Part 69
for security. These were either discovered, or divulged by priestly treasurers co-operating with Menelaus' party. The author does not give any reason for this confiscation. It may have had the co-operation of the Hellenized high priest Menelaus, who was perhaps in arrears in paying his tributes, or it may have been caused by the avarice of the king. The common explanation that Antiochus was short of money because of the huge indemnities (12,000 talents) his kingdom still had to pay to Rome is not valid, since this debt was already paid. See le Rider (1993: 49—67). w. 24—8 are the first poetic passage, but such passages abound in i Maccabees. This literary device is not rare in biblical historiography. Naturally it was intended to bear to the reader a certain message. (1:29-40) This passage deals with measures taken by the Seleucid government to crush Jewish opposition to Menelaus' regime, prior to the religious persecutions. 2 Mace 5 supplies more details for the period of approximately two years that elapsed between Antiochus' second visit to Jerusalem (169 BCE) and the religious persecution (167 BCE). These include another visit of the king to Jerusalem (a third one, see above) and the appointment of Philip the Phrygian (2 Mace 5:22) as governor of Jerusalem, v. 29, 'collector of tribute' may reflect a Hebrew phrase in the original lost version of i Maccabees: sar hammissim, may have been wrongly translated into Greek as archon phorologias (officer for tribute collection) rather than 'officer of the Mysians', i.e. of soldiers or mercenaries from Mysia, a region in Asia Minor. The name of this officer is given in 2 Mace 5:24, Apollonius. For the rate of taxes in Judea see i Mace 10:29-30. v. 30: the fact that the Seleucid officer entered Jerusalem 'deceitfully' is one of the arguments for the supposition that the city was in the hands of a pre-Maccabean opposition to Menelaus. 2 Mace. 5:25 specifies that Apollonius took advantage of the sabbath to enter the city. See Tcherikover
(1959: 188-9). w31"2. Apollonius' behaviour in Jerusalem strengthens the impression that he took the city from the rebels' hands, not from Menelaus and his supporters. These rebels are not mentioned here probably because the preMaccabean period is in general abridged by the author, and he endeavours to concentrate on the Maccabean family, and avoid any distraction which might put them off-centre.
v. 33, 'citadel', two questions concern the building of the citadel (akra) in Jerusalem: what was its function, and where exactly was it located? In addition to its function in suppressing the Jewish opposition to the regime, it seems that it was (or became) a stronghold for the Hellenizers. Its location depends on the location of the 'city of David' (as understood in the Second Temple period) and on various archaeologicaltopographical considerations. See Bar-Kochva (1989: 445— 65). v. 34, 'renegades' may signify the Hellenizers, in addition to the Seleucid military force, v. 35: see i MACC 9:52 about storage of food in fortresses for the purpose of subduing the population, w. 36—40, in this poetic passage, we learn about the flight of residents from Jerusalem (v. 38), on which cf 2 MACC 5:27 and 2:1. (1:41-53) The religious persecution ordered by Antiochus IV is an unprecedented historical event. The main difficulty in explaining the king's policy is that polytheists were generally tolerant in religious matters, and we have no real analogy elsewhere to the events in Judea. Moreover, what we encoun-
The Revolt under Mattathias (2:1-70)
(2:1—14) When the religious persecutions became extremely severe, Mattathias and his family appeared on the stage.
715 I MACCABEES
above reference; 2 Mace 5:25). v. 37, 'heaven and earth testify for us', note that the meaning of the Greek for 'martyr' is 'witness'. No mention is made of afterlife, which is an important motif in 2 Maccabees, w. 39-40, Mattathias and his supporters are sympathetic to those who died in the caves, but disagree with their ideology. They fear for their own lives and are not expecting an eschatological deliverance or resurrection of the dead (cf Dan 12: 2-3). This signifies a major difference between the Hasmoneans and various contemporary nascent Jewish sects, v. 41, the decision by Mattathias's party, to take arms and fight even on the sabbath, raised voluminous discussion. On what authority was this decision based? What was the preceding situation? How could Jewish mercenaries (and there were many) serve in imperial armies if they did not fight on the sabbath? Was this an ad hoc decision or a permanent and valid legal one? How did it fit with Jewish law and especially with more recent halakd? See Bar-Kochva
The dynastic inclination of i Maccabees is clear. It wholeheartedly supports the Hasmoneans, and especially Simon's branch. Former rebels are not mentioned and martyrs are appreciated (1:63), but their example was not followed up (below). 'Joarib', the first priestly division among the twentyfour divisions of priests (see i Chr 24:7). 'Jerusalem', 'Modein', it seems that the opulent family of Mattathias was well-established both in Jerusalem and in Modein, where their landed property was. (For doubt about their relation to Jerusalem see Goldstein (1976).) Modein was a village in the region of Lydda, which belonged to the eparchy of Samaria (see i MACC 10:30). w. 2-5, we do not have an explanation for the nicknames of Mattathias's sons. For Judas's nickname, Maccabeus, several proposals have been made, such as that its origin was the Hebrew word makkebet (hammer), but though attractive, this view is baseless, w. 6-14, a lament in poetic form on the dreadful lot of the holy city.
