In the winter of 167 BC, changes in local cults began in Jerusalem (Judea) and neighboring Shechem (Samaria). This event is relatively well covered, although one-sidedly, by sources (especially for Judea, where it was of particular significance), and yet researchers still do not have a single generally accepted point of view on the essence of what happened.

Jewish sources cite Antiochus IV Epiphanes, king of the Seleucid empire - a huge power in the Far East, to which Samaria and Judea were subordinated at that time - as the author of the reform, and they see the reform itself as an attempt to eradicate the laws of the Jews and sometimes as a desire to impose a Hellenic way of life among them.

Usually, however, the state machines of both the Achaemenids and Seleucids - those hulking colossi - did not interfere so radically in the internal affairs of the subject peoples. This is why many modern writers have blamed the local nobility for the tragic reformation in Judea. Nevertheless, the question of the motives and extent of the tsar's involvement in the reform remains open: was it revenge (a hitherto unseen fact) for the revolt that occurred in Jerusalem a year earlier, or an attempt to free the Jewish cult from superstition, or, finally, a sign of the political madness of the Jewish nobility?

Key words: Hellenism, Seleucids, Antiochus Epiphanes, Judea, Samaria, Onias, Jason, Menelaus, Tobiads, Maccabean book, Temple, religion, persecution, high priest.

Antiquity knew few examples of religious persecution. Information about one such event can be gathered from later Old Testament sources: the 1st and 2nd Maccabees and the prophecies of Daniel. According to them, in December 167 BC, a religious reform began in Judea, which in the sources is understood as a persecution of Israel's Covenant with God. To a much lesser extent, religious transformations also affected neighboring Samaria.

Both regions were at that time under the rule of the Seleucid monarchy; Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175 - 164 BC) ruled the country; he forever entered the Judeo-Christian cultural paradigm as a cruel persecutor and haughty atheist. The Jewish high priest Menelaus, who obeyed the king in everything, was categorically branded a renegade.

What were the goals of religious reform in Judea? The available sources do not provide a satisfactory answer. Although until the 30s of the XX century, there were no unsolvable questions in this regard. Antiochus IV is also remembered in history for his love of all things Hellenic and as a special fan of the cult of Zeus. It seemed that the answer to the question of the essence of religious transformations was obvious: the cult of the Temple of Zion was reorganized into the cult of the Greek Zeus [Bevan, 1902, vol. 2, p. 126-148]. In 1937, a book by E. Bickerman was published, in which the researcher convincingly showed that about ot-

page 21
The Greek cult's rule did not imply that it was a local anti-Palestinian cult and that the high priest, not the king, was the real author of the reform (Bikermann, 1937).

The book was a breakthrough, but it raised even more questions. And among the main ones - about the motives of Menelaus himself. Since then, there have been two traditions in the interpretation of events. One of them can be called "religious studies". In addition to E. Bickerman, M. Hengel (1974) is a prominent proponent of this theory. This trend sees the main motive of the reformers in improving the cult itself and freeing it from later conventions and superstitions. Another tradition is "political". Some researchers in this direction believe that the tsar was trying to restore calm in Judea in this way: as if the pious fighters for the purity of the cult and the Law, the Hasidim, were already waging an armed war against the "Hellenists" (i.e., the elite adopting Hellenic customs) [Tcherikover, 1964]. Others have no choice but to demonize the figure of the high priest, who is rapidly losing power over his community and taking drastic measures to preserve it in any form whatsoever (Bringmann, 1980; Bringmann, 1983). Finally, the latest work on this topic speaks quite in the spirit of agnosticism: the reform - whatever it was - was formed as a result of the interaction of three components: the king, the Greek administration and the local nobility [Mittag, 2006, p.267].

A separate problem is that today there is no clear idea of the actual content of the reform. Our sources provide a lot of diverse information, which is difficult to combine and present conceptually. Most of the measures, according to written tradition, were aimed at abolishing the former worship in the Temple and the former norms of everyday piety. Accordingly, in modern studies, the reform seems to be destructive. Its constructive aspects, in particular the organization of new sanctuaries and the decentralization of the cult, although noticed, always fade into the background.

However, one important source study observation has not yet been fully involved in the study of this issue: 2 Macc. - it is a monument of Jewish diaspora (Egyptian) literature. The book is the result of a compilation of a more extensive work by the Libyan Cyrene Jew Jason [2 Macc. 2: 24] and directly addressed to the Egyptian Jews [2 Macc. 1:1]; it can also highlight some features of the diaspora's worldview [Attridge, 1984, p. 177; Collins, 2000, p. 78-83; Schwartz, 2008, p. 45-55].

In this article, we will try to show how strong the character of the presentation of the events of religious reform in the 2nd Macc. it depends on what audience the book was intended for, and also that this secondary information can not always be trusted. On this basis, we will try to identify the facts that made up the real essence of the reform. Finally, we will try to include these data in a certain historical context and answer the question about the essence of the reform and the motives of the parties responsible for it.

