The Maccabean Revolution though a Seleucid garrison remained in Jerusalem; so Antiochus was in this
respect restoring what he no longer held. But the vital implication of both
letters is that there had indeed been a policy of conversion on the part of An-
tiochus, and that it concerned essentially the question of Jewish or of Greek
customs and observances.
The fact is, in my view, established. It is best to confess, however, that
there seems no way of reaching an understanding of how Antiochus came to
take a step so profoundly at variance with the normal assumptions of gov-
ernment in his time. We may note, however, that he did have a later imitator:
for it can hardly be an accident that Hadrian, the most phil-Hellenic (and
well read) of Roman emperors, was to forbid circumcision and to re-found
Jerusalem as a Romancolonianamed after Jupiter Capitolinus.
There remain the two related questions: what evidence have we for the
influence of Jewish Hellenisers on Antiochus’ decision and for the nature of
the cult established in the Temple in –..?
The Hellenisers and the Temple Cult of –..
As we saw above, Menelaus had gained the high priesthood by outbidding
his predecessor, Jason, the leader of the earlier Hellenising movement. Noth-
ing in our sources reveals his role at that stage, or (in relation to the ques-
tion of Hellenism) during his high priesthood except that in the course of
a confused passage (Ant. , –) Josephus says that when pressed by the
deposed Jason (see above) Menelaus and the Tobiads—never mentioned in
this context by either book of Maccabees—went to Antiochus and said that
they wished to adopt Greek customs. But the whole context is muddled, and
we do not reach good evidence until Antiochus IV’s letter of spring ..
(above), which shows Menelaus with the king on his campaign of that time,
interceding for the Jews, and being sent back to attempt a reconciliation. The
letter does not call him high priest (and therefore it is just conceivable that
the identification is wrong), but it is clear that Menelaus remained in office
as high priest until put to death while in the entourage of Antiochus V Eupa-
torin/..Here Macc. (:–) notes that it was proved to the king
that Menelaus was ‘‘responsible for all the evils’’ and also comments that he
had ‘‘committed many wrongs in relation to the Altar’’; but it says nothing
more specific about his previous role. Josephus is more definite:
For Lysias had advised the king to slay Menelaus, if he wished the Jews
to remain quiet and not give him any trouble; it was this man, he said,
who had been the cause of the mischief by persuading the king’s father