19 CE at the latest. This means that Izates II was sent to Characene by his
father after 10 CE and spent a few years there. After 18/19 CE and before 30 CE he ruled in
Gordyene. However, as we have noted, the use of the term neani,aj suggests that he was in his
twenties when he was sent to Characene. Since Izates II died around 55 CE at the age of fifty-
five, then the dating of his stay in Characene in the 20s of the 1st c. CE fits very well.
Consequently, we can date Izates II’s stay in Characene and rule in Gordyene between 22/23 CE
and 30 CE. Lastly, if Izates II died around 55 CE, then he would be born at the turn of the
Christian era. Thus, we conclude that the reconstruction that includes the data from Ant. 20:92
seems very plausible.
The information on the length of Izates II’s life bears upon the dating of Monobazos I’s
reign. Since Izates was born at the turn of the Christian era and is presented in Ant. 20:19 as a
newly-born child of the current king who has already had other children, then Monobazos I must
have started his reign before the 1st c. CE. The earliest possible date we can assume, then, is 5

1444
Price 1992: 1-11, 170-172.
1445
Brüll 1874: 71-72; Neusner 1969: 64-65.
1446
Likewise Schottky 1991: 117 who dates it to 54 CE.
1447
See Steinmann 2009: 5-6 on the difference between inclusive and actual dates.

191
 Part 3: Material and Political Environment of Adiabene from the 3rd c. BCE to the 3rd c. CE

BCE, although it could be considerably earlier, too. If Izates II takes over power in Adiabene in
ca. 30 CE, Monobazos’ reign lasted at least 35 years. What is more, we know the name of the
father and predecessor of Monobazos I, that is, Izates I. There is no way of establishing how long
Izates I reigned and when his reign began. However, we can speculatively make use of the
statistic data we have – Izates II reigned twenty-five years, Monobazos I at least thirty-five. Even
if we refer the shorter amount of time (twenty-five years and not thirty-five) to the reign of Izates
I, then we can at least state that it is likely that the reign of Izates I coincided with the appearance
of Artaxares in Rome. This would mean that the dynasty of the royal converts probably came to
power in Adiabene in the second half of the 1st c. BCE, more precisely between 30 BCE and 10
BCE.
10. Additionally, there is one episode in Ant. 20:17-96 that seems to be very
approachable in terms of accurate dating1448. It is the famine in Jerusalem during which Izates II
and Helena helped the suffering inhabitants of Jerusalem (Ant. 20:51-53). The same fact is
recorded in Ant. 20:101, though this time referred to Judea and not only to Jerusalem, and is said
to occur during the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander (46-48 CE). An important question to
be posed before we set out to date this event is whether the same famine is referred to in other
sources. The answer given by most scholars is positive and refers to the following passages: Acts
11:28-30; Ant. 3:320-321 (being the most controversial1449); Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., 2.12.1;
Orosius, Historia, 7.6.12. What is more, we have some papyrological evidence for a famine in
Egypt from the 40s CE1450. From all these references, the following clues for the dating of the
famine in Jerusalem can be inferred: in Claudius’ time, that is 41-54 CE (Acts 11:27-30); and in
the fourth year of Claudius (according to Orosius, Hist. 7.6.9), that is 44 CE; during the
procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander, thus 46-48 CE (Ant. 20:101), but it already started in the
days of his predecessor1451, Fadus, that is 44-46 CE (Ant. 20:100-101), and about the time of
Agrippa’s death in 44 CE (Acts 11:27-30). Thus, the most general dating is between 44 and 48
CE and scholars tend to prefer either the first (44-46) or the second half of this period (46-
48)1452. Josephus’ data in Ant. 20:101 connects the famine most strongly with the tenure of
Tiberius Alexander (46-48 CE) but even in Ant. 20:101 the connection with the time of Fadus’
governance (44-46 CE) can also be acknowledged through the evpi. tou,toij reading1453. Further,
the inclusion of Ant. 20:51-53 into the framework of Fadus’s affairs again speaks in favor of this