(1989: 474—93); Goodman and Holladay (1986: esp. 165—71); Johns (1963).
(2:15-18) The decrees of Antiochus are about to be forced on the inhabitants of Modein, beyond the frontier of Judea, at the outskirts of the territories populated by Jews. The persecution is executed by the Seleucid government, through its military forces. Co-operation from the local population, either voluntary or compulsory, is expected. The government encountered the first active opposition to its policy in Modein from Mattathias and his sons. w. 17-18, the speech of the king's officers is evidently a rhetorical piece which stresses the obedience of all others (Jews and Gentiles) to the king's decrees.
(2:42—8) The first military act on the part of Mattathias was in Modein (2:1). A second stage in the revolt was when it spread over Judaea (but outside Jerusalem), v. 42, we learn about a growth in the number of Mattathias's supporters. An organized group joined him—the Hasideans (lit. 'the pious'). Scholars differ about their identity. Are they related to those who died in the caves, having changed their attitude to the revolt as a consequence of this horrible event? Or do they belong to the maskilim in Daniel, who decided to appeal to arms at the call of Mattathias? Or are they a sect of their own, and if so, when did they come into being? How are they related to the later sects—Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes/Qumranites? See Davies (1977). D. R. Schwartz (1994: 7—18) prefers a variant reading of this phrase, 'a company of Jews' instead of 'a company of Hasideans', which is the current reading. See also i MACC 7:12—18. 'Mighty warriors' fits both readings: if we take it with Hasideans, it fits the conception of 'sect' (not a very suitable term in any case) or 'order' with some military flavour (cf. some Dead Sea scrolls, esp. War Scroll); if with Jews, it signifies the military prowess of those who joined Mattathias. v. 43, 'fugitives', those who lost their property and domicile, and were an important source of recruitment for the rebels. Cf. J.W. 2. 588. v. 46, 'circumcised all the uncircumcised', the intention, in line with the destruction of altars (v. 45) is to undo what was done by the persecutors; 'forcibly', might mean against the orders ofthe Seleucid government, or, in the case of Hellenized families, without their consent. The first explanation is preferable.
(2:19-28) w. 19-22, Mattathias's speech is totally opposed to the king's men's speech. Its central point is unconditional faith in God. w. 23—6, Mattathias's speech could have been terminated by a martyrological conclusion, but at this point the parting of the ways between martyrdom and zealotry comes out clearly. Mattathias prevents by force the breach of the Torah, being ready not only to die but to kill for it. At this moment the Maccabean revolt breaks out. v. 26, 'Phinehas', the priest who acted bravely and decisively when the people of Israel sinned in the plain of Moab (Num 25:8-13) was the model of zealotry, w. 27—8, the first step of the rebels was to leave the populated area and find shelter in the wilderness. Commentators have assumed that it was in the Judean desert that Mattathias and his followers sought refuge (as with Jonathan and Simon after Judas's death (i MACC 9:33). Recently it has been suggested that at this stage of the revolt the Maccabees' base was in the desert of Samaria, not far from the thickly populated Jewish area of southern Samaria (see J. Schwartz and Spanier 1991). (2:29-41) Mattathias's position was taken up against those who co-operated with the persecutors or acquiesced to them. Here the case of martyrdom is dealt with, and though the author's attitude is sympathetic to the martyrs, martyrdom is shown to be no alternative to Mattathias's zealotry, v. 29, the ideological affiliation of those who went to the desert is unknown. Proposals identifying them with the Hasideans, with the Essenes (proto-Essenes), or with the maskilim of Daniel, though possible, cannot be substantiated. 'Wilderness', see J. Schwartz and Spanier (1991). v. 32, 'sabbath', that Jews refrained from fighting on the sabbath was known to pagans and sometimes ridiculed by them (see Josephus, Ant. 12 f 6; CA i. 209-10), as well as used by them to their advantage (the
(2:49^70) The following testament of Mattathias in poetic rhyme brings to mind Jacob's blessing of his sons in Gen 49. It exposes the author's views and his attitude towards the ruling Hasmonean family, and the ideology and atmosphere at the royal court, w. 51-60, this section is a series of illustrious examples from biblical history relevant to the actual situation and recommended by Mattathias to his sons. Phinehas, a model of zealotry, is given a special highlight ('our ancestor [father]'; and see v. 26 above); David's inheritance of kingship is interpreted by commentators as either an indication that the book was written before Hyrcanus I's sons put the crown on their heads (i.e. not after 103-104 BCE), or as a
I MACCABEES 716
course of events. In i Maccabees it is only through the courage of the Jewish fighters that God instils in their hearts, that he may tip the scales of battle. See also i MACC c. 2. Actually it does not seem that the rebels were numerically inferior to the Seleucid forces which were sent against them. They also had professional military officers and soldiers in their ranks, though they were inferior in arms, at least in the initial stages of the revolt. This view was recently put forth by Bar-Kochva (1989). v. 24, 'land of the Philistines', a biblical name for the southern coastal plain of the land of Israel.
