Did the Bible Predict Television?

An argument that I have heard from some Christians is that we can know that the Bible is divinely-inspired because it predicts the coming of television.  I’m not saying that sophisticated Christian apologists like William Lane Craig use this argument—-they would probably shy away from it, shun it completely, or ridicule it.  But I have heard this kind of argument from some Christians.

Their reasoning goes like this: the Book of Revelation predicts that all people or people of various nations will see certain events.  Revelation 1:7 says that every eye shall see the future coming of Christ.  Revelation 11:9 states that people of the kindreds, tribes, and nations will see the dead bodies of the two witnesses for three-and-one-half days.  But how can everyone, or people from various nations, see a single event, especially if that event occurs in one particular location?  The answer that some Christians give is that people will see the event on television.  The Bible, therefore, predicted television about a thousand years ago.  God must be its author!  Or so their reasoning goes.

I was wondering if other ancient literature has a motif of everyone seeing a particular event.  I found one place: IV Maccabees 17:14.  IV Maccabees is about Antiochus IV’s torture of seven devout Jewish brothers, who refused to eat the unclean meat that the king put before them.  IV Maccabees 17:14 states: “The tyrant was the antagonist, and the world and the human race were the spectators” (NRSV).

The question would then be how the world and the human race were spectators to Antiochus’ torture of the devout Jewish brothers.  Why did IV Maccabees say that?  Maybe the world and the human race are spectators in that they have heard about the events, through word-of-mouth of Jews in the Diaspora, or through word-of-mouth of some of the Seleucids.

Are Revelation’s references to every eye seeing Jesus’ return and various nations seeing the two witnesses’ corpses a prediction of television, and thus an indication of the Bible’s divine inspiration?  IV Maccabees says that the world and the human race saw the resistance of the devout Jews against Antiochus, and that was about a time long before television.  Revelation is most likely partaking of an ancient motif rather than predicting television.

A Speaking Image; Eternal Torment

I have two items for my write-up today on G.K. Beale's The Book of Revelation: A Commentary on the Greek Text.

1.  Revelation 13:15 says regarding the second beast (in the KJV): "And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed."

According to Beale, the second beast giving life to the image of the first beast "is a metaphorical way of affirming that the second beast was persuasive in demonstrating that the image of the first beast (e.g., of Caesar) represented the true deity, who stands behind the image and makes decrees" (page 711).

Beale believes that the story of Nebuchadnezzar's image in Daniel 3 is relevant to this passage.  And Beale cites Midrash Rabbah Canticles 7.9.1, in which "Nebuchadnezzar exhorts Daniel to 'bow down to the image' because it is 'real' and because it can speak marvelous things such as 'I am the Lord thy God'" (page 714).  I could not find that passage on my Judaic Classics Library.  But I'm mentioning Beale's citation of it because it illustrates what I find to be particularly valuable about Beale's commentary: that it is a repository of references to ancient Jewish and Christian sources.

2.  Revelation 14:11 says, "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

Beale mentions the annihilationist interpretation of this verse: the view that it is not talking about eternal torment but rather is consistent with the wicked being annihilated.  After all, Isaiah 34:10 says regarding Edom, "It shall not be quenched night nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up for ever: from generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever", and Edom was not tormented forever and ever.  Rather, according to Beale, "The image of continually ascending smoke in Isaiah 34 serves as a memorial of God's annihilating punishment for sin, the message of which never goes out of date" (page 761).

But Beale disagrees with the annihilationist interpretation of Revelation 14:11 and argues that it's talking about eternal torment, as the smoke serves as a memorial to "a real, ongoing, eternal, conscious torment."  Beale offers a variety of justifications for his view: that torment in Revelation is generally something that is consciously experienced; that Revelation 20:10 talks about Satan, the beast, and the false prophet being tormented in the Lake of Fire forever and ever; that there appears to be a contrast in Revelation 14 between the eternal punishment of the wicked and the rest of those who die in the Lord, which we know is eternal; and the belief in eternal torment in Jubilees, 4 Maccabees, and the Apocalypse of Peter.

Believers in annihilationism and universalism have argued that Hebrew and Greek words translated as "forever" in the Bible can mean a very long time rather than forever and ever.  And there may be something to that, for Isaiah 34:10 uses language of eternity to describe the annihilation of Edom, which means that forever in the Bible does not necessarily mean forever.  I've wondered if there is a way to determine if passages in Jubilees and 4 Maccabees discuss eternal torment or simply punishment that lasts for a very long time but will eventually come to an end.

Jubilees 36:10, however, says (in R.H. Charles' translation), "so that their condemnation may be always renewed in hate and in execration and in wrath and in torment and in indignation and in plagues and in disease for ever."  That sounds to me as if the torment is being continually renewed, and that the passage is highlighting the perpetuity of the punishment.

One thing I wonder (and that others have asked): How will people be tormented day and night forever and ever, when there will come a point when there is no day or night in the new Jerusalem (Revelation 21:25)?  Is there no day or night in the new Jerusalem, but day and night will continue to exist outside of it?

Overall, while I think that Beale makes arguments that should definitely be taken into consideration, I'm not entirely convinced that Revelation 14:11 is talking about conscious, eternal torment.  Why couldn't it be talking about smoke forever memorializing God's torment of sinners which ended in death?  There are examples in Revelation of torment that is not eternal (i.e., Revelation 9:5; 11:10).

Ascetic Mindsets and Marriage: Stoicism and Augustine

For my write-up today on The Cambridge History of Christianity: Constantine to c. 600, I'll interact loosely with a question that I have: How did ascetic movements, such as Stoicism and Christianity, approach the issue of marriage?  After all, they regarded the human sex drive as a passion to be tamed (or more than tamed), right?  But how could one be married and have children without the human sex drive?

In this post, I won't say everything that can be said about this issue.  Far from it.  Rather, I'll focus on a few items in David G. Hunter's chapter, "Sexuality, marriage and the family".  That will not do justice to the diversity of ancient Christianity (which Hunter himself presents), and I'll still have questions.  But it's a start to answering my question about asceticism and marriage.

1.  On page 586, Hunter states that most Stoics "regarded marriage and family as essential to the maintenance of civic life".  In a footnote on that page, Hunter says that "Both philosophical and medical writers supported the ideal of sexual moderation for men as well as for women."  So I have learned that the Stoics were favorable towards marriage.  But how does that jive with their ascetic opposition to the passions?

You'd think that the Stoics supported moderation or keeping the passions under control, but what I have heard about Stoicism has been quite different: that the Stoics were for destroying the passions rather than merely taming them.  I base this on recollections I have (which could be faulty) of what a professor of mine said about Stoicism.  First, my professor contrasted IV Maccabees with Stoicism, saying that IV Maccabees was for taming the flesh, whereas Stoicism was for getting rid of the passions.  Second, in a class on Philo, my professor said that Philo, like the Stoics, believed in pursuing virtue alone, rather than virtue and other things (i.e., influence, wealth, etc.).  If the Stoics had such a strict ascetic mindset, how did they reconcile that with their support for marriage?

2.  On page 589, Hunter talks about how Augustine and Pope Gregory looked down on sex that was not for the purpose of procreation.  Augustine considered that to be a venial sin that required daily expiation (since it's a daily sin) through almsgiving or reciting the Lord's prayer.  Pope Gregory said that frequent prayers were needed "to wipe away the corruption they cause by mixing pleasure into the beautiful form of intercourse" (Gregory's words in Regula pastoralis 3.27.28).