CONTENT OF THE REFORM, ACCORDING TO INTRA-JEWISH SOURCES (1 MACC., DANIEL)

Reorganization of worship in the Temple. E. Bickerman also showed that the main innovation in the Temple itself was that a new altar was installed on the former altar, on which sacrifices were now offered [Bickermann, 1937, s. 105-109; Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, p. 295; vol. 2, p. 197]. Indeed, the 1st Macc. 1:59 mentions "the altar that is above the altar". 1st Macc. and Daniel reports that "the abomination of desolation" was placed on the altar." [11:28: 12:11: ( see also vari-

page 22
the antes in verses [8: 13 and 9: 27]). "Abomination of desolation" should mean that the burnt offering is no longer offered according to the statute. Indeed, Daniel [11:28] writes about the cessation of "tamid", the daily sacrifice. 1st Macc. [6: 7] confirms that when referring to " abomination, "it refers to a new altar that is"above the (normal) altar."

An important fact is that the former altar was not destroyed and obviously retained its significance for the cult. In this case, the new altar was typologically different from the previous one. In ancient times, in the Syrian-Palestinian region and in Arabia, the practice of worshipping the altar as a deity and the perception of the altar as the receptacle of the deity to whom the sacrifice is offered was known. You can give examples of Zeus Bohm (βωμóς), i.e. letters. The neo-Platonic philosopher of the third century A.D. Porphyry of Tyre mentions the practice (among the "Demataeans in Arabia") consider an altar (βωμóς) as both a statue of a deity (ξóανον) [Schwabl, 1972, Sp. 293]. This type of altar may have been the new altar of the Temple. The innovation itself, apparently, was not valuable in itself, but it allowed us to justify the next step of the reform, which is much more important.

Decentralization of the cult. Before the reform, the Jewish cult was tightly centralized: there was only one place where sacrifices were made - the Jerusalem Temple. At least that was the requirement [Deut 12: 5-7]. Formally, the transformation did not violate it: the former altar for burnt offerings remained the only one and continued to be located in Zion. However, new altars could be placed everywhere.

Indeed, according to the 1st Macc. [1: 50], the king ordered that sacrifices be offered "in all the cities of Judah, in every city" (cf. 1:47]). 1st Macc. [1: 54] mentions that in the cities "around Jerusalem" altars were built pióλεσιν Iουδα 1 Macc. [1:58] adds: "such violence has been dealt with... with the Israelites who came to the cities every month." There are also indications that smoking was carried out on the street and at the doors of houses. So we are talking about new YHWH sanctuaries. Thus, the new type of altar became another recognized form of manifestation of the deity, which could ensure the successful performance of the cult. Sacred groves, asherahs 1, which had been forbidden since Deuteronomy [16:21], also helped to give additional ritual power to new places of worship. That groves were now being consecrated in the towns and villages of Judea, we read in Josephus [Ant. XII. 5.4]. And according to 1 Macc. [4: 38] There were already trees in the vestibules of the Temple when it was later cleansed of its filth by Judas Maccabeus.

This is a very important element of the reform. The mythologem of Mattathias (the ancestor of the Hasmonean dynasty, which later rebelled against the cult innovations) is inextricably linked to their decentralizing aspect: a priest from Modin kills another priest who intends to bring an "idolatrous" (i.e., not in the Temple!)service. the victim [1 Macc. 2:15 - 28]. In this vein, one can also understand the instructions of the later Talmudic literature on religious reform. Тосефта [Таанит. 3:7 (4:7)1], explaining the appearance of new names for some "generations", he refers to the context of the reform and says that" Hellenic kings " organized pickets on the roads and did not allow Jews to enter Jerusalem. Perhaps in order for the latter to go to worship in the temples that were now located in the settlements around Jerusalem.2 It is necessary to compare this material with the text of the decree of Antiochus V (164-162 BC), proclaiming the abolition of religious reform: tó... ("so that the temple may be returned to them") [2 Macc. 11:25]. "Restored" should be

1 The paragraph number is given in parentheses in the translation by N. A. Perferkovich [Perferkovich. 2000].

2 These later remarks may have been inspired by another experience, later and much more painful for Judea: the persecutions of the time of the Emperor Hadrian (117-138), when Jews were almost not allowed to enter Jerusalem. The city then lost even its name, becoming "Colony Elia Capitolina". But the emperor's name is too familiar to Jewish tradition to be confused with"Hellenic kings."

page 23
here it is understood as "returned", since the sanctuary was not destroyed during the reform.

How well prepared was the ground for formal innovations? Unfortunately, we do not have direct and indisputable data on this issue. But there are certain indirect data. The post-warmed layer of the book of the prophet Isaiah repeatedly indicates the existence of worship practices similar to those that were carried out in the Jerusalem Temple: the offering of bullocks and lambs, the smoking of incense, worship on high, and offerings made of high-grade flour (semidala) [Isa. 57:7; 65:3; 66:3]. In these cases, our source is silent about the nature of the gods that were lawlessly worshipped by the inhabitants of Judea; and when such an indication is present [Isaiah 5:11; Gad and Manufi], the practices of worship described are different. Apparently, this must mean that the local priests continued to worship YHWH in one way or another. However, it should be noted that these texts gave rise to different and dissimilar "temporal interpretations [Grabbe, 1995; Hanson, 1979; Schramm, 1995].

Something in the question that interests us can be gleaned from the history of the powerful Tobiad family, known throughout the V-II centuries BC in the Transjordan region. Josephus [Ant. XII. 4.11] mentions the construction of the fortress of Tyros by Hyrcanus Tobiades and includes the event itself in the context of Hyrcanus ' struggle with the high priest Simon (the Pious); thus, the event refers to the end of the third and beginning of the second centuries. Tyros appears to be identical with the archaeological site at Arak al-Emir across the Jordan. The Qasr al-Abd complex, located here, also belonged to the Toviads and was supposed to be a sanctuary [Lapp, 1962; Lapp, 1963]. It was hardly a pagan sanctuary; rather, YHWH was worshipped there (Hengel, 1974, p. 274; Collins, 2000, p. 76-77).

