04_Biblica_1_C_Thiessen_Layout 1 30/01/13 13:16 Pagina 548 548 MATTHEW THIESSEN While 2 Maccabees was written in Judea between 124 and 63 B.C.E. 12,4 Maccabees 13 and Josephus’s works were written in the latter half of the first century C.E., in the Jewish diaspora, demon- strating a geographically and temporally widespread tradition linking a prior Jewish abolishment of the law with the Antiochan persecution. These writers view this attack on circumcision, Sabbath, Temple cult, and food laws as an attack on the Jewish or Hebrew politei/a, and upon Jewish ancestral customs. It is important to note that, according to each of these three authors, it was a Jewish group that was closely involved in the abolishment of the Jewish law in an attempt at Hell- enization (2 Macc 4,7-15; 4 Macc 4,15-21; A.J. 12.240-256; 12.362- 66 [cf. also 1 Macc 1,11-15]) 14. Divine wrath, in the form of the persecution, was the consequence of this law abolishment. II. The Zealots of Josephus’s Jewish War We turn now to the second event around which the words kataluw, lu/w, and kata/lusij cluster: the Jewish Revolt as Jose- / phus describes it in the Jewish War. On the brink of the revolt, Jose- phus pauses to recount Agrippa’s speech to the people in which he counsels against going to war: Cf. VAN HENTEN, Maccabean Martyrs, 50-56; J.A. GOLDSTEIN, I Mac- 12 cabees (AB 41; Garden City, N.Y. 1976) 62-64. Since the work reflects a pos- itive opinion of the Romans (4,1; 8,10.36; 11,34-38), it is unlikely that it was written after Pompey’s interference in Jewish affairs in 63 B.C.E. Cf. J.W. VAN HENTEN (“Datierung und Herkunft des Vierten Makkabä- 13 erbuches”, Tradition and Re-Interpretation in Jewish and Early Christian Lit- erature. Essays in Honour of J.C.H. Lebram [eds. J.W. VAN HENTEN et al.] [SPB 56; Leiden 1986] 136-149), who places it in Asia Minor around 100 C.E. E. BICKERMAN (The God of the Maccabees: Studies on the Meaning 14 and Origin of the Maccabean Revolt [SJLA 32; Leiden 1979]) has made a strong case for the historicity of these accounts, though J. SCURLOCK (“167 BCE: Hellenism or Reform?”, JSJ 31:2 [2000] 125-161), amongst others, pro- vides an alternative account placing the primary blame on Antiochus IV. As BICKERMAN (Maccabees, 89-90) notes, Antiochus’s knowledge of specific Jewish practices to attack demonstrates collusion with those who were fa- miliar with Judaism, most likely Jewish people. Whether Bickerman’s his- torical reconstruction is correct or not, this is precisely how these early sources, and most likely many Jewish people familiar with such works, viewed the Antiochan persecution. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2012 - Tutti i diritti riservati