1448
Graetz 1906: 787; Torrey 1916: 20-22; Jeremias 1928: 98-103; Foakes-Jackson/Lake/Cadbury 1933: 452-455;
Nairne 1934: 145; Gapp 1935: 258-265; Packer 1966: 93; Jeremias 1969: 145; Neil 1973: 145; Vermes/Millar/Black
1973: 457, n. 8; Rajak 1983: 125: 47-49; Lüdemann 1984: 135; Pesch 1986: 357, n. 9; Goodman 1987 : 142, n. 5;
Conzelmann 1987: 90; Willimon 1988: 108; Hemer 1989: 164-165; D.R. Schwartz 1992: 220-221, 236-237; Pastor
1997: 151-156, 243-245; Pervo 2009: 295-298.
1449
See what speaks against this identification in Rajak 1983: 125; and what may be in its favour in D.R. Schwartz
1992: 220. On the tenure of Ishmael ben Phiabi, the high priest and Judean chronology, see D.R. Schwartz 1992:
220-221, 366-367 and Goodman 1987: 142, n. 5.
1450
Wilcken 1928: 48-65; Gapp 1935: 74-79, 110; Pastor 1997:153.
1451
For this controversial reading, see Vermes/Millar/Black 1973: 457, n. 8.
1452
Graetz 1906: 787: 46-48 CE; Jeremias 1928: 98-103: 47-49 CE; Foakes-Jackson/Lake/Cadbury 1933: 455:
“started in 45 or 46” CE; Nairne 1934: 145: 45 CE; Gapp 1935: 258-265: 46 or 47 CE; Packer 1966: 93: “about 46
CE”; Jeremias 1969: 145: 47-49 CE; Neil 1973: 145: 46 CE; Vermes/Millar/Black 1973: 457, n. 8: 44-46 CE but
may have started as early as 44 CE; Rajak 1983: 125: 47-49 CE; Lüdemann 1984: 135: 46-48 CE; Willimon 1988:
108: 46-47 CE; Hemer 1989: 164-165 dates the mission of Paul and Barnabas to Jerusalem to 46-47 CE and holds
that it was probably earlier than Helena’s action; D.R. Schwartz 1992: 220: “the late forties”; Pastor 1997: 154:
“began in the spring of 44 CE and lasted two years”.
1453
See Vermes/Millar/Black 1973: 457, n. 8.