Grove worship practices were fairly common during the Second Temple: the post-war layer of Isaiah contains references to grove worship (57:5, "under every branchy tree"; 65:3, "in places with branchy trees"). Folk beliefs that gave asherah healing properties also existed much later: The Talmud [Pesachim. 25a] warns against using the asherah tree for self-treatment.

INTRODUCTION OF NEW ELEMENTS OF THE ROYAL CULT

In the 1st and 2nd Macs. we find very close fragments. 1 Macc. [1: 58] writes about the reform: "such violence was dealt with... with the Israelites who came to the cities every month." In 2 Macc. we read: "with heavy compulsion, they were also taken to idolatrous sacrifices every month on the king's birthday." Fragments must come from a common source for both books. In general terms, this - the earliest-text should have read: "with heavy compulsion, the Israelites came every month to the cities to sacrifice in honor of the king."

Of course, there are references to the king's sacrifices in 1 Macc. No, but it's understandable. For the author (or editor) of the book, sacrificing for a king, whether Achaemenid, Ptolemaic, or Seleucid, is a common and not at all reprehensible practice [Ezra. 6: 10; 1 Macc. 7:33]. Below we will see that the cult transformations simply had to imply the introduction of some new elements of the royal cult. And since in 1 Macc. such information is completely absent, we should trust here more to what the 2nd Maccabean Book has preserved.

So, we are talking about sacrifices for the well-being and salvation of the king and his family, performed by priests with a large congregation of believers. The practice of offering sacrifices in the presence of a large congregation was not new to Judea. 50: 12-21]: it is enough to recall that in the Jewish calendar there were three holidays that had to be celebrated in Jerusalem: Passover, Shavuot (pyatide-

page 24
syatnitsa) and Tabernacles [Deut. 16:16-17; Tov. 1: 6]. The novelty was the frequency of such ceremonies-once a month. Formally, for such a cult ceremony, altars were created in all the" cities " of Judea: so that it was not necessary to go to the Temple itself every time.

RELIGIOUS REFORM, ACCORDING TO THE 2nd MACC. (DIASPORA TRADITION)

Jason of Cyrene (and thus the 2nd Macc.) says nothing about decentralizing the cult. The reason for this is clear. For the Alexandrian diaspora, for which the 2nd Macc. was designed, the idea of decentralizing worship was not very clear. In the fifth century BC, Jewish settlers of the garrison on Elephantine had their own sanctuary, where they offered sacrifices [Porten, 1989, p. 386-387; Modrzejwski, 2001, p. 36 - 46; 121 - 134]. According to the prophet Isaiah [19: 19], the Temple of YHWH was to arise in Egypt. In the middle of the second century BC, the YHWH temple was indeed founded in the Leontopolsky nome "following the example of the Jerusalem one". This was done by Onias IV, a native of a family of Jerusalem high priests, who left Judea and migrated to Egypt [Jos. Ant. XII. 9.7; XIII. 3.1 - 3; Yayward, 1982, Modrzejewski, 1991, p. 121 - 129].

The last plot has another very important "development". Onias IV occupied a rather high position in the Ptolemaic administration [Modrzejewski, 2001, p. 124-126]. 2nd Macc. He is well aware of this fact: although Onias himself is not mentioned here, his father Onias III is twice praised. In addition, the Alexandrian diaspora of Hellenistic times always treated with pride and admiration those tribesmen who managed to achieve heights and titles in the service of the Ptolemies. Onyas IV, who founded the church of Leontopol, was one of these examples and a very striking one. But he did exactly what Jewish sources stigmatize the Jerusalem reformers for: he created a temple outside the Temple. In other words, the idea of decentralizing the cult as one of the foundations of the "pagan" reform in Jerusalem would sound extremely ambiguous in the mouth of Jason of Cyrene.

As in this case, Jason of Cyrene and the compiler of the 2nd Macc. could they have shown the horror and inadmissibility of concrete measures against the Jerusalem Temple? 2nd Macc. it focuses on its desecration. 6: 4 mentions female ritual prostitution in its vestibules: The Temple was filled with debauchery (foreigners are characterized as γυναιξ ì πλησιάζοντες - carelessly spending time with hetaerae and mingling with women in the Temple walls). Needless to say, this text finds no parallels in the 1st Macc. or Daniel's.

Also 2 Macs. special attention is paid to the requirement to honor Dionysus. In verse 6: 7, we read: all Jews were forced to participate in processions wearing ivy wreaths (the symbol of Dionysus). 2 Macc. 6:4 mentions the ritual processions of foreigners in the Temple (tò... i eρòv... Dionysus is also mentioned in 2 Macc. 14: 33 (episode about Nikanor's pride). Such information is not found in 1 Macc. or in the prophecy of Daniel.

One can guess how Dionysus got into the narrative of the 2nd Maccabean book. Side by side with these practices, the ceremony of sacrifices for the king is also mentioned. Meanwhile, the connection of Dionysusism with the cult of dynasty is a feature well known in Ptolemaic Egypt, especially since the time of Ptolemy IV [Hölbl, 2001, p. 92 - 94; 170 - 172]. The Alexandrian diaspora was clearly aware of the state significance of the veneration of Dionysus in Egypt and opposed these practices [3 Macc. 2:21].