My question is this: Is it all right to have pleasure when having marital sex for the purpose of procreation, in the eyes of such people as Augustine and Pope Gregory?

3.  Hunter goes into Augustine's evolving views on marriage on pages 596-598.  At first, Augustine (like Origen) appeared to believed that sex and procreation were a product of the Fall, presumably a compensation for human mortality (perhaps because the human race needed some way to continue once sin brought death into the world, for Adam and Eve would no longer live forever).  Augustine interpreted the "be fruitful and multiply" command in Genesis 1:28, not in reference to human procreation, but rather to "the ability of the human mind to generate a multitude of thoughts to express a single concept or to give an obscure text a plurality of meanings" (Hunter's words describing Confessions 12.24.37).

But Augustine changed his tune and concluded that "sexual reproduction was God's original intention for humanity from the very beginning of creation (De Gen. ad litt. 9.9.14-15), rather than a product of the Fall.  At the same time, Augustine did think that the Fall brought "'concupiscence of the flesh', a disorder of the human heart that was manifested most patently in the disordered desires of the human body (De Gen. ad litt. 11.31.41)."  But Augustine did not believe that concupiscence negated "the essential goodness of marriage" (Hunter on page 598).

So what are the implications of this?  Did Augustine believe that concupiscence was a necessary evil for the purpose of procreation?  Did he think that procreation and sex occurred without concupiscence before the Fall?  Or did he maintain that the problem after the Fall was disorder----not the sex drive itself, but the sex drive getting out of control and dominating human beings?

(UPDATE: On page 113 of Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, John Boswell states that Augustine "specifically repudiated procreation as the sole justification for matrimony, insisting that couples who refrained from carnal relations and produced no children were nonetheless properly married."  Boswell cites De Bono conjugali 3.3.)

Found Diodorus

In a post a while back, Paper on IV Maccabees: Looking for Diodorus, I discussed how a first century B.C.E. historian, Diodorus of Sicily, might help me on my IV Maccabees paper. My paper is about statements in II and IV Maccabees that renegade Jews undermined the Jewish politeia, or ancestral constitution, leading God to punish the nation of Israel with brutal attacks by Antiochus Epiphanes.

Right now, I have the book in which Diodorus discusses challenges to Israel's ancestral laws. I'll post a few quotes. I said in my post that Diodorus refers to a certain Hecataeus, who describes the Jews as xenophobic and committed to their political system, but I could not find anything about him in what I read.

Anyway, here are some quotes:

40.2: "During Pompey's stay in Damascus of Syria, Aristobulus, the king of the Jews, and Hyrcanus his brother came to him with their dispute over kingship. Likewise the leading men, two hundred in number, gathered to address the general and explain that their forefathers, having revolted from Demetrius, had sent an embassy to the senate and received from them the leadership of the Jews, their ruler being called High Priest, not King. Now, however, these men were lording it over them, having overthrown the ancient laws and enslaved the citizens in defiance of all justice; for it was by means of a horde of mercenaries, and by outrages and countless impious murders that they had established themselves as kings" (279).

Diodorus is describing an incident in the first century B.C.E., when Aristobulus and Hyrcanus competed to be king over Israel. Each did so by seeking Roman backing. I'm not sure who overthrew the ancient laws--King Aristobulus? The high priests?--or how exactly they did so. Diodorus goes on to describe the history and laws of the Jews, so perhaps I should reread that to gain more insight.

Diodorus of Sicily, vol. 12, trans. Francis R. Walton (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967).

40.3: "But later, when they became subject to foreign rule, as a result of their mingling with men of other nations (both under Persian rule and under that of the Macedonians who overthrew the Persians), many of their traditional practices were disturbed. Such is the account of Hecataeus of Abdera in regard to the Jews" (286-287).

Okay, there's where he mentions Hecataeus. I don't see him saying here that the Jews were xenophobic. But Diodorus is claiming that the Jews' disturbed their traditional practices when they mingled with other nations. That's pretty much what we see in I, II, and IV Maccabees.

Glorifying Death?

Source: John Sellars, Stoicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006) 145-146.

"What [Nicolas Malabranche (1638-1715)] found most objectionable in Seneca's Stoicism was the arrogance of the claim that it is possible to be happy in this life. For Malabranche the Christian, human life here on Earth is inherently miserable, for we are all sinners, and so we must wait for the next life before we can be truly happy. Stoicism's claim that one can indeed be happy here and now is, he argues, simply the product of human pride and arrogance."

The issues that this quote touches on have cropped up in my readings and daily quiet times.

I'm reading the letters of Ignatius in The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. Ignatius was a second century church leader. Basically, he had a death wish: he wanted to be a martyr. He saw this as a path to purification, and he eagerly anticipated being with Jesus Christ forever and ever.

At first sight, that looks rather selfish. After all, he can only serve people on earth when he's alive, right? Paul wanted to die and be with Christ, too, but he realized that God may have other plans: "I am hard pressed between the two: my desire is to depart and be with Christ, for that is far better; but to remain in the flesh is more necessary for you" (Philippians 1:23-24). There were people who needed Paul, which was why he left his time of death up to God.

But Ignatius didn't exactly view himself as selfish, for he thought that his death as a martyr could be an expiation for the Christian community. Ignatius was not the first to maintain that martyrdom is meritorious. In II Maccabees and IV Maccabees, God stops punishing Israel after Jewish martyrs give their lives for the laws of God's Torah. Their deaths bring expiation and divine benefit to the community of God's people.

I have problems with a religion that celebrates death. When I was at Jewish Theological Seminary, Mary Boys of Union Theological Seminary was giving presentations against Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ. She said that Jesus did not come to earth to die; rather, he died because of how he lived. I think she meant that Jesus preached God's love for all people--including the marginalized--and this incited Jewish religious leaders to plot against him. But I could be wrong, since she tried to pin a lot of the blame for Jesus' death on Pontius Pilate, not so much the Jewish leaders. In any case, she tried to shift the focus of Christianity from death to life.

I admire her attempt, but I'm not sure if it's biblical. Ignatius talks about experiencing Christ's passion. Where'd he get such an idea? Presumably from passages such as Philippians 3:10: "I want to know Christ and the power of his resurrection and the sharing of his sufferings by becoming like him in his death[.]" Paul wanted to be intimate with Christ, even in terms of knowing Christ's passion.

When I was at Harvard, a friend told me about Opus Dei, an ultra-conservative Catholic group that had people wear nails in their shoes to experience the pains of the Lord. That sort of outlook may explain why the Opus Dei character in Da Vinci Code whipped himself over and over. "Isn't the point of Christianity that Jesus suffered in our place, meaning we don't have to suffer?," my friend asked? Apparently not in the eyes of certain Christians, who try to identify with Jesus in his sufferings.

I'm reminded of something a friend of mine at JTS said. America was about to go to war with Iraq, and my friend was a West Point graduate. He said that the army glorified death, since there were many monuments to people who gave their lives for their country. My professor asked him if all that death was actually necessary. Similarly, Christianity seems to glorify martyrs, as if they were athletes--people who took their faith commitment to the ultimate level.