criticism of Hasmonean royalty. With Elijah the word 'zeal' (or its derivatives) is repeated again, and the last are the 'saved martyrs' whose acts are told in the contemporary book of Daniel. See Dimant (1988: 394-5). v. 65, 'Simeon ... he shall be your father', this is explicit propaganda for the Hasmonean dynasty, which indeed was founded by Simeon. To strengthen its legitimacy it is related here to the testament of Mattathias, the ancestor of all the family, v. 66, Judas's military talent and task is stressed here, but in line with the message of v. 65. Though Judas was the leader of the revolt till he fell on the battlefield (165—160 BCE), he is ranked here as second to
(3:27—31) Here we have a typical Judeocentric view of Seleucid history. Antiochus IV's plan to reconquer the Eastern satrapies is explained as an offshoot of Judas's victories. Nevertheless some objectively correct points are made, such as the lavishness of Antiochus, emphasized perhaps by the advance payment of a year's salary to the army. (3:32-7) v. 32, Lysias was regent for Antiochus V, son of Antiochus IV, both in the latter's lifetime (165-164 BCE) and after his death, until Demetrius I conquered the kingdom (162 BCE). v. 33, 'his son Antiochus' was about 7 years old, according to Appian (11.46), or n according to Eusebius (Chronica, 1.253). Appian seems preferable on this point. See Houghton and le Rider (1985: 27 n. 30). v. 34, the division ofthe army into two halves is probable, as well as the giving of instructions to Lysias. v. 36, 'settle aliens' is reminiscent of Dan 11:39. The repressive measure of settling foreigners on land confiscated from the local population is well-known under Hellenistic rule. It is less clear whether it was implemented in Judea or mentioned only as a potential threat against the Jews. v. 37,147 ES is 165 BCE; 'upper provinces' the Seleucid provinces east of the Euphrates.
Simeon. His appointment as leader of the revolt was surely because of his military talent and/or experience, about which we know nothing, v. 70, 146 ES is 166 BCE; 'tomb of his ancestors at Modein' demonstrates clearly that the Hasmonean family had its roots in Modein, though it does not mean that they could not also have been involved in the political life in Jerusalem (see on v. i).