It is clear why cult events in honor of the king are normal for Judea (and for Old Testament sources!) practice-caused such rejection and so many negative associations among the authors of the 2nd Maccabean book. Only in the context of the diaspora, deprived of its own temple, could such practices be rightfully called pagan,

page 25
since they inevitably had to take place in the temples of other deities. On the contrary, if sacrifices are performed in the temple in Jerusalem, they do not cause protest among the Alexandrian diaspora either [cf.: Ps.-Arist.45].

As a result, we emphasize that all the elements listed here were introduced into the narrative of 2 Macc. because of the specific worldview of the diaspora, and this information should be questioned.

Truthful reports in sources that are not directly related to the administration of the reformed cult. In the years under review, a non-Jewish population (garrison) also permanently resided in Jerusalem. The introduced cults acquired their own altars in Jerusalem [2 Macc. 10:2]. The necessary sacrifices were performed on them. Author of the 1st Macc. [1: 37] indicates that the settlers "shed innocent blood" in the case of animal sacrifice.3
E. Bikermann assigned a very important role in the reform to the burning of the Temple gates (Bikermann, 1937, p. 109-111). Messages in the available sources that allow us to understand this action in the context of the reform are as follows:: specifying the 1st Macc. [4:57] on the restoration of the gates of the Temple and the doors of the storehouses by Judas Maccabeus, when he and his companions occupied the Temple and cleansed it from defilement (November-December 164 BC); and the text of 2 Macc. [8: 33], where the rebels severely punished a certain Jew Callisthenes, who was guilty of burning the gate [Hengel, 1974, vol. 2, p. 197, n. 242]. The episode with the gate is really very important. The third time it is mentioned is in the first letter of the Jews to the Jews of Alexandria [2 Macc. 1:7 - 8]. This fragment relates the burning of the gate to the time of the rebellion of the former high priest Jason (168 BC; more on this later), i.e. before the reform itself.

Reports from sources about the" anti-Judaism " of the reform. 1 and 2 Macc. they contain very similar references to the provisions of the reform, which either meant mocking the correct cult (sacrificing pork), or imposed a ban on the observance of traditional norms of everyday piety.: to keep the Sabbaths and circumcision, and to possess the Book of the Covenant. The penalty for refusing to betray the Covenant is also emphatically severe-execution.

Most of these references should be left controversial. We can explain how they came about, but in most cases we can't prove them wrong. We can only say that the Jewish mind was a priori attuned to such information. His sacred texts demanded that the struggle for the purity and monopoly of the right cult should be uncompromising: for apostasy-death. Recall that the mythologem of Mattathias is also associated with the murder of an apostate priest. At the same time, the killer is likened to the ancient hero Phinehas, who once also committed a similar act of retribution. And in the second century BC, this is a very popular hero [Sirach. 45:28 - 30].

Then on what grounds could the average Jew expect that the opponents of a real cult would act differently? Therefore, even if such things did not happen in reality, the consciousness of people was prepared to perceive (and generate) such information in the form of rumors. We must not forget that the community was on the verge of a big uprising, and it was time for everyone to decide who they were with. Such stories reliably marked an insurmountable boundary between one's own and others ' in this struggle.

Only the message about the abuse of Saturdays can have other grounds that make it more reliable. We remember that the sacrifices for the king, which required the presence of all the inhabitants, were held once a month. Usually, any celebration was assigned a specific day of the month: for example, the 13th or, for example, polo-

3 The expression "to shed innocent blood" in the Old Testament usually means to kill a person [see, for example: 1 Sam. 19:5; 25:26; 31; 3 2 Kings 2: 5; 4 Kings 21: 16; Ps. 9:29; 105:38 (!); And then.: 7:6; 22:3; 22:17; 26(33):15]. However, the pagan sacrifice of an animal was equated with the murder of an innocent person [Isaiah 66:3; compare Leviticus 17: 1-7]. Speech in the 1st Macc. [1: 37] refers to the animal sacrifice outside the Temple.

page 26
bench press, 15th. There are 29 or 30 days in a lunar month - that is, the number is not a multiple of 7. This means that such a sacrifice fell on any day of the seventh (week) month from month, and not on one constant day. In some months - and on Saturday.

Finally, it is worth noting that the prejudice of the surrounding peoples towards the Jewish cult developed later than the events described: in the second half of the second century BC, when the young Hasmonean state began an active policy of conquest in the region (Heinemann, 1931; Bringmann, 1983, p. 101). Therefore, our sources ' references to the persecution of the cult cannot be interpreted at all as an attempt to correct it, rid it of prejudices and superstitions, and at the same time make "misanthropic Jews" "normal" people. We find such ideas in the work of a prominent author of the late II - first half of the I century BC, Posidonius of Apamea [Diod. XXXIV/XXXV. 1 - 2]. But still, this interpretation is a clear anachronism. It is characteristic that Flavius does not have it, although it is clear that when describing events that occurred only 40 years after our time (Judea under the rule of Antiochus VII), the historian uses sources that are already familiar with this interpretation [Ant. XIII. 8.1 - 3].