I can understand that Christians may find themselves in a position where they'd have to die. If the world threatens to kill them because of their faith in Christ, then what are they supposed to do? What I don't get is Christianity's glorification of suffering and death. I like the Old Testament and Ben Sira's focus on blessings in this life, in terms of enjoying this life to the fullest, and helping others to do so as well.

There are other things that I can say about this quote, but I'll stop here for the time being.

Stoic Martyrs

Source: John Sellars, Stoicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006) 108-109.

"If I am doing my best to be a rational being who is free and independent of others, then I will sometimes have to make choices that may appear not to further my own self-preservation. For instance, if a tyrant threatens to kill me if I do not do certain things that I find objectionable or think to be wrong, then--if I am to preserve myself as a rational being--I should stand up to the tyrant even if this may mean the loss of my life (see e.g. Epictetus, Diss. 1.2). But why? How could getting myself killed possibly contribute to my self-preservation? Well, it may not contribute to my self-preservation in so far as I am merely a living animal, but giving in to the tyrant will equally destroy me as an independent rational being. I may remain biologically alive if I give in to the tyrant, but I will have lost something far more important, having reduced myself to a slave. Thus the Stoic doctrine of self-preservation will, in cases of rational beings--that is, philosophers working towards the ideal of the sage--sometimes lead to choices that may actually threaten an individual's physical existence. But then as Socrates famously put it, it is not merely living, but living well that matters (Plato, Crito 48b)."

When I read the books of Maccabees, a question that entered my mind every now and then was, "Why does any of this matter?" What do I mean by that? Well, basically, the books are about the Jews being willing to fight and die for their religion. They fought to preserve the Sabbath and circumcision. When Antiochus threatened them with death if they refused to eat pork, many of them held fast to God's food laws. I guess my question was, "Why? What's the big deal?" What's it matter if a Jew leaves his foreskin on rather than taking it off? Or if a he works on a Saturday rather than resting on it? Or if he has a taste of nice, juicy pig-meat?

I wonder how Catholics would answer my question. They see I-II Maccabees as canonical, yet they believe that Jesus abolished the Sabbath, circumcision, and biblical food laws. Were Jews dying for things that Jesus would soon abolish, anyway? What was the point of that?

I've wondered at times if I would be willing to die for the Christian faith. To be honest, Christianity often looks to me like one religion among others. Why should I die for this particular belief system? Does it really matter?

I guess this quote on Stoicism made certain things clear to me. One should be willing to die for something because otherwise he's a slave. He's a slave to someone who tries to force others to see things his way, while eliminating belief systems that contain a lot of good.

I'm approaching this from a perspective of modern-day tolerance, and the ancients may not have done that. Jews and Christians believed that their deaths demonstrated their commitment to the sovereignty of God, not some petty dictator. And I'm not sure why the Stoics died. Maybe they wanted to show that nothing shook them, not even death.

Jubilees and the Hellenistic Reform

Source: George W.E. Nickelsburg, "The Bible Rewritten and Expanded," Jewish Writings of the Second Temple Period, ed. Michael E. Stone (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984) 103.

"...many of Jubilees' additions to the biblical text of Genesis and Exodus have the Jew-gentile situation in focus. In addition to the strictures against nakedness and uncircumcision mentioned above (3:31; 15:34), are the following items. Observance of the lunar calendar is construed as following 'the feasts of the gentiles' (sic!) (6:35). Marriage to a gentile is strictly and repeatedly forbidden (20:4; 22:20; 25:1; 27:10; 30:1-15). Warnings are issued against idolatry and consuming blood (6:12-41; 7:30; 21:6). The author stresses Israel's unique covenantal relationship to God and qualitative difference from the gentiles (cf. also 2:31 on the Sabbath). His stringent prohibitions against contact with the gentiles suggest that such contact was not infrequent in the Israel of his time."

This quote is relevant to my paper on IV Maccabees, which asks what II and IV Maccabees mean when they say that the Hellenistic reform challenged Israel's poiliteia (constitution). Here, I see what one Jewish party had against Hellenistic incursions into the nation. At the same time, II and IV Maccabees may not agree with Jubilees on everything, since the Hasmoneans (whom the Maccabees books endorse) supported the lunar calendar, which Jubilees opposed.

Stoicism and IV Maccabees

Source: John Sellars, Stoicism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006) 3.

"...in brief the Stoics proposed a materialist ontology in which God permeates the entire cosmos as a material force. They claimed that virtue alone is sufficient for happiness and that external goods and circumstances are irrelevant (or at least nowhere near as important as most people tend to assume). They argued that our emotions are merely the products of mistaken judgements and can be eradicated by a form of cognitive psychotherapy. They brought these various doctrines together in the image of the idea Stoic sage who would be perfectly rational, emotionless, indifferent to his or her circumstances and, infamously, happy even when being tortured on the rack."

Some of this stuff resonated with me on account of a class I took on IV Maccabees. My professor said that IV Maccabees diverges from Stoicism in that it attributes passions to the body, whereas Stoics located them in the irrational part of the soul; consequently, it's not our body holding us down, as far as Stoicism is concerned, but the mind is what needs corrected.

At the same time, IV Maccabees overlaps with Stoicism on certain points. It tells the stories of Eleazar and the mother of the seven Jewish sons, who submitted to torture and death rather than disobey God's laws. IV Maccabees makes the point that the law trained the mother to subdue her natural love for her children, which would desire them to live rather than die at the hands of Antiochus.

IV Maccabees is saying that the Torah conforms Israelites to the ideals of Greek philosophy, yet it diverges from Stoicism on a crucial issue: the afterlife. IV Maccabees embraces the immortality of the soul, which gives the righteous characters hope that God will reward them in the afterlife, even as he tortures Antiochus in an eternal hell. But the Stoics did not agree with the immortality of the soul, separating them from Platonic thinkers.

The Stoics thought that God permeated the universe, yet they were rather ascetic, for they believed in the pursuit of virtue alone. Those influenced by Aristotle, by contrast, maintained that virtue should co-exist with the enjoyment of other things in life--good food, political influence, sex, relationships, etc.

On this issue, IV Maccabees believes in taming the passions rather than completely destroying them, which is what the Stoics wanted to do. So, in a sense, it agrees with the Aristotelian concept of moderation rather than Stoicism. At the same time, it commends the righteous characters for resisting the temptation to eat pork, so it does regard highly those who subdue their appetite for a higher cause (like the Stoics).

If the Stoics believed that God/nature gave us good things to enjoy, why did it want to deprive people of such enjoyment? That's a question Antiochus asks in IV Maccabees of the righteous characters, and it's a fine question indeed!

Paper on IV Maccabees: Seth Schwartz Article

Yesterday, I read Seth Schwartz's "The Hellenization of Jerusalem and Shechem," Jews in a Greco-Roman World, ed. Martin Goodman (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) 37-46. Here are some quotes:

1. "See Tcherikover (1958), 152-174; Bickerman (1979), 38-42, arguing that Jason established not a Greek city but a Greek corporation within the still Jewish city of Jerusalem. See also Le Rider (1965), 410-11, supporting Tcherikover's argument on the basis of such common Seleucid coin legends as Antiochon ton en Ptolemaidi, where the reference is clearly to a Greek city, and not a Greek corporation in a native city; Millar (1978), 10; Habicht (1976), 216-217. Verse 19: 'Jason...sent as theoroi men who were Antiochenes from Jerusalem [or, as theoroi from 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" (39).