The First Battles of Judas Maccabaeus (3:1-4:35)
(3:1—9) The acts of Judas begin with a poetic encomium (w. 3— 9) about Judas, the great hero of the revolt, v. 2, the author stresses here, and elsewhere, the unamimity of all the brothers. It may have been a message for his own time. w. 3—9, the encomium precedes the acts of Judas. Cf. the encomium for Simon (14:4-15) which precedes his appointment by the 'great assembly'. Both serve as a poetic introduction to what follows. (3:10-12) This is the first military encounter of Judas that we are told about. Formerly, under Mattathias's command, the rebels made surprise attacks on civilian settlements (2:45—8 above). And cf 2 Mace 8:6-7. vIO> 'Apollonius', unknown otherwise, but evidently a commander, probably the governor (stratcgos according to Josephus, Ant. 8 f 287) of Samaria, an important city in the centre of Mt. Ephraim, formerly the capital of Israel (the northern kingdom) and of the Assyrian and Persian province of Samaria. A military settlement was founded there in Alexander the Great's time, and the city served as a principal strategic base under the Ptolemies and the Seleucids (see Rappaport 19950: 283-4). v-
(3:38—41) v. 38, the appointment of three commanders ofthe expedition against Judas is misleading. Ptolemy the son of Dorymenes was the governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia and supported an anti-Jewish policy (cf. 2 Mace4:45; 6:8) but did not personally command the forces sent against Judas. According to 2 Mace 8:8—9, me one who called for military support was Philip, the governor of Jerusalem. Lysias is not mentioned there at all, and may be introduced by the author of i Maccabees to increase the importance ofthe battle. Nicanor was son of Patroclus, according to 2 Mace 8:9. Gorgias was the military expert ofthe two (see 2 Mace 8:9). v. 39, the numbers of military forces are in many cases exaggerated. The greater the difference between Seleucid and Jewish forces the greater was the victory of the Jews, or their defeat was better explained (see Bar-Kochva 1989: ch. 2). v. 40, Emmaus is a strategic location at one ofthe main entrances into the Judean mountains, v. 41, merchants accompanied armies, and naturally were eager to gain from slave trade. 'Forces from Syria', probably in the Hebrew original text it was Edom, which was read wrongly by the translator as Aram, the only difference in Hebrew being the letter resh instead of daleth, which are very similar in form. If so, we are informed here about additional local forces, presumably the militia ofthe Hellenistic towns of Idumea and the coastal plain. (3:42-60) This relatively long passage deals with the preparations for battle on the Jewish side, in opposition to those in the Seleucid camp. It is probably in part historical, in part embellished, v. 46, 'Mizpah', for historical reminiscences cf. i
IZ> 'killed him', killing the commander of the enemy obviously gave a great advantage to the opposing army. Judas endeavoured to achieve it, since it could compensate for his weaker army and demoralize the enemy (see also i MACC 7:43). v. 12, 'spoils', an important source of arms for the ill-equipped rebel army. (3:13-26) The encounter with Seron is the second battle of Judas. The author of 2 Maccabees ignores the first two battles of Judas and relates his battles in detail only from the battle of Emmaus (below) onwards. This may indicate that the encounters with Apollonius and Seron were guerrilla clashes not full-fledged battles, v. 13, Seron is not known elsewhere. (See Bar-Kochva 1989: 133.) v. 14, T will make a name', a biblical idiom, which signifies Seron's arrogance and strengthens the effect of his defeat at the end. v. 16, 'Beth-horon', the slope of Beth-horon could have turned into a trap for armies invading Judea (the Romans suffered a severe defeatthere in 66 CE. See Josephus, _/. W 2 ff 546-50). w. 17-22, according to i Maccabees the result of a battle is from God, and so the few can overcome the many. This idea is different from 2 Maccabes where God intervenes in human actions and changes the
717 I MACCABEES
the rebels drawn up for battle; thus they retreated, morale broken, v. 23, the details ofthe plunder are embellished, but, strangely, no arms are mentioned, v. 24, hymns, cf. Ps 106:1; 118:1; 136:1. (4:26-9) The defeat at Emmaus finally brought home to the Syrian government the seriousness of the revolt in Judea. The royal army itself now became involved in the war. v. 28, the numbers here are obviously out of all proportion. At least half the royal Seleucid army went with Antiochus IV to the eastern front, and even from the rest Lysias was obliged to leave some behind. 'Next year', 164 BCE. v. 29, Beth-zur was a strategic point on the border between Judea and Idumea. It lost its importance when John Hyrcanus conquered Idumea.