CONTEXT AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE REFORM

The tsar was the formal initiator of the reform, but only the Jerusalem elite could implement it: as an expert in reform and an interested translator of it, the Jewish nobility at all stages of transformation - from conception to implementation - had a monopoly on directing it in the right direction. It is therefore no coincidence that Jason of Cyrene blames Menelaus for the disasters that followed the reformation [2 Macc. 13:4; Bikermann, 1937, s. 131; Bringmann, 1983, s. 120 - 140; Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, p. 288 - 289]. It is therefore necessary to distinguish, on the one hand, the motives that guided the crown, and on the other, the Jewish nobility.

By the beginning of the second century BC, Judea was in a state of severe social crisis. This can be judged by the scale of state transformations that were accompanied by the coming to power of the Hasmonean dynasty (140-37 BC): the region changed its state structure, turning from a civil - temple community into a monarchy. This means that a significant part of the population was not satisfied with their situation and actively entered into the processes of socio-political transformation. At the heart of the problem was the question of cultivated land. It was relatively small, and a significant part of the total land fund of the community was in the hands of the nobility. The further process of concentration of land ownership in the hands of a few was extremely active [Kreissig, 1973, p. 26; Pastor, 2001, p. 13; 29 - 31, 150 - 152].

Under such conditions, in the first third of the second century BC, three attempts were made to reorganize the existing state system, each of which was deeper and broader in its significance than the previous one. The first attempt was the organization of a polis in Jerusalem in the 170s BC. The transformation concerned only the elite and was a way to resolve the escalating struggle within it and consolidate it around the high priest Jason (the initiator of this event); perhaps it was also an attempt to optimize the high priest's fiscal control over the domains of the nobility [Applebaum, 1989, p. 10]. This effort failed because the crisis was already much deeper. Jason was soon replaced by his rival Menelaus.

The second attempt at reorganization is religious reform. Two years before it began, the temple organization suffered its first major blow: in the summer or early autumn of 169 BC, the king confiscated the Temple treasury. 1:21 - 23]. The High priest Menelaus contributed to this [2 Macc. 5:15]. This step directly affected

page 27
the interests of the nobility grouped around the Temple and its treasury 4. A year after the confiscation (in 168 BC), at the first opportunity, a revolt of the nobility under the leadership of the former high priest Jason broke out. After its suppression, those involved were severely punished; large confiscations are known [1 Macc. 1:31-32; Dan. 11: 39].

The main socio-political element of the reform itself was the expansion of the temple organization, headed by Menelaus, to the entire territory of Judea. This organization, which had a single center and was headed by a high priest, would finally put under the control of the Jewish nobility, competing (now more potentially) with the group of Menelaus himself. A possible source of concern for the latter is the peripheral domains of the nobility (like the Toviads). It is not without reason, as we have seen, that the reverse practice is also known around the same time: the powerful Hyrcanus Tobiades, who quarreled with the high priest, set up his own sanctuary in his domain YHWH. Thus, religious reform became a form of struggle within the nobility and was carried out almost exclusively for the benefit of the top, or rather, even one of its factions, although institutionally it already covered the entire community. In particular, the reform could mean an increase in temple taxes. And here's why. The Jerusalem Temple was hardly prepared to give up its revenues. The main temple taxes that were due to him were a tenth of the tithe of the fruits of the land to the Levites, 1/3 of the holy shekel for the needs of the cult, and the firstfruits of all the fruits to the priests [Grabbe, 2003, p. 129-140]. What could the new sanctuaries expect?

The firstfruits of all fruits were brought to the Temple. 10:38]. At this point, the new sanctuaries were inevitably his competitors. It is suspected that the sacred third of the shekel was not fully collected at this time (Bickermann, 1988, vol. 2, p. 167). Payments in silver were difficult for the population, and the cult's needs in silver could be paid for from the royal funds [Ma, 2000, p. 145-146]. Only the tithe was better. According to Deuteronomy, it was eaten by the owners in Jerusalem, and only every third year it should be collected in the house and distributed to the Levites, as well as widows and orphans [Deut. 14:22 - 29; 15:19 - 23]. Of this latter amount (1/3), the following remained unregulated: 1/3-1/10 = 7/30 (or ≈ 23%) of the total tithe. New sanctuaries could count on this amount every year, without coming into conflict with the capital's Temple.

But for the population, it was still equivalent to a tax increase. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the reform was met with such fierce resistance from the population of Judea: a year after it began, the Judas Maccabee uprising broke out. The emergence of new socio-political structures in Judea as a result of this uprising (the military leader and his army), and ultimately the birth of the Hasmonean monarchy can be considered the third (and successful) attempt to transform Jewish society.

How did the tsar and his officials envisage religious reform? It is known that it was held not only in the Jerusalem Temple, but also in the temple on Mount Gerizim in neighboring Samaria [2 Macc. 6:2; Jos. Ant. XII.5:5]. The Greek administration sought to have these temples dedicated to the Greek Zeus [2 Macc. 6:2; Jos. Ant. XII.5.1]. But at the same time, the correspondence of the inhabitants of Shechem in Samaria with the king [Jos. Ant. XII.5.5] shows that the king did not associate the name of Zeus with any particular set of attributes, which, after the reform, were to accompany the worship performed in the temples of Zion and Garizim: Antiochus IV was satisfied that the Garizim temple was simply renamed the temple of Zeus.