This sounds bumpy because it's a footnote. But it's a somewhat decent summary of the debate about whether Antioch was Jerusalem-turned-into-a-polis, or rather a Hellenistic sub-section within Jerusalem. I may check out some of those references.

2. "The second account is more closely related to the first: when, according to Josephus (Ant. 12.257-64), the traditional Jewish cult was abolished in Jerusalem, the rulers of the Samaritan city of Shechem petitioned Antiochus for the right to reform the municipal cult so as to make Zeus Xenios the patron-god of the city. (I am assuming, by the way, that the letter is basically genuine, notwithstanding the powerful arguments of Rappenport.) And they asked to retain their traditional laws, provided with an interpetatio graeca and altered in such a way as to obscure the laws' connection with those of the Jews. The king responded by welcoming the Shechemites' adoption of 'Hellenic customs' (hellenika ethne; Joseph. Ant. 12.264; the expression is also used in Jerusalem in Antiochus V's rescission of the Hellenization, 2 Macc. 11:24). What resulted in both cases were cities whose Hellenism was in part notional; Jerusalem was still governed by a high priest and a board of gerontes (elders) (2 Macc. 4:18, 44), just as Phoenician cities in the same period were still ruled by their dikastai (judges); the municipal religion in both Jerusalem and Shechem was at first basically the traditional one, and even later in Jerusalem was not precisely Greek. In sum, then, the hellenika ethe of these Greek cities consisted of normally Hellenized religion, and political structure, combined with (at Jerusalem certainly, at Shechem possibly) a gymnasium and ephebate.

"We cannot be sure that the same process occurred also in such Hellenizing cities as Sardis, Tyre, Sidon, and Gaza, but the supposition that something similar did explains the significant continuities in religious and political life listed by Fergus Millar in his discussion of Phoenician cities, and by Sherwin-White and Kuhrt (1993:180-4) in their discussion of Sardis. Indeed, such continuities may have been even more conspicuous in the other cities than in Jerusalem, where the zeal of the petitioners, or of the king, eventually led them to introduce changes more radical than what was normally required to make a community 'Greek'--a fact which may help explain the failure of Hellenization in Jerusalem (about the fate of Shechem, where the reforms were more moderate, we can only speculate)" (39-40).

"Yet the new Greekness functioned in two different ways to preserve elements, displaced and altered, of traditional cultures. Now I assume that when one, or several, of the Phoenician cities resumed the title dikastai for one of their magistrates, few people after the first generation, were necessarily aware that anything distinctive, or at any rate distinctively Phoenician, was being preserved; but the preservation of the traditional cults in the Hellenized cities may have actually functioned to keep alive a significant consciousness of a special past. Certainly the priests preserved pre-Hellenic language and myths (even if the latter often incorporated layers of Greek interpretation)--how else are we to understand the survival of the Phoenician language and, in the work of Philo of Byblos, of fragments of Canaanite mythology, albeit stoicized and euhemerized? Once Hellenized, of course, this mythology took its place in the common elite culture of the Hellenistic world, and thereby changed it, yet it retained simultaneously an irreducable distinctiveness" (42).

These quotes tell me that, in cities other than Jerusalem that became Hellenized, there wasn't really a radical change in political structure and culture. I'd like to follow up on that Josephus reference to Shechem, since that city tried to Hellenize while preserving its traditional customs, which resembled Judaism. If there wasn't a radical change in political structure, then why did II and IV Maccabees claim that the politeia had been changed? I think a lot of it had to do with Hellenization's compromise of Judaism, in that it undermined circumcision and instituted a gymnasium that challenged Jewish customs. It wasn't enough of a change to incite a revolt, but it did cause the authors of II and IV Maccabees to retroactively claim that God sent Antiochus' persecution as punishment for Israel's sins.

Paper on IV Maccabees: Philo on Sports

I read the following in Philo's Life of Moses II 211. The translation is from C.D. Yonge, The Works of Philo (United States: Hendrickson, 1993).

"For this reason the all-great Moses thought fit that all who were enrolled in his sacred polity should follow the laws of nature and meet in a solemn assembly, passing the time in cheerful joy and relaxation, abstaining from all work, and from all arts which have a tendency to the production of anything; and from all business which is connected with the seeking of the means of living, and that they should keep a complete truce, abstaining from all laborious and fatiguing thought and care, and devoting their leisure, not as some persons scoffingly assert, to sports, or exhibitions of actors and dancers, for the sake of which those who run madly after theatrical amusements suffer disasters and even encounter miserable deaths, and for the sake of these the most dominant and influential of the outward senses, sight and hearing, make the soul, which should be the heavenly nature, the slave of the senses" (509-510).

Philo criticizes sports, as if they go against the aim of the Mosaic politeia. Of course, he does so for Stoic reasons--sports make people a slave to the senses--but it's interesting that we have another person here who views them as contrary to the law. II and IV Maccabees seem to as well, as does Josephus. So maybe that's why Jason's gymnasium violated the Jews' politeia, according to II and IV Maccabees.

I'm close to actually writing this paper, I think. This coming Sunday, I'll want to check out that reference in which the Pharisees accuse the Hasmoneans of violating the politeia. Maybe I'll find it online. If not, I'll get it from my school's library.

Paper on IV Maccabees: Philo on Antinomian Jews

Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (London: SCM, 1974) 301.

"Philo, too, reports much criticism of the Torah in Greek-educated and predominantly Jewish circles in Alexandria, 'who disregard kinsmen and friends, who transgress laws in which they were born and brought up, who undermine ancestral customs which cannot rightly be censured, and fall away from it' (Vit. Mos. 1, 31, M2, 85). In another passage, he attacks those 'who proclaim their displeasure with the constitution made by the fathers and express incessant censure and complain against the law', talking about the ludicrous fables...in the Pentateuch."

Hengel's reference here is Conf. ling. 2f. (M I, 404).

Challenging the politeia seems to be the same as opposing the law. For the authors of II Maccabees and IV Maccabees, Jason opposed the law when he set up a gymnasium.

Yet, Philo had no problem with the gymnasium (see Spec. II. 229f., 246; Opif. 78). Maybe Palestinian Jews and Alexandrian Jews had different ideas on what challenged the politeia.

Paper on IV Maccabees: Other Changes in Government

Today, I read Robert Doran's "Jason's Gymnasion," Of Scribes and Scrolls, ed. Harold W. Attridge, John J. Collins, Thomas H. Tobin (Lanham: University Press of America, 1990) 99-109.

Here is a quote about a change in education impacting the politeia:

"The strong connection between education and politeia is particularly well attested for Sparta. When Solon praises Spartan practices, Anacharsis asks why the Athenians have not imitated them. Solon's reply is interesting: 'Because we are content, Anacharsis, with these exercises which are our own; we do not much care to copy foreign customs..." (Lucian, Anach. 39) In every discussion of Greek education, Sparta's system...is given a separate chapter. Sparta had its own way of forming its citizens. Awareness of this deep division between Sparta and other Greek cities is important in understanding what Philopoemen did to Sparta in 188 BCE. Besides demolishing the walls of Sparta, dispersing foreign mercenaries and scattering newly-freed slaves, the Achaeans are said by Livy to have abrogated the laws and customs...of Lycurgus and to have forced the Spartans to adopt the laws and institutions of the Achaeans: 'so that they would all become one body, and concord would be established among them...The state of Lacedaemon having, by these means, lost the sinews of its strength, remained long in subjection to the Achaeans; but nothing did so much damage as the abolition of the discipline of Lycurgus...in the practice of which they had continued during seven hundred years' (Livy 38.34)" (104).

