32 CHAPTER ONEThe Maccabean Revolt (175–134B.C.E.)
If Judaean society in the Second Temple period was characterized by a con-
stant tension between internal and external integration—between separatism
and assimilation—then the reformist high priests of the 170s and 160s tried
to resolve that tension by downgrading the Jews’ separatism, if not eliminating
it. Thus, Jason may have tried to transform Judaea into a Gree kcity-plus-
territory, following the example of the rulers of Tyre, Sidon, and Sardis, among
others.^33 Like them, Jason may have intended to preserve elements of his
native tradition and in fact seems not to have attempted to alter the traditional
cult of the Jerusalem temple, or to have prevented the Jews from observing
Jewish law. This limited retention of Judaism may explain why there was no
discernible armed opposition to Jason’s reforms. But it also made the reforms
inherently unstable, since Judaism, unlike the traditional religions of the
Phoenician cities, was exclusivistic: the God of Israel, unlike Melqart, toler-
ated the worship of no other gods.^34
Elias Bickerman famously speculated that this fact (among others) underlay
the more drastic reforms imposed by Antiochus IV in 168–167B.C.E., in
which observance of the laws of the Torah was prohibited and the Jerusalem
temple was rededicated to Zeus Olympios-Baal Shamim—reforms inspired
by Jewish leaders more radical than Jason. This hypothesis, like Tcherikover’s
suggestion, that the royal persecution was a reaction to a revolt centering on
the temple that had broken out the previous year, rests on the failure of the
sources to provide a satisfactory account of the events of about 169–167. Apo-
ria seems the only solution to this disagreement, barring new discoveries.
(^33) See Tcherikover,Hellenistic Civilization, pp. 152–74; E. Bickerman,God of the Maccabees
(Leiden: Brill, 1979), pp. 38–42, arguing that Jason established not a Gree kcity but a Gree k
corporation within the still Jewish city of Jerusalem. (The sharply divergent accounts of Tcheri-
kover and Bickerman remain fundamental, and my debt to them in the paragraphs that follow
should be taken for granted). See also G. Le Rider,Suse sous les Se ́leucides: Les trouvailles mone ́-
taires et l’histoire de la ville,Me ́moires de la mission arche ́ologiques en Iran 38 (Paris: Paul
Geuthner, 1965), pp. 410–11, supporting Tcherikover’s argument on the basis of such common
Seleucid coin legends asAntiocheon ton en Ptolemaidi, in which the reference is clearly to a
Gree kcity, not a Gree kcorporation in a native city; F. Millar, “The Bac kground to the Macca-
bean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengel’s ‘Judaism and Hellenism,’ ”JJS29 (1978): 10;
C. Habicht,2. Makkaba ̈erbuch: Historische und legendarische Erza ̈hlungen,JSHRZ 1.3 (Gu ̈ter-
sloh: G. Mohn, 1976), pp. 216–17. Verse 19: “Jason... sent astheoroi(envoys to a religious
festival) men who were Antiochenes from Jerusalem [or, astheoroifrom Jerusalem men who
were Antiochenes], carrying three hundred silver drachmas.” This is, on the face of it, difficult
to reconcile with Tcherikover’s view. Perhaps the author of 2 Maccabees himself misunderstood
what his source, Jason of Cyrene, had written. For the comparison with Sardis, Tyre, and Sidon,
see S. Schwartz, “Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem.”
(^34) Some have argued that Jason’s reforms were less extreme: I. Heinemann, “Wer veranlasste
den Glaubenszwang der Makkaba ̈erzeit?”MGWJ82 (1938): 145–72—also a comprehensive cri-
tique of Bickerman; Gruen,Heritage and Hellenism, 28–31.