192
 Chapter 12: Chronology of the Adiabene Royalty in the Hellenistic and Parthian Periods

connection. However, for a definite solution, the papyri from Egypt have to be consulted1454. The
famine in Egypt had a natural cause since it resulted from an unusually high level of water in the
Nile (it rose to a height of eighteen cubits)1455. The papyri record the highest prices for grain in
Egypt in over a century starting from the fall of 45 until the spring of 47 CE1456. It is highly
unlikely that anyone from outside Egypt could buy grain there during a food crisis1457. In such
cases (Tacit., Ann. 2.59; Pliny the Younger, Pan. 30-32), even Roman authorities handed out
grain stored in Egypt for Rome (Germanicus in 19 CE) or returned to Egypt grain already
transported to Rome (Trajan in 99/100 CE)1458. Thus, Helena must have bought grain in Egypt
either before (fall 45 CE) or after (spring 47 being the earliest date) the food crisis in Egypt1459.
The early dating of the famine is more convenient since it can embrace both the moment of
Agrippa’s death (about 44 CE), the fourth year of the reign of Emperor Claudius (44 CE), and
the procuratorship of Fadus (44-46). Thus, the famine seems to have begun in spring of 44, and
lasted at least two years (thus at least into the first year of the procuratorship of Tiberius
Alexander). Since we can conclude from Ant. 20:51-53 that Jerusalem was already in the grip of
famine, Helena could have arrived in Jerusalem between the summer of 44 and the spring 45,
and the spring of 45 was indeed the last moment when she could buy grain in Egypt. Perhaps the
fact that the ongoing famine in Jerusalem continued into 45 and 46 CE and so coincided with the
food crisis in Egypt forced Helena to buy food in Cyprus too1460. To conclude, Helena arrived in
Jerusalem after the first strike of the famine (ca. 44-45 CE), and her contribution helped to
relieve the pain of the famine that still lasted into the procuratorship of Tiberius Alexander (46-
48 CE).
11. Lastly, we can now return to the very beginning of the Adiabene narrative - Ant.
20:17 where Josephus introduces the whole episode under the heading of the conversion of
Helena and Izates using the temporal phrase kata. tou/ton de. to.n kairo.n (“at about this time”).
First, the temporal phrase refers to the broader context of Ant. 20 where Josephus speaks of the
procuratorship of Fadus (44-46 CE)1461. The question arises as to whether Josephus referred in
Ant. 20:17 to any specific event from the period of that procuratorship1462. The Adiabene account
is placed after the story about the vestments of the high priests and before the story of Theudas.
Emperor Claudius' decision on the vestments is dated to 28 June 45 CE1463. Thus, our account
can be understood as placed between summer 45 CE and the end of Fadus’ tenure in 46 CE. Yet,
it is even more important to ask what exactly Josephus thinks to have happened during that
period: only the conversion or the whole account of Ant. 20:17-96? Of course, it is impossible to
place a span of Izates’ lifetime within a short period of the years 45-46 CE. Nevertheless, the
alternative solution that the conversion of “Helena and Izates” took place in that period is also
problematic. First, one of Josephus’ few references that can be very precisely dated in Ant.
20:17-96 is the famine in Jerusalem (Ant. 20: 51-53), and Helena’s trip to Jerusalem makes sense

1454
See Pastor 1997: 151-156 whose interpretation of the data from Egypt is essentialy followed here.
1455
Gapp 1935: 258-259.
1456
Gapp 1935: 258-260; Johnson 1936: 310-311.
1457
Pastor 1997: 153.
1458
Wilcken 1928: 48-65; Pastor 1997: 153.
1459
Pastor 1997: 153.
1460
Likewise Foakes-Jackson/Lake/Cadbury 1933: 455 and Hemer 1989: 165-166 and 166, n. 11; and especially
Pastor 1997: 153.
1461
D.R. Schwartz 1992: 192.
1462
So Brüll 1874: 66.
1463
Vermes/Millar/Black 1973: 456, n. 5.

193
 Part 3: Material and Political Environment of Adiabene from the 3rd c. BCE to the 3rd c. CE

only after her conversion and that of Izates II. Further, we dated the famine to the period between
the spring of 44 and 46 CE, and Helena’s arrival in Jerusalem between the summer of 44 and the
spring of 45. Next, Josephus’ introduces the Adiabene narrative as a story about the conversion
of Helena and Izates as during the tenure of Fadus (44-46, more specifically between 28 June 45
CE and 46 CE). Taking all this data into consideration, one could, seemingly, suggest the simple
solution as follows: both the conversion and Helena’s trip take place in rapid succession; let us
say: Helena and Izates II convert in ca. 44 CE, and Helena arrives in Jerusalem in the spring of
45 CE. This solution, however, can hardly be reconciled with the chronology of Ant. 20:17-96.
First, the conversion of Helena preceded that of Izates II, and the span of time between both
conversions seems not to be immediate, to say the least. To be precise, according to Ant. 20:34-
48 Helena converted, when Izates II was either in Charax Spasini or when he was summoned to
visit Adiabene before Monobazos’ death, thus between 22/23 CE and 30 CE1464. Thus, Helena’s
conversion took place between 22/23 CE and 30 CE1465. As for Izates II, following the course of
the Adiabene narrative, his conversion is described before the unit presenting Artabanos II’s
exile which can be dated after 36 CE. Therefore, Izates II’s conversion occurred before 36 CE.
All in all, the simplest conclusion about the chronological value of the temporal phrase in Ant.
20:17 is that it did not serve Josephus to date any specific event, but to set the general context of
the Adiabene narrative. Perhaps Josephus’ starting point was Helena’s presence in Jerusalem
during the famine which began in the spring of 44 CE and lasted into the procuratorship of
Tiberius Alexander (46-48 CE), perhaps being more severe then than at the beginning. Yet,
before Josephus was to report the episode of the famine during which Helena’s benefactions
made her famous in Jerusalem, he had to introduce Helena and her family into his narrative. He
logically chose to do that during the tenure of the preceding procurator in Judea during which the
famine had already begun. This, however, means that he did not know when exactly the
conversion took place, and this event as such is undatable now.