Doran then quotes Plutarch, Phil. 16.5-6, which discusses the destruction and later reinstitution of Sparta's politeia. Doran's argument is that, by altering Sparta's notorious educational system, the Achaeans were challenging its ancestral constitution. The same thing is said about Jason's introduction of the gymnasium in Jerusalem in I Maccabees 1:13-14, II Maccabees 4:9-15, and IV Maccabees 4:19-10: that it challenged Israel's law.

Now, I wonder about Sparta the same thing that I'm wondering about Jason's reform of Jerusalem: what exactly changed?

Paper on IV Maccabees: A Few Hengel Quotes

I'm working my way through Martin Hengel's Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period (London: SCM, 1974). I stumbled on some quotes that may relate to my paper topic:

1. "A way was to be opened for the extension of Hellenistic civilization and customs, which had previously been hindered by the religious prejudices of conservative groups. The limitations which the latter placed on unrestricted economic and cultural exchanges with the non-Jewish environment were to be abolished...To this end, the 'reactionary' conservative groups had to be deprived of their political power, so that they could no longer exercise their influence to carry through limiting, legalistic, and ritual regulations, as had happened under Simon the just...

"The prerequisite for this was the repeal of the 'letter of freedom' promulgated by Antiochus III, as this grounded the internal ordering of the Jewish 'ethnos' solely on the traditional 'ancestral laws' and gave a legal basis to the defenders of the traditional theocracy. These aims could be most easily achieved by the transformation of Jerusalem--and thus of the whole Jewish ethnos in Judea--into a Greek 'polis'. As the bestowal of citizenship of the proposed polis, and admission to the gymnasium and ephebate, were under the control of Jason and his friends...True, the temple liturgy with its sacrifices continued in the usual way, and the law of Moses was by no means officially repealed, remaining valid largely as a popular custom, but the legal foundations were removed from the Jewish 'theocracy'. Political order and policy were no longer determined by the Torah and the authoritative interpretation of it by priests and soperim; in the future they were to be based on the constitutional organs of the new polis, the 'demos', i.e. the full citizens, the gerousia and the magistrates appointed by them. This inevitably resulted in a lowering of the status of the priestly nobility, and a sign of the strength of the desire within the priestly aristocracy to adopt Greek customs is the fact that this consequence was taken into account. The most powerful lay family, the Tobiads, will on the other hand have welcomed the tendency, as the fact that they were not of priestly descent had been a hindrance to them in earlier struggles for power. The considerable relaxation of the law, which was no longer a binding norm, was evidenced in the fact that individual Jewish ephebes, presumably because of the participation of foreigners in contests in the gymnasium, underwent epispasm...The unsuccessful sacrifice for the Tyrian Heracles can also be regarded as a sign of tendency towards assimilation in the development as a whole" (278).

But even Hengel says elsewhere that Jason was a Zadokite (224). Wasn't Jason a Tobiad? That's something to check out.

Hengel pretty much goes with Tcherikover here, only Hengel says that Jason's Hellenistic reform chipped away at the law. Tcherikover does not really believe this, for he says, "Any change in the manner of worship or offence to monotheistic purity would without doubt have provoked a reaction among the common people in Judea and Jerusalem, but no such reaction is heard of at the time of the Hellenistic reform." Victor Tcherikover, "The Hellenistic Movement in Jerusalem and Antiochus' Persecutions," The Hellenistic Age (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1972) 128.

The Hellenistic reform had to be bad enough to be a cause for God to punish Jerusalem (according to II Maccabees and IV Maccabees), but not bad enough to spark a revolt among pious Jews.

One thing to look into is how Jewish law inhibited interaction with foreigners, since Hellenization was the reverse of this. That could give some indication as to how Hellenization challenged the Jewish politeia.

2. "The complaints which the delegation of two hundred Pharisees brought in the spring of 63 BC to Pompey in Damascus in effect confirm the step which the Teacher of Righteousness had taken about ninety years earlier. They sound like the accusations of II Macc. against Jason and Menelaus: the Hasmonean leaders had 'done away with the ancestral laws'...and unjustly enslaved the citizens (Diod., 40 fr. 2...)" (227).

Hengel quotes the Jewish historian Eupolemus. His writings may be worth looking at to see how he believed the Hasmoneans undermined the Jewish ancestral laws. But it looks like such an accusation was a standard charge. We saw that Josephus used it when he discussed Herod's openness to the Gentiles (see Paper on IV Maccabees: Some Josephus Passages).

Paper on IV Maccabees: Was Jerusalem a Polis?

II Maccabees 4:22 says that Antiochus IV "was welcomed magnificently by Jason and the city, and ushered in with a blaze of torches and with shouts" (NRSV). The Greek word for city is polis.

In Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), Victor Tcherikover states about this passage: "It may well be that this mention of the 'city' (the Greek polis of Antioch) is not by chance, but possesses a deeper significance; possibly the visit of Antiochus and the festivities associated with it marked the actual juridicial foundation of the polis..." (165).

I have some thoughts/questions about this:

1. Just because I-II Maccabees call Jerusalem a polis, that doesn't mean it was a formal Greek city. Fergus Millar points out in "The Problem of Hellenistic Syria," Hellenism in the East, ed. Amelie Kuhrt and Susan Sherwin-White (University of California Press: Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1987): "In 1 Macc. 5.26-27 a whole string of places across the Jordan, all of which have retained analogous Arabic names until modern times--'Bosora', 'Bosor', 'Alema', 'Chaspho', 'Maked', 'Karnaim'--are described as large fortified poleis. These too will have been fortified villages; it is worth noting that the author of 1 Macc. has no notion that polis ought to be restricted to self-governing cities formally recognized as such; he uses it for instance of Modein (2.15), the village from which the Maccabees came" (123).

R.J. van der Spek makes the same argument about Greek sources in his essay (58-59 of the same book): that they don't limit the term polis to Greek city-states.

2. A city could have a gymnasium without being a polis. Babylon had a gymnasium, yet it was allowed to keep its own traditions and system of government (20-65). Similarly, van der Spek asserts that "the action by the high priest Jason to hellenise Jerusalem did not affect the government structure, even though a dynastic name was introduced (2 Macc. 4.9, 12, 14)" (59).

What's my point? Maybe Jerusalem was a Greek polis, or maybe it wasn't. II Maccabees 4:9, 19 says that Jason wanted to enroll the Jerusalemites as citizens of Antioch. That may mean that Jerusalem became a polis.

But the change in the government was minor. I have a hard time thinking that this offended Jews, especially when Jerusalem got to keep its high priest and gerousia. Since challenges to the politeia can encompass sins in general (see Paper on IV Maccabees: Other Challenges to Politeia), I think that the authors of II and IV Maccabees believe that the introduction of foreign customs into their country encouraged a violation of the politeia, the law.

What I may get into Sunday is the idea that a polis could exist alongside traditional Jerusalem. That could work, but what would happen when the authorities of traditional Jerusalem were the participants in the polis? Could that result in the polis undermining traditional Jerusalem?