4 He finds certain parallels in the past. Thus, it is known that in the first half of the 70s of the II century BC, the caretaker of the Temple, Simon (brother of Menelaus), tried to open access to the temple treasury for the royal administration [2 Macc. 3:4 - 6]. Even earlier (at the end of the fifth and beginning of the fourth century BC), the Peha (governor) of Judea, Bagoi, who was at enmity with the high priest, ordered the Jews to pay an additional fee for each burnt offering [Jos.Ant. XI. 7.1].

page 28
There is no direct or even indirect evidence that the Jewish priestly elite had an idea of the Temple as the sanctuary of Zeus, much less a desire to make it the sanctuary of the Greek Zeus. All reports related in one way or another to the establishment of the cult of Zeus in the temples of Zion and Garizim are ultimately derived from the Greek administration. 5
It is characteristic that the author of 1 Macc., who has an inner Jewish view of everything that happens, does not say anything about Zeus in Judea. The prophecy of Daniel [11:38] mentions the" god of fortresses " mā' uzzîm; Septuagint: θεòς ΜαωζΙν). Later (II century AD) in Palestine, according to epigraphy, the worship of the deity Zeus-Acre, i.e. Zeus of Fortresses, is known) [Seyrig, 1962, p. 208]. There is a well - known attempt to identify these gods [Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, p. 284-285]. But this identification is at least not indisputable (Lebram, 1985, pp. 755-756). Apparently, Menelaus called the deity of the reformed cult haššāmāyim "(God of Heaven), which was reinterpreted by opponents of the reform in 6. "God of Heaven" is a frequently used epithet in Judea YHWH [Bickerman, 1988, vol. 2, p. 332, n. 29; Hengel, 1974, vol. 1, p. 298; vol. 2, p. 199, n. 261].

I will turn to some general government parallels. There are two well-known cases of correspondence between subordinate communities and the tsar and his officials immediately after the community returned (or first entered) under the power of the monarch as a result of military actions. Both of them are from Asia Minor. The first is the correspondence of Sardis with Antiochus III in the spring and summer of 213 BC. From 220 to the winter of 214 (or spring of 213) BC, Sardis was under the rule of the usurper Achaeus. In the course of military operations against it, which began as early as 215 BC, the king besieged and took the city and, in the end, managed to capture the usurper as well. In order to establish good relations with the tsar, less than six months after the events described, the townspeople themselves propose to establish cult ceremonies in honor of the tsar and his family [Ma, 2000, p. 284-288]. Another example is Heraclea-u-Latma (in Cary). The city was taken during a military campaign ca. 203 BC of the royal general Zeuxides. This was followed by correspondence between the city and Zeuxides himself, and then with King Antiochus III about the conditions under which the city would be under his rule (tax and other benefits to the city, issuance from the royal fiscal, etc.). Here, too, the townspeople themselves take the initiative to make monthly sacrifices for the well-being of the tsar and his family (Worrle, 1988). In both cases, religious honors were confirmed by a royal letter in response.

Obviously, Menelaus made similar proposals on behalf of his "guilty" community. Temple sacrifices for the king's health and well-being, as we have seen, were previously practiced in Judea. Wouldn't that be too bold

5 The two temples were located in different communities, one in Judea and the other in Samaria. Therefore, the rhetoric about Zeus would have to belong to the priestly circles of both (and in this case necessarily both temples. Meanwhile, the correspondence of the inhabitants of Shechem with the king shows that the priesthood of the Gerizim temple did not initiate such reforms. This letter also makes clear the course of events that led the people of Shechem to write a complaint to the king. The officials of the governorate in Samaria applied the same measures to them as they did to the Jews. The Samaritans had to raise the question of the legitimacy and grounds of these actions before these officials themselves. Those, in turn, referred to the royal decree (therefore, the complaint of the Shechemites is now addressed to a higher authority). Hence, what we read in the Samaritan letter to the king quoted by Josephus is the Greek administration's understanding of the essence of the reform, as explained to the Shechemites by Greek officials.

6 It is widely believed that Menelaus may have referred to this deity as "Ba'al " (Lord of Heaven; a deity widespread in the West Semitic world), and supporters of the former worship of god changed this name in [Dodd, 1947, p. 53]. This is strange, if we take into account the long - standing practice of refraining from using the name "Ba'al" in Judea (on the fight against "baalism" back in the era of the tsars (see: [Tantlevsky, 2004, pp. 209-218]). Such Syro-Phoenician (not even Greek!) "nominalism" of the high priest can only amaze. From our point of view, Menelaus could have called the deity of the renewed cult' haššāmāyim, which was common in Judea in relation to YHWH. Opponents of the reform may well have changed this name to " Ba'al and then-to

page 29
another suggestion: did the high priest promise this time that sacrifices for the king would be offered "in all the cities of Judah", and not just in the Temple in Jerusalem? If this is the case, then the king, by answering in the affirmative, essentially authorized the changes that Menelaus had already outlined. Why do our sources call the tsar himself the initiator of the reform [1 Macc. 1:41, 44; 2 Macc. 6: 1; Dan. 11: 31]? The fact that the level of public authority in the Greek poleis could not be compared with that in Judea should have played a role here. The Greeks made such decisions at the national assembly, and the decrees were carved in stone. That is why their political history is so easy to study, if, of course, there are stones left. But in Judea, who could know about the decisions of Menelaus and the elders, if it was not advertised? But, apparently, everyone was informed that the king had approved the new ritual practices.