12.5. The 2nd Century CE Chronology of the Adiabene Royalty

Beside the kings of Adiabene known to us mainly thanks to Josephus, there are three
more rulers of Adiabene that appear in ancient sources during the Parthian period1466.
First, Mebarsapes, king of Adiabene is mentioned by Cass. Dio 68.22 during Trajan’s
campaign in 114-116 CE against Parthia1467. Secondly, an anonymous ruler of Adiabene
belonged to Eastern supporters of Pescennius Niger, a pretender to the Roman throne in 192-194
CE (see Cass. Dio 75.1-2)1468. Niger was, however, defeated by his main opponent Septimius
Severus; the final battle took place in 194 CE at Issos, and while Niger was captured during his

1464
Though we must remark that the sequence of themes introduced in Ant. 20:34-37 (Ananias and the women,
Ananias and Izates, Izates goes with Ananias to Adiabene, Helena and Jewish traditions, Izates arrives in Adiabene
for good) is very vague, and this is clearly a result of two narration flashbacks, probably connected with Josephus’
switch from one source to the other.
1465
So Brüll 1874: 67.
1466
However, in the Chronicle of Arbela, which is a much later source (and that is why it is not included here) and
whose authenticity is a matter of scholarly dispute, three other rulers of Adiabene are recalled, namely: Raqbakt,
Narseh, and Sharat. See Fiey 1965: 41-42; Frye 1984: 279 and n. 24.
1467
See Longden 1931: 1-35; Lepper 1948: 103; Isaac 1990: 30; Ziegler 1964: 100-104; Grousset 1973: 109-110;
Magie 1950: 609-610, 1467-1468; Lightfoot 1990: 115-126; Bivar 1983: 87-89; Frye 1984: 242; Butcher 2003: 44-
45.
1468
See Magie 1950: 671-673, 1538-1542; Ziegler 1964: 129-132; Sommer 2005: 239-240, n. 58; Butcher 2003: 48.

194
 Chapter 12: Chronology of the Adiabene Royalty in the Hellenistic and Parthian Periods

escape to Parthia and killed, his two Eastern supporters, the kings of Edessa and Adiabene, were
taken prisoner1469. Septimius Severus celebrated his victory with the issue of coins, some of
which feature inscriptions like ARAB.ADIAB. and present two captives seated back to back, on
round shields, with a trophy centrally placed between them1470. Another king of Adiabene named
’Aṭīlū is attested through the Hatra inscription no. 21. The inscription does not include a date
(unlike some other Hatra inscriptions), the main clue as to the dating is the fact that the statue
was placed in the temple of Baal Shamin which was erected in 138 CE (inscription no. 272)1471.
This date can serve only as a terminus post quem for the attestation of ’Aṭīlū, while the siege of
Hatra by the Sassanids in 238 constitutes its terminus ante quem. Perhaps, the archaeological
context could indicate the end of the 2nd c. or the beginning of the 3rd c. CE as the most suitable
setting for ’Aṭīlū’s attestation1472.