Paper on IV Maccabees: Leads--Homosexuality

Someone suggested to me that the Jewish objection to Jason's gymnasium in the second century B.C.E. might have related to homosexuality that was occurring there. I found an Internet site that claims this: First Maccabees - Marriage and Giving in Marriage. The site itself is ideologically charged, but it refers to other articles. It sites Johansson and Percy:34, but it doesn't tell me what book. But these guys have written about homosexuality in encyclopedias, so maybe they're worth checking out. The other article is Patrick G.D. Riley, Homosexuality & the Maccabean Revolt, New Oxford Review (September 1997). He teaches classical civilization at Concordia University of Wisconsin, so perhaps he offers some evidence.

I may look more into this tomorrow, or some time thereafter. Tomorrow, I'll be picking up more books at the library about Israel and Hellenism. I'm beat right now. I'll read through some French and German, watch an episode of Lost, and go to bed.

Paper on IV Maccabees: Hellenism and Local Culture

What follows are some quotes on the impact of Hellenism on local cultures. I may touch on this subject again in the future.

1. Elias Bickerman, The God of the Maccabees (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979).

"The 'gymnasium,' i.e., the sports-stadium, during the Hellenistic period formed the symbol and basis for the Greek way of life. Physical education was something alien to the Oriental, but a natural thing for the Greeks. Wherever Greeks came together, or people who wanted to be counted as Greeks, they started athletic exercises...That meant that when native people participated in the athletic contests, they were accepted into the ruling class, and they acknowledged the hegemony of the Greek way of life. The native language of the Sidonians was still Phoenician, and their organization still patriarchic, when in the year 200 B.C. the city in a Greek poem publicly honored the citizen who was the first to win the Nemeian chariot race and thus to prove that Sidon excelled not only through her ships, but also through a successful team of horses" (39).

2. Robert Doran, "The High Cost of a Jewish Education," Hellenism in the Land of Israel, ed. John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001) 94-115.

"This sense of local pride in the culture and history of its city is what we need to keep in mind when looking at the gymnasium in Jerusalem. Unfortunately we do not have the curriculum followed at different cities. Clearly Homer was taught in many. But what of a city which already had a long and unique literary and legal history? What would happen there when an educational institution like the gymnasium was introduced? Would it abandon its ancestral heritage? One small piece of evidence to suggest otherwise is the number of local histories written for specific cities. E. Bickerman showed how Sidon maintained its own local institutions when hellenized. In the gymnasium library at Halicarnassus, copies were kept of the works of its two famous authors, Herodotus and the obscure C. Julius Longianus. At Lamia the poetess Aristodama was given citizenship in gratitude for the epic poem she had composed and performed on the history of Lamia (IG 9.2.62). Beyond that, Stanley Bonner has shown how, at Rome, young Romans were taught their own language, laws, and literature alongside being given an entree to Greek literature and rhetoric" (96-97).

3. Fergus Millar, "The Background to the Maccabean Revolution: Reflections on Martin Hengel's 'Judaism and Hellenism,'" Journal of Jewish Studies 29 (1978) 1-21 (see here).

"In Syria proper, notably at Hierapolis-Bambyce and at Heliopolis-Baalbek, it is notorious that there survived within Greek cities temples and cults which both were, and were perceived at the time to be, entirely non-Greek in origin and character" (4).

"...we have a considerable body of evidence, admittedly from varying regions of Syria and varying dates, which clearly shows that indigenous cults could be preserved and integrated with their now Hellenised environment without losing their identity or continuity. What is more, a recent study of the Semitic cults of the Syrian regision, and in particular of private dedications, whether in Greek or dialects of Aramaic, argues that the evidence reflects the growth of the conception of a single supreme god, addressed in various names" (6).

"Though it is possible to find parallels, in Syria and Egypt, for circumcision and the avoidance of pork, the existence of a complex set of observances binding (in principle) on the whole population has no parallel; nor do we yet know of any other Near Eastern people speaking a Semitic language who in a Hellenistic period generated a whole range of works in different genres in their own language (or languages, Hebrew and Aramaic). Finally, if slight traces reveal...that the Phoenicians still possessed a historical tradition of their own, nothing parallels the existence of a sacred book which was at the same time a national history, and which, as Ben Sira, Maccabees and the Qumran documents all show, was in active circulation among the people and was the primary agent in forming their consciousness" (12).

Tomorrow, I'll be reading through A. Kuhrt and S. Sherwin White's Hellenism in the East: The Interaction of Greek and Non-Greek Civilizations from Syria to Central Asia after Alexander (Berkley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1987). I want to see what affect Hellenism had on local customs.

The above quotes say that Hellenism didn't exactly abolish local customs. But I wonder if the areas were converted into official Greek cities. In any case, gymnasia could hold on to the ancestral traditions of a non-Greek area.

Also, Israel's uniqueness is worth pointing out. If Israel was unique in institutionalizing customs that were contrary to Greek culture, then many Jews would perceive dramatic Hellenization to undermine their politeia.

Paper on IV Maccabees: Quotes on Athletics

I said I would look at Encyclopedia Judaica and the Jewish Encyclopedia to see if there were references to athletics in Jewish sources. Here's some of what I found.

Jesse Harold Silver's article on "Sports" in Encyclopedia Judaica:

"This opposition to sport became even more intensified when, following the intervening period of independence, Roman overlordship was substituted for Greek, and theaters and circuses were linked together as the very antithesis of 'synagogue and school.' To the considerations which applied to the gymnasia, were the added factors of cruelty associated with Roman sport, which was not confined to the characteristic aspect of gladiatorial contests, and also the fact that at the theaters the Jews were made the butt of satire, parody, and mockery (cf. Lam. R. intro. 17). The first sentence of the Book of Psalms 'Happy is the man... who sat not in the seat of the scorners' was made to apply to those who refrained from attending 'theaters and circuses and did not attend gladiatorial combats' (Pes. 148b), and the humane aspect of the opposition finds expression in the ruling that 'one is permitted to go to stadiums if by his shouting he may save the victim' (Av. Zar. 18b). It is a fact that at one period of his life the famous amora Simeon b. Lakish (Resh Lakish) was a professional gladiator (Git. 47a), but he justified this on the grounds of grim necessity. The very vehemence of the denunciation of the rabbis would seem to point to the fact that participation in, or at least attendance at, those sports by Jews was widespread."

Frank H. Vizetelly and Cyrus Adler's ATHLETES, ATHLETICS, AND FIELD-SPORTS in Jewish Encyclopedia:

"Among other exercises popular with the Jews were ball-playing, the tourney, and dueling. The first was chiefly practised by the young women, and in some measure resembled tennis; but it brought upon them the displeasure of certain rabbis, who condemned its indulgence, especially on the Sabbath, as one of the causes of the destruction of the Temple (see Lam. R. ii. 4), and probably because it distracted attention from the more serious duties of life (Yer. Ta'anit, iv. 5)."

"That Athletics were not always unpopular with the Rabbis is shown by the various references found in rabbinical literature. In Gen. R. (lxxvii. 2) there is a comparison of 'an athlete engaged in battle with the son of a king,' and in Ex. R. (xxi. 10) is another: 'as two athletes, one weak and one strong; one overcomes the other and places a wreath on his head.'"