Should the king have known that this proposal of the high priest implied a major reorganization of the entire system of worship? One circumstance seems to require that the tsar be privy to the essence of the reform. Even Antiochus III confirmed the right of the community in Judea to live according to its own laws. Although Menelaus himself was the head of the community, he could be accused of deviating from this principle. A relatively well-known practice is when the elite of a subordinate community could complain to the king about the actions of the head of the community (in our case, the high priest); and the case was considered by the royal court [2 Macc. 4: 43; 1 Macc. 10:61]. It follows that the complaint about the actions of the high priest (violation of the Law) may well have been brought before the king this time. If the king had not known about the nature of the reform, Menelaus would have been in trouble...

But in reality, the high priest, who had remained steadfastly loyal to Antiochus IV during Jason's rebellion, seems to have had such high authority that no one in Judea was willing to take the risk of accusing him before the king. It should not be forgotten that the party that lost in such a trial could lose its life (apparently, on charges of libel [Bickerman, 1985, p. 194]). In other words, Menelaus could be sure that no such complaints would follow. His "strong" argument could also be that the innovation was the "small" price that the community must pay to restore benevolent relations with the king.

The geography of religious reform coincides with the geography of other organizational measures designed to prevent the recurrence of the Jason rebellion in the future. According to the 2nd Macc. [5: 22-23], in Jerusalem and Gerizim, after the rebellion, royal emissaries were stationed, reporting directly to the strategist of Celes - ria and Phoenicia: in Judea-Philip the Phrygian, in Shechem - Andronicus. From these facts, we can conclude that the tsar somehow linked the reform and these military-administrative measures into one block. But we are not in a position to establish the nature of this connection. The military-administrative measures were, of course, designed to prevent a relapse into rebellion; it is quite possible to assume, however, that, from the tsar's point of view, the additional services in his honor were only an ideological supplement to the rest of the measures.

And the last question that needs to be discussed is the question of the" Hellenism " of the reform. Text of the letter of Antiochus V with the revocation of the religious edict [2 Macc. 11: 22-26] shows that, according to the king, the reforms were to establish a Greek way of life for the Jews. The correspondence of Antiochus IV with the Shechemites contains the same wording [Jos. Ant. XII. 5.5]. In other words, our independent sources confirm each other.

The Hellenic way of life, if we are talking about an entire community, means life with polis institutions [Koshelenko, 1979, pp. 186-212]. The Jews themselves clearly demonstrated this [1 Macc. 1:14; 2 Macc. 4:12; Mittag, 2006, S. 235 - 247]. But our sources show that it was also possible to adopt certain elements of Hellenic life. So, from the royal letter to the Sidonians of Shechem, we learn that in order to live "according to Hellenic customs", it was enough for them to dedicate their temple to the nameless deity Zeus

page 30
Hellenic. In the case of Judea, "Hellenism" refers specifically to religious reform [cf. Bringmann, 1983, pp. 86-87; 92].

We have seen that the initiative for cult innovations came from Menelaus, not from the king. The High priest may also have characterized these innovations as Greek. I.e., some element in the cult innovations seemed Hellenic to Menelaus, and he did not fail to inform the Greek king about this. But "Hellenism" hardly consisted in the fact that sacrifices were made to Zeus. It was too nominalistic: after all, all the deities with similar functions for the Greek were already Zeus. Then what is it?

This may be due to the publicity and mass nature of religious events. Who in Judea really knew about the king's burnt offering, other than the change of priests who officiated at the ceremony? Meanwhile, for the Greeks, the mass character and publicity of the royal cult were of paramount importance [Ma, 1999, p. 214-219]. Sacrificial ceremonies could be combined with national festivals, games and competitions, processions (πομπαι).

And if this is so, and the mass nature of religious events became a feature that Menelaus considered Greek, then we must admit that in a certain sense the high priest even surpassed the Greeks, who usually held such events, crowded and solemn, once a year. In Judea, the new order established a periodicity of once a month.

conclusions

Summing up, we can say the following. The reconstructions presented in the article are not without convention due to the small amount of information that we have. Nevertheless, a number of positive conclusions can be obtained. Let us formulate two: 1) when studying the problems of religious reform in Judea in 167-164 BC, a new and more detailed reference to sources and a proper reconstruction of historical facts are necessary; 2) one should not overly directly interpret the facts obtained. It is necessary to take into account the specifics of the world's pre-Eastern power of antiquity (be it the Seleucids, Achaemenids, Babylonians, etc.) as a special system of statehood, in which there is no single and continuous administrative apparatus at all levels. Take into account that on the border between the tsarist administration and the administration of the subordinate community there is a link that can, under certain conditions, liken the operation of the entire system to a game of "broken phone" and that there may have been a misunderstanding between the two levels.

list of literature

Bikerman E. The Seleucid State, Moscow: Nauka Publ., 1985.
Koshenenko G. A. Grecheskiy polis na hellenisticheskom Vostoke [Greek Polis in the Hellenistic East]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1979.

Perferkovich N. A. Talmud (Mishnah and Tosefta) in 8 vols. Gorodetsky Publ., 2000.

Tantlevsky I. R. History of Israel and Judea before the destruction of the First Temple. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg University Press, 2005.

Abel F.-M. Les livres des Maccabées, P., 1949.

Abel F.-M., Starcky J. Les livres des Maccabées. P., 1961.

