|
ИСТИНА |
Войти в систему Регистрация |
Интеллектуальная Система Тематического Исследования НАукометрических данных |
||
3-я Сирийская война и захват Птолемеем III в Азии культовых предметов в сведениях книги Даниила и Порфирия Тирскогостатья
- Автор: Ладынин И.А.
- Сборник: Antiquitas aeterna: Поволжский антиковедческий журнал. Вып. 2: Война, армия и военное дело в античном мире
- Год издания: 2007
- Место издания: Нижний Новгород
- Первая страница: 273
- Последняя страница: 287
- Аннотация: The article is based on the statements about the seizure of cult objects in Asia by Ptolemy III during the Third Syrian War (its initial phase, 246-245 B.C.) found at the Book of Daniel (11:7-8) and with its Neo-Platonic commenter Porphyry of Tyros (FgrHist. 260. F. 43 = Hieronym. Comm. i. Dan. 11. 6-9). The approach to these statements is based on the presumption of their historicity: a number of scholars, including the author of the article, treated as trustworthy the parallel statements from the Canopus Decree (OGIS I 56, ll. 10-11; Urk. II. 128.11-129.1-3) and monumentum Adulitanum (OGIS I. 54, ll. 20-22) of Ptolemy III and similar passages from the Satrap Stela of Ptolemy (311 B.C.: Urk. II. 14.9-11), the Pythom Decree of Ptolemy II (id. 91.6-11 ff.) and the Raphia Decree of Ptolemy IV (ll. 21-23). This presumption of historicity is strengthened by the obvious independence of the information of the Book of Daniel and Porphyry from this Ptolemaic epigraphic evidence. It is important that all these statements are compatible with the practice of removing from defeated peoples their cult objects (“mediators” in their relations to gods, the loss of which deprived these peoples of divine protection), which was common at the Near East and comprehensible to the people of Classical Antiquity. One will found discrepancies in the description of the episode in the Book of Daniel and by Porphyry. The former does not say that Ptolemy III brought from Asia Egyptian cult objects once lost to the Persians (this is the topos of all the epigraphic evidence on the subjects): it says that the king seized and brought into prison only the statues and sacred vases of Asiatic gods. Porphyry says nothing special about the Asiatic cult objects but emphasizes that the booty of Ptolemy III included the relics once removed from Egypt by the Persians under Cambyses. At the same time, the book of Daniel stresses the moral and religious importance of Ptolemy’s commitment, while for Porphyry its material aspects seems more important. It seems possible to explain these discrepancies as follows. (1) The silence of the epigraphic evidence about the seizure of Asiatic cult objects by Ptolemy III makes it hard to believe that this it really took place. One should assume that the king only returned the Egyptian cult objects. (2) The religious importance of this act was the most clear and topical for Ptolemy’s Egyptian subjects who, according to Porphyry, proclaimed him for this Euergetes. Incidentally, this proclamation was a part of propaganda moves made by Ptolemy III in order to mollify the Egyptian national opposition after its first open uprising in 245 B.C. (the alleged seditio domestica at Porphyry’s fragment). The Graeco-Roman contemporaries of Ptolemy III (and other Ptolemies who did the same during the Syrian wars) neglected the return of cult objects or, at their best, registered its material importance, as it has been perhaps done by the prototype author used by Porphyry. The stress laid by this author on return of the Egyptian cult objects can be explained by his desire to show a blatant mistake of the Book of Daniel. (3) The inverse statement of the Book of Daniel about the seizure of Asiatic cult objects by Ptolemy III can be explained by the intention of its author to give a picture of the Seleucid monarchy (the worst enemy of Judaism under Antiochus IV, whose reign strongly influenced the book) being totally destroyed, so as to show that this godless realm knew its bad days and it was possible to defeat it. Finally, the silence of both the Book of Daniel and Porphyry about the capture of Babylon by Ptolemy III, the importance of this Near Eastern metropolis for the Bible tradition taken into account, makes believe other statements implying the possibility of this commitment by the Egyptian king (esp. App. Syr. 65 and the speculations by W. Huss around this), unreliable.
- Добавил в систему: Ладынин Иван Андреевич