Sam 7:5-7. Here we see the historical consciousness of the Jewish rebels (beside the historical-biblical awareness of the author), and the use of precedents for the moral preparation of the rebel army for battle, v. 47, the fasting in i Sam 7:6 is accompanied here by common mourning customs, mentioned often in the Bible and elsewhere (e.g. i Mace 2:14). v. 48, this consulting of the Torah replaces the older way of consulting God, either through a prophet, or a priest who possessed the Urim and Thummim. But at this time there were neither signs nor a prophet (cf Ps 74:9). v. 49, these are acts which should have been performed in the temple had it not been desecrated, and maybe understood as a performance in place ofthe usual ceremonies, in an attempt to convince the deity to respond to believers who manifest their inability to perform their religious duties properly, v. 54, 'trumpets' (hdsoscrot), were used in warfare (see Num 10:9-10 and the War Scroll (iQM ii. 15-111 n). v. 55, thatthere would be organization ofthe rebel army at this stage is very probable, since Judas is turned from guerrilla to more regular warfare and has to manoeuvre greater forces; cf. 2 Mace 8:21-2. The division of an army into units of tens, fifties, etc. is common in the Bible. v. 56, Judas is following Gideon (Judg 7:3, according to Deut 20:5—9). w58—60, this short speech of Judas, hardly historical, sums up well the main targets ofthe revolt and the belief in heavenly succour. (4:1-5) w. 1-2, Gorgias adopted new tactics, to avoid the failures of his predecessors, Apollonius and Seron. From a base on the outskirts of the Judean hills, he went with a select column to surprise his opponents, thus taking from them the initiative in choosing the time and place of battle. His audacious step was accompanied by 'intelligence' service, rendered to him by men from the Akra, who knew the Judean terrain, v. 3, Gorgias's audacity was forestalled by Judas. He quickly left his camp, which Gorgias was going to attack by surprise, and moved towards the Syrian base at Emmaus. w. 4—5, the deserted Jewish camp misled Gorgias into thinking that the rebels fled in panic, and he turned to chase them in the hills. Josephus adds that Judas left unextinguished fires to strengthen this impression (Ant. 12 J 306). This information is probably a conjecture of Josephus, based on military tactical textbooks, which he knew well. (4:6-11) v. 6, 'At daybreak', the appearance of Judas's army was a surprise, as it was thought to be fleeing before Gorgias's stormtroops; 'armour', the shortage of arms was endemic in the rebels' camp in the first stages ofthe revolt (see 3:12). The lack of arms also increases the impact ofthe ensuing victory, v. 7, the Seleucid army, like other Hellenistic armies, fortified their camps, even when in use for short periods, w. 8—n, Judas's harangue before his men repeats the author's ideas about God's power in battle (see i MACC c.2). (4:12-18) v. 13, 'trumpets', see i MACC 3:54. About Jamnia see i MACC 5:58. w. 17—18, Judas disciplined his army, not an easy task with guerrilla fighters. Yet as only half of his military plan was achieved, it was necessary in order to achieve a final victory. (4:19-25) Assuming the details are historical, we have here an illuminating case ofthe psychological defeat ofthe Syrian army. Arriving at their camp after a futile night chase after Judas and his men, they saw before them a burnt camp and
(4:30-3) In this poetic passage, as elsewhere, the author invokes historical precedents in the prayer he puts in Judas's mouth. The examples cited here are David's victory over Goliath (i Sam 1:17), and Jonathan's victory over the Philistines (i
Sam 14:1-16).
(4:34-5) The description of this battle is extremely schematic, untrustworthy, and hardly comprehensible. 2 Mace 11:1—16 is more detailed and embellished but also untrustworthy. The only conclusion that can be safely drawn is that Lysias's invasion of Judea was blocked. He probably did not persist in his efforts because of news ofthe death of Antiochus IV. According to 2 Mace 11:14, Lysias's withdrawal was accompanied by a truce.
The Rededication ofthe Temple (4:36-61)
(4:36-41) Soon after Lysias's retreat the rebels took over the temple (164 BCE). v. 37, Mount Zion is the Temple Mount, v. 38, 'desolate', this description refers mainly to the results of negligence. The profanation of the altar refers to what happened at the beginning ofthe religious persecution, not to any ongoing pagan performances at the altar; 'bushes sprung up', various scholars (esp. Bickerman 1979: 72) have interpreted this as a sign of some oriental syncretistic cult, to which a sacred grove was necessary. Yet it seems to indicate simply the negligence and deficient maintenance ofthe temple's court, v. 41, it is strange that military activity is mentioned only at this stage. It seems therefore that no fighting was involved when Judas took control ofthe temple.
(4:42-51) Here a detailed description is given about the replacement ofthe stuff of the temple and ofthe polluted objects in it. v. 44, 'altar of burnt-offering', the most sacred object in the temple. Dan 12:11 counts the duration ofthe persecution according to the number of days when there was no daily sacrifice, v. 46, 'until a prophet should come', cf. i MACC 3:48 and 14:41.
(4:52—9) A new festival was established which is not mentioned in the Bible (there was one other, Purim). It took some effort (see 2 Mace i) before it was accepted by Jews everywhere. It was incorporated into the Jewish calendar by the rabbis, although in Talmudic sources it is related to divine miracles and the Hasmoneans are hardly mentioned. (On the attitude ofthe sages and Pharisees towards the Hasmoneans, see D. R. Schwartz 1992: 44-56.)