Applebaum S. Judea in the Hellenistic and Roman times. Historical an archeological essays. Leiden-New York: Brill, 1989.

Attridge H.W. Historiography // Jewish writings in the Second Temple period. Philadelphia, 1984.

Bevan R. The house of Seleucus. L., 1902.

Bickerman E. Studies in Jewish and Christian history. Vols. 1 - 2. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1980.

Bikermann E. Der Gott der Makkabaer. Untersuchungen über Sinn Ursprung der makkäbaischen Erhebung. B., 1937.

Binger T. Asherah: goddesses in Ugarit, Israel and the Old Testament. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press Ltd., 1997.

Bringmann K. Hellenistische Reform und Religionsverfolgung in Judaa: eine Untersuchung zurjudisch-hellenistischen Geschichte (175 - 163 v. Chr). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983.

page 31
Collins J.J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Dodd C.H. The fall of Jerusalem and the "Abomination of desolation" // Journal of Roman studies. 1947. Vol. 37. No. 2.

Grabbe L.L. Priests, prophets, diviners, sages: A socio-historical study of religious specialists in Ancient Israel. Valley Forge: Trinity Press international, 1995.

Grabbe L.L. Judaic religion in the Second Temple period. Belief and practice from the Exile to Yavneh. L.-N.Y.: Routledge, 2003.

Hanson P.O. The dawn of apocalyptic. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.

Hayward R. The Jewish temple at Leontopolis: reconsideration // Journal of Jewish studies. 1982. N 33.

Heinemann I. Antisemitismus II RE.2 Suppl. Bd. 5. (1931).

Hengel M. Judaism and Hellenism. Studies in their encounter in Palestine during the early Hellenistic period. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1974.

Holbl G. A history of the Ptolemaic Empire. L.-N.Y., 2001.

Kiechle F. Antiochos IV und der lezte Versuch einer Konsolidierung des Seleukidenreiches // Geschichte in Wissenschaft und Unterricht. Bd. 14 (1963).

Kreissig H. Die sozialokonomische Situation in Juda zur Achameni denzeit. B., 1973.

Lapp P.W. Soundings at Araq el-Emir (Jordan) // BASOR. Vol. 165 (1962).

Lapp P.W. The second and third campaigns at 'Araq el-Emir // BASOR. Vol. 171 (1963).

Lebram J.C.H. König Antiochos im Buch Daniel // Vetus Testyamentum. Bd. 25. Hft. 4 (1985).

Lévy I. Les deux livres des Maccabées et le livre hébrai'que des Hasmonées // Semitica. Vol. 5 (1955).

Ma J. Antiochus III and the cities if western Asia Minor. Oxf: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Mittag P.P. Antiochos IVEpiphanes. Einepolitische Biographic B.: Akademie Verlag, 2006.

Modrzejewski J.M. The Jews of Egypt from Rameses II to emperor Hadrian. Skokie: Varda Books, 2001.

Momigliano A. The second book of the Maccabees // Classical philology. Vol. 70. No. 2 (1975).

Otto W. Zur Geschichte der Zeit des 6. Ptolemäers. Ein Beilrag zur Politik und zum Slaatsrecht des Hellenis-mus. München, 1934.

Pastor J. Land and economy in ancient Palestine. L.-N.Y.: Routledge, 1997.

Porten B. The Jews in Egypt // Cambridge history of Judaism. Vol. 1. 1989.

Schramm B. The opponents of third Isaiah. Reconstructing the cultic history of the Restoration. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995.

Schwabl H. Zeus. Epiklesen // RE2. 2 Reihe, Hbbd. 19. 1972.

Schwarz D.R. 2 Maccabees. B.-N.Y.: Walter de Gruyter, 2008.

Seyrig H. Notes sur les cultes de Scythopolis à l'époque romaine // Syria. T. 39. No. Ъ-4 (1962).

Tarn W.W. The Greeks in India and Bactria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Tcherikover V. Hellenistic civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1964.

Wörrle M. Inschriften von Herakleia am Latmos I: Antiochos III, Zeuxis und Herakleia am Latmos // Chiron. Bd. 18(1988).

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

1, 2, 3 Maccabees - 1, 2, 3 Maccabees.

1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th Kings. - 1, 2, 3, 4-I am the book of Kings.

Gen.-The Book of Genesis.

Deut. - Deuteronomy.

Dan . - The Book of Daniel's Prophecies.

And so on. - The Book of Jeremiah.

Isaiah - The Book of the Prophet Isaiah.

Lev. - The Book of Leviticus.

Neem. "The Book of Nehemiah.

Os . - The Book of the Prophet Hosea.

BASOR - Bulletin of American school of Oriental research.

CPJ - Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum. Vols. 1 - 3. / Ed.: V. Tcherikover, A. Fuks. Cambridge: Magnes Press, 1957 - 1964.

Jos. Ant. - Josephus Flavius. The Jewish Antiquities in 9 vols / Transl. by St.J. Thackerey and R. Marcus. Loeb Classical library. Harvard: Harvard University Press, 1926 - 1958.

Ps.-Arist. - Aristeas to Philokrates (Letter of Aristeas) / Transl. by M. Hadas; Ed.: M. Hadas. N.Y.: Harper Brothers, 1951.

RE.2 - Real-Encyclopädie der Altertumswissenschaft. München, 1898 - 1974.

page 32

Permanent link to this publication: