Читать книгу Judaism I - Группа авторов - Страница 55

In the year 175 BCE, Antiochus IV Epiphanes was released from Roman captivity and became the Seleucid king. Jason, brother of the incumbent High priest Onias III, then turned to the king to confer on himself appointment as High priest, in return for raising Judea’s annual tribute to 360 talents and an extra payment of 80 talents. On payment of a further 150 silver talents he received permission to build a gymnasium and an ephebeia in Jerusalem (2 Macc 4:11–15). He also gained the right to convert Jerusalem into a Greek polis, in which not all inhabitants of Jerusalem were admitted as citizens. These moves towards Hellenization were prompted by the Judean priestly aristocracy, behind which there was a power struggle between priestly Oniads and aristocratic, wealthy Tobiads, with alternating loyalties to Ptolemies and Seleucids. In 173/2 BCE, Antiochus IV was received with great pomp in Jerusalem. In 171 BCE, Menelaus, sent by Jason to bring tribute, succeeded in buying the High priesthood from Antiochus IV by raising a further 300 talents. As an Oniad, Jason came from the Zadokite line, and when Menelaus became High priest the High priesthood passed to a non-Zadokite for the first time.

Jason had to flee, and after luring him from his asylum in Daphne, Menelaus had Onias III murdered. Menelaus was accused of having plundered the Temple treasures to pay the tribute. On his return from Egypt in 169 BCE, Antiochus IV had looted the Temple of Jerusalem (1 Macc 1:22). When Antiochus IV was forced by the Roman Popillius Laenas to withdraw from Egypt, the Oniad Jason attacked Jerusalem and expelled from the city Menelaus and the Tobiads who supported him. On his return from Egypt, Antiochus IV took Jerusalem, with murders and enslavements. As things did not quiet down, in 167 BCE Antiochus IV again sent an army to Jerusalem. His commander Apollonius conquered Jerusalem on a Sabbath and proceeded to raze the city walls and set up the fortified Akra, reinforced with non-Jewish military. With their presence in Jerusalem, non-Jews lived in the city and practiced their cults. The inclination of the Judean priesthood towards heathen cults was evident in the planned but then abandoned sacrifice to Hercules (2 Macc 4:18–20). The situation worsened when Antiochus issued an edict to be implemented by force (1 Macc 1:41–51):

And the king issued an edict in all his whole realm that all should become one people, and that everyone should give up their customs. And all the nations accepted it in accordance with the king’s order. And many from Israel were pleased to worship him and sacrificed to the gods and desecrated the Sabbath. And the king sent letters by messengers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah saying that they were to follow customs that were foreign to the land and institute burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, and desecrate Sabbaths and feast days and render sanctuary and saints impure, and erect altars, temple areas and idol sanctuaries and sacrifice pigs and impure animals, and leave their sons uncircumcised, so that they blemished themselves with every kind of impurity and abomination, so that they forgot the law and perverted all the commandments. And anyone who did not follow the king’s order was to die. Writings of this sort he sent to his whole kingdom.⁵⁹

Doubts have rightly been cast on the validity of this edict. The more fundamental question is whether it may reflect the internal Jewish disputes between radically Hellenistic reformers and traditionalists. A strictly traditionalist family of this kind is introduced in 1 Maccabees (2:1) in that of Mattathias, whose father was apparently a Hasmon, which is why the family are called Hasmoneans. With his sons, he supposedly resisted the religious reformers in a guerrilla campaign. As 2 Maccabees does not mention a Mattathias, his existence lies in a legendary, gray area. Judas Maccabeus, apparently a son of Mattathias, regained the Temple in 164 BCE in a three-year campaign; he had it re-consecrated and had traditional sacrifices offered. Antiochus IV had died shortly beforehand. Judas’s successor, his brother Jonathan, was appointed High priest by the Seleucid Demetrius II in 152 BCE. It was only Simon, the last surviving brother, who attained political autonomy from Syrian rule in 139/138 BCE. He was murdered by his son-in-law in 135 BCE. From this point on, rule was handed down in the line of Simon, until the great-grandson of Mattathias and grandson of Simon led the Roman commander Pompey into the city of Jerusalem in 64 BCE.⁶⁰

Second Maccabees describes the measures of Antiochus IV even more drastically than the edict of 1 Macc 1:41–51, as a horrific persecution with numerous martyrdoms (4:10; 6:18–29; 7:1–42; 14:37–46). In the martyrdom of the »mother with her seven sons« (7:1–52), the king himself is a key figure. The seven who refused to eat pork were cruelly tortured and killed, one after the other. In expectation of resurrection to eternal life (7:9, 11, 14, 36; cf. the mother’s words in 7:23, 29), in speeches contemptuous of Antiochus IV, they displayed their »manly courage before kings’ thrones« and announced God’s judgment and eternal punishment upon him. »The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honourable memory. Although she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord« (7:20).⁶¹ This hope is based on the recognition »that God did not make them out of things that existed« (7:28) and will therefore grant them eternal life after death. As in Dan 12:2f., in 2 Macc 7 we find the explicit expectation of the resurrection of the dead. The meaning attributed to the martyrdoms of the mother with her seven sons is placed on the lips of the last and youngest son, namely that this will »bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty.« And in 8:1ff. the turning point arrives with the appearance of Judah, the Maccabee.