12.6. A Chronological List

To sum up, the following list of rulers of Adiabene known to us by name in the Parthian
period can be reconstructed:
 Abdissar[], between the late 3rd and early 1st c. BCE;
 Artaxares, 2nd half of the 1st c. BCE, went into exile between 30 and 10 BCE;
 Izates I, 2nd half of the 1st c. BCE, at power in Adiabene between 30 and 10 BCE;
 Monobazos I Bazaios: the beginning of the reign before the Christian era, perhaps
ca. 5 BCE, died ca. 30 CE;
 Izates II
- born ca. 1BCE/1CE;
- Izates’ stayed at Charakene and Gordyene between 22/23 CE and 30 CE;
- Helena’s conversion between 22/23 CE and 30 CE;
- the beginning of Izates’ reign ca. 30 CE;
- Izates helps Artabanos II – between 37 and 40/41 CE;
- Izates’ conflict with Vardanes – 43 CE;
- Helena’s arrival in Jerusalem - between summer 44 and spring 45 CE;
- Izates’ involvement in the Roman expedition against Gotarzes – 49-50 CE;
- Vologases’ campaign against Izates – between 52 and 54 CE;
- Izates’ death by 55 CE;
 Monobazos II1473
1469
See Magie 1950: 673; Ziegler 1964: 131; Butcher 2003: 48. For a different interpretation of the fate of the king
of Edessa, see Sommer 2010: 222.
1470
Mattingly/Sydenham 1936: 96-100, nos. 58, 62-63, 76, pl. 5.
1471
H.J.W. Drijvers 1977: 821.
1472
Teixidor 1967: 2.
1473
We also need to take a stand on a frequently-repeated statement that the forebearers of the royal family of
Monobazos II survived in Armenia (e.g. Teixidor 1967: 6; Schiffman 1987: 312, n. 61; Feldman 1993: 331).
Namely, Neusner 1964b: 239-240 points to a passage in Moses Khorenatsi (2.57) who speaks of the Amaduni, a
family of Jewish origin which came to Armenia during the reign of Ardases. As Khorenatsi reports, this family
descended from “a certain Manue” and the Persians still called them the Manuyans, in the name of their ancestor.
According to Neusner 1964b: 239, Manue is an Armenian form of the well-known name Monobazos, which also
exists in Parthian as “MaNaWaZ, and the Armenian is thus an imperfect representation of its consonantal form”.
However, it should be noted that the etymological connection between Manue and Manavaz is questionable (see
Thomson 1978: 199, n. 2). Further, it is also possible that the family was not of Jewish origin but of Median descent
(see Toumanoff 1963: 197-198).

195
 Part 3: Material and Political Environment of Adiabene from the 3rd c. BCE to the 3rd c. CE

- the beginning of reign ca. 55 CE;

- the Corbulo Wars (61-63 CE);
- the Parthian embassy to Rome – 66 CE;
- the Jewish-Roman War (66-70 CE);
 Mebarsapes
- Trajan’s conquest of Nisibis and Adiabene in 114-1151474 CE1475;
 an anonymous ruler of Adiabene, one of the Eastern supporters of Pescennius
Niger in 192-194 CE;
 ’Aṭīlū, attested through Hatra inscription no. 21, a donor to the cult of Baal Shaamin in
Hatra, between 138 CE and 238 CE.

1474
Alternatively, Adiabene could have been invaded as late as in 116 CE. For a complicated issue of the
chronology of Trajan’s campaigns, see Longden 1931; Lepper 1948; and Lighfoot 1990 (whose dating is followed
here).
1475
Trajan’s invasion of Parthia raises the issue of the creation of the province of Assyria. Namely, Trajan is
reported to arrange the conquered land into three provinces: Armenia, Mesopotamia and Assyria. Some scholars
equate Trajan’s province of Assyria with Adiabene (Fränkel 1894: 360; Longden 1931: 13-14; M.I. Henderson
1949: 125; Magie 1950: 608; Dillemann 1962: 288-289). This is not, however, certain. First, the evidence for this
particular province is derived only from the two 5th c. CE historical epitomes of Eutropius and Festus (Lighfoot
1990: 121-125; Millar 1993: 101). Secondly, some scholars locate the province of Assyria, if historical, not in
Adiabene but in Babylonia as a territory between the Euphrates and Tigris rivers in central Iraq (Maricq 1959: 257-
260; Millar 1970: 117; Lighfoot 1990: 121-126).

196