I don't see much about sports being against the law, though, of course, the rabbinic prohibition may count as law. But it's not absolute, since one could be a gladiator out of necessity, or attend a stadium to save someone's life. There is a sense that sports distact Jews from more important things, and one tradition says the temple was destroyed because too many Jews played ball. In II Maccabees 4, one problem with the gymnasium was that it distracted priests from the temple service.

Tomorrow, I'll see if I can find anything about Jewish attitudes towards nudity, since people exercised in the gymnasium naked.

Two more notes:

1. In the EJ article, there seems to be a belief that the Jews developed their antipathy to sports as a result of Jason's gymnasium, which involved the removal of the marks of circumcision. That differs from Bickerman's view that sports were against Jewish law, and that this is what motivated Jewish concern about the gym. It assumes that circumcision was what sparked the concern, not sports per se. The opposition to sports arose as a by-product, in Silver's opinion.

2. Robert Doran, "The High Cost of a Jewish Education," Hellenism in the Land of Israel, ed. John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001) 94-115.

Doran argues that Jason's gymnasium was a place of Jewish education, not just Greek. He also states that one Jewish view denied that removing the marks of circumcision invalidated a Jew's relationship with the covenant (106-107). Consequently, while some Jews were offended by Jason's "reform," others saw it as consistent with Judaism.

Paper on IV Maccabees: Some Josephus Passages

Today, I want to look at the Josephus passages that I colored red in my post, Paper on IV Maccabees: Other Challenges to Politeia. The red quotes are from BibleWorks, and the others are from William Whiston's translation.

Antiquities of the Jews 6:85 after which they returned to their former government, they then permitting themselves to be judged by him who appeared to be the best warrior and most courageous, hence it was that they called this interval of their government the Judges.

I was wondering about this quote because it says the Israelites returned to their former government. What was it like when they didn't have it? Basically, Josephus is talking about the chaos that existed right after the death of Joshua, and before the time of the Judges.

Antiquities of the Jews 15:281 but still some of them continued in their displeasure against him, for his introduction of new customs, and esteemed the violation of the laws of their country as likely to be the origin of very great mischiefs to them, so that they deemed it an instance of piety rather to hazard themselves [to be put to death], than to seem as if they took no notice of Herod, who, upon the change he had made in their government, introduced such customs, and that in a violent manner, which they had never been used to before, as indeed in pretence a king, but in reality one that showed himself an enemy to their whole nation;

267 says Herod corrupted the constitution by introducing foreign practices. According to Josephus, the consitution is supposed to be kept inviolable from foreign practices. Another problem he cites is that the Jewish religious observances were neglected.

268 specifies some of what Herod did: "he appointed solemn games to be celebrated every fifth year, in honor of Caesar, and built a theatre at Jerusalem, as also a very great amphitheater in the plain. Both of them were indeed costly works, but opposite to the Jewish customs; for we have had no such shows delivered down to us as fit to be used or exhibited by us[.]"

Here, we may see an example of what Bickerman says in God of the Maccabees: that sports were against Jewish law, or, more accurately, custom.

Josephus continues to talk about how foreigner came for the athletic contests. He makes a point to mention that they performed their exercises naked (270). That reminds me of something I read in John Collins' essay, "Cult and Culture: The Limits of Hellenization in Judea," Hellenism in the Land of Israel, ed. John J. Collins and Gregory E. Sterling (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2001) 47: Jubilees 3:31 condemns nudity. It states, "On this account, it is prescribed on the heavenly tables as touching all those who know the judgment of the law, that they should cover their shame, and should not uncover themselves as the Gentiles uncover themselves" (see here). Since Jubilees was most likely written in the second century B.C.E., it very well may relate to Jews exercising naked in Jason's gymnasium.

But back to Josephus. Whiston says the following in a footnote:

"These grand plays, and shows, and Thymelici, or music greetings, and chariot races, when the chariots were drawn by two, three, or four pairs of horses, etc., instituted by Herod in his theatres, were still, as we see here, looked on by sober Jews as heathenist sports, and tending not only to corrupt the manners of the Jewish nation, and to bring them in love with paganish idolatry and paganism conduct of life, but to the dissolution of the law of Moses, and accordingly were greatly and justly condemned by them, as appears here and everywhere else in Josephus."

Whiston seems to present what Herod was doing as a slippery slope. I wonder if there's a way to see it as an actually challenge to the Jewish politeia. One thing I noticed yesterday as I read Collins' book was that some of the contributors were trying to make Jason's gymnasium look Jewish, probably because they wonder why Jews did not revolt against it (47). But Jews did not always revolt over every transgression of the law. In AJ 7:10, Josephus narrates how Herod's sister divorced her husband, which was contrary to the law. The Gospels present John the Baptist telling Herod that he acted unlawfully to take his brother's wife (Mark 6:18). There was no revolt in those cases. The Jews could tolerate challenges to their politeia.

But, moving on in Josephus, AJ 15. 275-276 is quite telling: "It appeared also no better than an instance of barefaced impiety, to throw men to wild beasts, for the affording delight to the spectators; and it appeared an instance of no less impiety, to change their own laws for such foreign exercises: but, above all the rest, the trophies gave most distaste to the Jews; for as they imagined them to be images, included within the armor that hung around them, they were sorely displeased at them, because it was not the custom of their country to pay honors to such images."

I doubt that Jason's gymnasium threw people to wild beasts. I wonder how Josephus thinks the laws were changed for foreign exercises. Maybe "Thou shalt not kill" is a possible law that was thrown to the wind in that example! The images may be important. As I noted in a past post, Tcherikover denies that the images in the gymnasium would have been idolatrous (see Paper: IV Maccabees). But that's not necessarily how everyone would have perceived them.

277 has, "they would never bear images of men in their city, meaning their trophies, since this was disagreeable to the laws of their country." But Herod manages to dissipate the agitation of many Jews, though not all.

Antiquities of the Jews 18:9 Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, {c} who started a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted with,

The context here is that Caesar imposed a tax, and a group of Jews revolted. I'm not sure what brings about the change in customs. 8 says that the temple was burnt down, so perhaps that's what led to the change. I don't know.

My agenda for tomorrow: I want to look up "Athletics" in the Jewish Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Judaica. Maybe I'll look up other things there as well.

Paper on IV Maccabees: Other Challenges to Politeia

What follows are quotations from Josephus, II Maccabees, and IV Maccabees that describe challenges to the Jewish politeia. I'd like to check out the context of the quotes in red, and I may do that tomorrow. The Josephus quotes are from the translation that BibleWorks uses, and the Maccabees quotes are from the New Revised Standard Version.

Antiquities of the Jews 4:191 and when once you have had the experience of what I now say, you will repent and remember the laws you have broken, when it is too late. Hence I would advise you, if you intend to preserve these laws, to leave none of your enemies alive when you have conquered them, but to look upon it as for your advantage to kill them all, lest, if you permit them to live, you taste of their manners, and thereby corrupt your own proper institutions.

Antiquities of the Jews 4:223 Aristocracy, and the way of living under it, is the best constitution; and may you never have any inclination to any other form of government; and may you always love that form, and have the laws for your governors, and govern all your actions according to them; for you need no supreme governor but God. But if you shall desire a king, let him be one of your own nation; let him be always careful of justice and other virtues perpetually;

Antiquities of the Jews 4:230 Nor is anything to be allowed, by imitation whereof any degree of subversion may creep into the constitution; nor do the laws neglect small matters, but provide that even those may be managed after an unblamable manner.''

Antiquities of the Jews 4:310 that in case anyone of their own blood, or any city, should attempt to confound or dissolve their constitution of government, they should take vengeance upon them, both all in general, and each person in particular; and when they had conquered them, should overturn their city to the very foundations, and, if possible, should not leave the least footsteps of such madness: but that if they were not able to take such vengeance, they should still demonstrate that what was done was contrary to their wills. So the multitude bound themselves by oath so to do.

Antiquities of the Jews 6:36 so they begged of him, and entreated him, to appoint some person to be king over them, who might rule over the nation, and avenge them of the Philistines, who ought to be punished for their former oppressions. These words greatly afflicted Samuel, on account of his innate love of justice, and his hatred to kingly government, for he was very fond of an aristocracy, as what made the men that used it of a divine and happy disposition;

Antiquities of the Jews 6:83 And when Samuel had told them that he ought to confirm the kingdom to Saul by a second ordination of him, they all came together to the city of Gilgal, for there did he command them to come. So the prophet anointed Saul with the holy oil in the sight of the multitude, and declared him to be king the second time; and so the government of the Hebrews was changed into a regal government;

Antiquities of the Jews 6:85 after which they returned to their former government, they then permitting themselves to be judged by him who appeared to be the best warrior and most courageous, hence it was that they called this interval of their government the Judges.

Antiquities of the Jews 10:275 and that from among them there should arise a certain king that should overcome our nation and their laws, and should take away their political government, and should spoil the temple, and forbid the sacrifices to be offered for three years' time.

Antiquities of the Jews 11:140 But some time afterward there came some persons to him, and brought an accusation against certain of the multitude, and of the priests and Levites, who had transgressed their constitution, and broken the laws of their country, by marrying strange wives, and had brought the family of the priests into confusion.

Antiquities of the Jews 12:240 but the greater number of the people assisted Jason; and by that means Menelaus and the sons of Tobias were distressed, and retired to Antiochus, and informed him that they were desirous to leave the laws of their country, and the Jewish way of living according to them, and to follow the king's laws, and the Greek way of living.

Antiquities of the Jews 12:280 but to be mindful of the desires of him who begat you, and brought you up, and to preserve the customs of your country, and to recover your ancient form of government, which is in danger of being overturned, and not to be carried away with those who, either by their own inclination, or out of necessity, betray it,

Antiquities of the Jews 13:2 but after he was dead, all the wicked, and those who transgressed the laws of their forefathers, sprang up again in Judea, and grew upon them, and distressed them on every side.

Antiquities of the Jews 15:254 but after Hyrcanus had made a change in their political government, and made them receive the Jewish customs and law, Herod made Costobarus governor of Idumea and Gaza, and gave him his sister Salome to wife; and this was upon the slaughter of [his uncle] Joseph, who had that government before, as we have related already.

Antiquities of the Jews 15:281 but still some of them continued in their displeasure against him, for his introduction of new customs, and esteemed the violation of the laws of their country as likely to be the origin of very great mischiefs to them, so that they deemed it an instance of piety rather to hazard themselves [to be put to death], than to seem as if they took no notice of Herod, who, upon the change he had made in their government, introduced such customs, and that in a violent manner, which they had never been used to before, as indeed in pretence a king, but in reality one that showed himself an enemy to their whole nation;

Antiquities of the Jews 18:9 Such were the consequences of this, that the customs of our fathers were altered, and such a change was made, as added a mighty weight toward bringing all to destruction, which these men occasioned by their thus conspiring together; for Judas and Sadduc, {c} who started a fourth philosophic sect among us, and had a great many followers therein, filled our civil government with tumults at present, and laid the foundations of our future miseries, by this system of philosophy, which we were before unacquainted with,

Antiquities of the Jews 19:173 For since Julius Caesar took it into his head to dissolve our democracy, and, by overbearing the regular system of our laws, to bring disorders into our administration, and to get above right and justice, and to be a slave to his own inclinations, there is no kind of misery but what has tended to the subversion of this city;

Antiquities of the Jews 20:229 for at the first they held the high priesthood till the end of their life, although afterward they had successors while they were alive. Now these thirteen, who were the descendants of two of the sons of Aaron, received this dignity by succession, one after another; for their form of government was an aristocracy, and after that a monarchy, and in the third place the government was regal.

Wars of the Jews 1:169 After this, Gabinius brought Hyrcanus to Jerusalem, and committed the care of the temple to him; but ordained the other political government to be by an aristocracy.

Against Apion 1:190 Moreover, Hecateus declares again, "what regard we have for our laws, and that we resolve to endure anything rather than transgress them, because we think it right for us to do so.''

Against Apion 2:273 and, indeed, what reason can there be why we should desire to imitate the laws of other nations, while we see they are not observed by their own legislators? And why do not the Lacedemonians think of abolishing that form of their government which suffers them not to associate with any others, as well as their contempt of matrimony? And why do not the Eleans and Thebans abolish that unnatural and impudent lust, which makes them lie with males?

2 Maccabees 4:11 He set aside the existing royal concessions to the Jews, secured through John the father of Eupolemus, who went on the mission to establish friendship and alliance with the Romans; and he destroyed the lawful ways of living and introduced new customs contrary to the law.

2 Maccabees 8:17 keeping before their eyes the lawless outrage that the Gentiles had committed against the holy place, and the torture of the derided city, and besides, the overthrow of their ancestral way of life.

4 Maccabees 17:9 "Here lie buried an aged priest and an aged woman and seven sons, because of the violence of the tyrant who wished to destroy the way of life of the Hebrews.

4 Maccabees 8:7 Trust me, then, and you will have positions of authority in my government if you will renounce the ancestral tradition of your national life.

Some thoughts:

1. Challenging the politeia can mean simply disobeying the Torah.

2. Antiochus Epiphanes tried to challenge the Jews' politeia, but Jason the high priest also did so before Antiochus' persecutions.

3. The politeia could be changed legitimately, probably because the Torah gave Israel the right to appoint a king.

Paper on IV Maccabees: Bickerman on the Gym

I'm going through Elias Bickerman's The God of the Maccabees (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1979) right now. He states the following:

"[W]hereas athletic contests were merely strange to Cappadocian custom, they were objectionable according to Jewish law...These high priests, then, one minute watched the exercises of the naked ephebes in the palaestra 'directly below the citadel,' and the next, climbed the steps of the altar to offer the sacrifice, adorned with the princely golden crown over the tiara, while the bells attacked to the gowns of the sons of Aaron rang, 'to make music as they walked' (Ecclus. 45:9). We must try to realize for ourselves the juxtaposition of these scenes, in order to make clear that, what was natural to the Greeks and an abomination to the Hebrews, could be seen in Jerusalem year after year. No schism occurred because of this, either in Jerusalem or in the diaspora. No new Pinchas (I Macc. 2:26) raised his hand against the transgressors of the law, and no indignant revolt broke out among the people" (41-42).

I'd like to know more. What's Bickerman source for his claim that athletic contests were objectionable according to Jewish law? Why did Jews deem it abominable for priests to be in the gymnasium once minute, then at the temple the next minute? Unfortunately, he doesn't offer documentation here. Maybe he will later in the book.