w. 52—3, the renewal ofthe daily sacrifice at the end of 164 BCE (Chislev is December), three years after the desecration of
I MACCABEES 718
passages w. i—8 and w. 10—13. 'land of Tob', probably the land of Tobiah, where the palace of Hyrcanus the Tobiad was, in Arak el-Emir. Some scholars locate it in the north of Transjordan, but see Gera (1990: esp. 27-9). There was there a military colony (Gk. katoikia), headed by the Tobiad family, and composed, at least in considerable part, of Jewish soldiers. The Tobiad family, or dynasty, is known at least from the time of Nehemiah See ABD, s.v, vi. 585.
the temple (v. 54), and half a year earlier than the 3^ years envisaged in Dan 9:27. v. 54, 'songs', music had an important place in the worship at the temple (cf. 2 Chr 7:4). v. 56, 'eight days', the dedication of Solomon's temple was prolonged also for eight days (i Kings 8:65; 2 Chr 7:9), as was Hezekiah's sanctification of the temple (2 Chr 29:17). In 2 Mace 10:6 the dedication of the temple is compared to Sukkot (Booths), which lasts eight days. (4:60-1) Judas did not neglect military preparations. He fortified the temple against, probably, the forces in the Akra, but it served him well also when Lysias invaded Judea again. Beth-zur was fortified in view of local skirmishes and possible invasion by Lysias, who has already traversed the same route.
(5:14-19) v. 14: note the dramatization of the story and see i Kings 1:42; Job 1:16-18. The attacks on the Jews in Gilead and Galilee seem to be simultaneous, as told here, otherwise there is no point in the division of the Jewish forces (v. 17). v. 15, 'Ptolemais and Tyre and Sidon', these three Phoenician cities were among the first oriental cities in the east to be Hellenized and to become poleis. They had territories (Gk. chora) in Galilee, and may have been worried by the success of the Jewish revolt, and its possible repercussions on the local population in Galilee, mostly Semitic and partly Jewish. About Ptolemais see also i MACC 10:1, 39, 57, and 2 Mace 13:25—6. 'Galilee of the Gentiles', for this expression see Isa 8:23. In the present context it may simply be a repetition of the three cities mentioned before. See ABD ii. 879, 895. v. 17, as usual in i Maccabees, Simon, the founder of the dynasty, is described as second in command to Judas, and almost equal to him. Yet Jonathan succeeded Judas as leader of the revolt, and we may assume that he, not Simon, was second in command to Judas at that time. v. 18, 'Joseph... Azariah', this is one of the few places where i Maccabees raises the curtain and allow us a glimpse of other people who shared the leadership of the revolt. Nothing is known about these two men, except what is told below (w. 55—62), which is not sympathetic, v. 19, leaving
The Wars with the Surrounding Peoples (ch. jj
(5:1—8) The chronology of Judas's war against the Gentile neighbours of Judea is not clear, because they are arranged thematically. w. 1-2, 'Gentiles all around', meaning those who lived in the land of Israel. The language and attitude of the author are influenced by the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua ben Nun. See Schwartz (1991: 16—38). The Gentiles becoming angry against the Jews because of their success cannot be a historical explanation, but it fits well with the author's idea that the Gentiles drew satisfaction from the desecration of the temple (8664:45, 58). Now that the situation was reversed, they became frustrated and angry. As opposed to the other wars against the Gentiles, there is no mention here of Jews living among the Idumeans being attacked, and it seems that Judas was tackling marauders (see v. 4). v. 3, 'descendants of Esau', a biblical, anachronistic designation for the Idumeans. 'Akrabattene', despite textual difficulties, usually located in eastern Idumea, south-west of the Dead Sea. For a different location see Goldstein (1976: 294). v. 4, 'Baean', a nomadic tribe, probably located in TransJordan (cf. Num 32:3), which took advantage of the insecurity of the region for marauding purposes, v. 6, 'crossed over', this shows that the events here are not arranged chronologically, as both the Baeans and the Ammonites were east of the river (i.e. Jordan). Timothy, probably a Seleucid official or commander, is mentioned also in v. n. w. 7—8, there is no mention of the Jews here either, though it is to be supposed that Judas came to their succour, both according to v. 2 and to the more detailed account below. (5:9-13) Here the author returns to the theme of v. i, the Jews being attacked by their neighbours, v. 9, Gilead is normally the area between the rivers Yarmuk and Arnon, in which Ammon is also included. The location of Dathema is unknown, but probably connected to the 'land of Tob' (see v. 13). It may be that this and other strongholds in which the Jews were seeking shelter were locations which they held as soldiers, or descendants of soldiers, who had served already under the Ptolemies. Cf. v. 13. w. 10-13, me aPPeal f°r help of the Gileadite Jews is in the form of a letter. Though incomplete in its present form, there is nothing in the letter to render it unauthentic. It may be a fabrication, to dramatize the story, or an abridged letter (without the opening and concluding phrases), or a formulation of known events into epistolary form. Timothy is probably the same person who is mentioned above. If so it creates a link between the two
some reserve forces behind accords well with the evidence in the approximately contemporaneous Dead Sea Temple Scroll
(col. 58).
(5:20-2) Though Simon had the smaller army (3,000 as against the 8,000 of Judas), his exploits are told first. The information about the fighting is very scanty, and the pursuit of the enemy 'to the gate of Ptolemais' may be more poetic than real. The number of the enemy's casualties equals that of
Simon's soldiers (3,000) and may be fictitious. (For such equal numbers see v. 34.)
(5:23) There were Jews in Galilee at that time, but it is difficult to tell how many. There are unanswered questions: did Simon rescue all the Galilean Jews, or only those who were at greater risk? How many Jews were then left, and what was their position in Galilee until its conquest by the Hasmoneans about forty years later? Arbatta is identified by many commentators as Arbel in Galilee, yet other proposals compete, and see i MACC 9:2.
(5:24^7) v. 24, here again Judas crosses the Jordan, as in v. 6. Maybe it is a double recounting of the expedition? v. 25, the Nabateans were a tribal organization, mentioned already in the time of Alexander of Macedon. They are thought to have been an Arab people, though the epigraphic evidence about them is mostly in Aramaic. (See ABD s.v, iv. 1053.) At this period they were friendly towards the Jews because of their common interest in weakening the Seleucid empire. Later they turned into bitter enemies of Judea.
719 I MACCABEES
their own which competed with those of Mattathias's sons, v. 57, the motive attributed to Joseph and Azariah is to 'make a name'. This motive of name or honour is repeated often in i Maccabees (see i MACC 10:10). Surely had they been successful they could have created competition for the Hasmoneans, but since they failed, they serve as a proof of the divine election of the Hasmoneans. v. 58, Jamnia (see also i MACC 4:15) was an important base for the Seleucid forces confronting rebellious Judea. A Seleucid inscription, dated to Antiochus V's reign, was found there. It mentions some co-operation of the Sidonians there with the king, presumably in relation to the rebellion in Judea. See Isaac (1991). w. 61-2, the dynastic propaganda sounds very loud here.
(5:28-34) v. 29, 'of Dathema', a conjecture not found in the MSS, after v. 9. v. 30, the fact that the Jews found shelter in a stronghold outside the city of Bozrah may point to their military task in the region; if they were installed in a fortress which was guarded by them, this will have made it possible for them to hold out against their enemies even though they were outnumbered, v. 34, for the meaning of Maccabeus see i MACC 2:2-5. Here the author wishes to tell us that Judas's fame was such that his nickname alone could strike panic among his enemies. 'Eight thousand', here again the number of the enemy casualties equals that of Judas's soldiers.
(5:35—9) v. 37, mention of Raphon helps to place the battlefield in northern Gilead. Raphon became a polls in the Roman period, and belonged to the Decapolis. v. 39, 'Arabs', we are not told to which tribe those Arabs belonged. Arabic nomads of Trans Jordan should not be viewed as enemies of the Jews, but as opportunistically co-operative with whomever they can gain from.
(5:65—8) The setting of this passage is bizarre. The chapter was nicely concluded with an encomium for Judas and his brothers (w. 63-4), so the return to the battles against the Idumeans is odd, having been treated at the beginning of the chapter, v. 65, 'descendants of Esau', cf v. 3 above. Hebron is about 30 km. south of Jerusalem, and in this period was in the heart of Idumea. v. 66, 'land of the Philistines', again a biblical phrase. Marisa was on the western edge of Idumea. It was a Hellenized town, with a Hellenized population of Idumeans and Phoenicians, and some immigrants from the Greek cultural sphere (see Peters and Thiersch 1905; Oren and Rappaport 1984; Kloner, Regev, and Rappaport 1992). The battles carried on by Judas are clearly no more than retaliatory border skirmishes, v. 67, the incident referred to here is enigmatic. It may have been a case of disobedience, which is criticized, v. 68, the idolatrous worship was destroyed in Azotus (the old Philistine city of Ashdod); cf. the case of Carnaim (v. 44).
(5:40-4) The description of the battle is influenced by i Sam 14:9. v. 43, the city, also known as Ashtaroth Carnaim, was famous because of its temple to Ashtaroth (Astarte). v. 44, the burning of the sacred precincts at Carnaim is the first act of destruction of pagan temples recorded in i Maccbees, but not the last (see i MACC 5:68; 10:83-4; Ant. I2^^4)- Had it been a lone event, it could have been explained as an act of retaliation, but because it was repeated it should be considered as a policy of purification of the holy land from idolatry.
(5:45-51) v. 45 poses the same problems as v. 23. It is unclear how it is to be interpreted: as a proof of Jewish population in Trans Jordan, or as an evacuation of its Jewish minority, v. 46, Ephron is east of the Jordan on the road to Beth-shan. Mentioned in Polybius (5.70), under the name Gephron (note the interchangeability of the Semitic 'ayln into G in the case of 'Aza = Gaza), it did not seem to exist very long, as was the case with some other contemporary settlements in Israel, such as Tel-anafa and Hargarizim. v. 47, we are not told why the inhabitants of Ephron were inimical towards the Jews. It may be guessed that it was a strategic fortified place, maybe with a Seleucid garrison. Anyhow, this passage is modelled after Num 20:14-21. See Dimant (1988: 407). v. 51, the cruel treatment of the people of Ephron recalls the ruling of Deut 20:10—18.
More Wars of Judas (chs. 6-7 J
(6:1—4) On Antiochus' expedition to the east ('the upper provinces') see i MACC 3:27-37. For his attempt on the Temple of Nanaia (Artemis) see Polybius, 31. 9; Appian, n. 6. v. i, the author is mistaken: Elymais was not a city but a country, bordering south-west Persia. 'Persia' is a common anachronism for Parthia, the rising power, which finally swallowed most of the Seleucid provinces east of the Euphrates, v. 2, Alexander is a famous figure also in Jewish legends, but no story about treasures he left in Elymais is mentioned elsewhere, v. 3, 'the city', other sources speak about a temple, v. 4, 'Babylon' seems to be wrong, because other sources tell that Antiochus went to Tabae (should probably be Gabae, modern Isfahan). (6:5^7) This report was, needless to say, written by the author, and represents his view of the situation. A report to the king would not refer to the 'abomination', v. 5, 'someone', probably Menelaus himself. For Menelaus' visit to the king see 2 Mace 11:29,32> and Habicht (1976: n, 14). The author refrains from mentioning either Jason or Menelaus anywhere by name; cf. i MACC 1:11-15. v7> 'abomination', i.e. the 'desolating sacrilege' (slqqus mesomem) of Dan 11:31, and see i MACC 1:54.
(5:52—4) v. 52, 'the large plain', the valley of Jezreel, of which Beth-shan is in the eastern part. 'Beth-shan' is a transcription of the Semitic name of the city, which in Greek was called Scythopolis. In contrast, the city of Acco is called by its Greek name Ptolemais. Beth-shan received the passing Jews in a friendly manner according to 2 Mace 12:30 unlike Ephron, mentioned above. Probably i Maccabees intentionally refrained from recording an act of friendship by Gentiles, v. 53:2, Mace 12:31 tells that the refugees arrived at Jerusalem on the festival of Pentecost.
(6:8—13) Th£ story of Antiochus IV's death follows a common pattern in Jewish literature. The wicked person becomes arrogant (afflicted by hybrls, to use a Gk. term), is punished, repents, and then is either pardoned or condemned. To the first group belong the stories in Dan i—6, and the story of Heliodorus in 2 Mace 3. This belongs to the second group, as
(5:55—64) This passage is a clear indication of the dynastic inclinations of i Maccabees. The disobedience to Judas's instructions is harshly criticized by the author, and he puts forth clearly his conviction that the deliverance of Israel was deposited with Mattathias's family (v. 62). v. 56, for the two commanders see i MACC 5:18. They may have had ambitions of
I MACCABEES 720
Gera (1996) thinks the description is not realistic but influenced by military scenes in Greek literature. Bar-Kochva (1998) opposes this opinion, and thinks that the battle's description is credible.
does the much more elaborate story of Antiochus' death in 2 Mace 9.
(6:14—17) The appointment by Antiochus IV of Philip as regent, either while in full command of his decisions or not, caused turmoil in the Seleucid empire. To this year (148 ES is 165/4 BCE) are dated two royal letters, the first by Antiochus IV, the other by Lysias (cited in 2 Mace 11:27—33; 16—21 respectively). These events alleviated the Seleucid pressure on the rebels, v. 17, Eupator means 'of a good father', the good father being Antiochus IV
(6:42-7) The main theme of this passage is the heroic deed of Eleazar, Judas's brother. His self-sacrifice is in line with Maccabean tactics, trying to kill the enemy's commander (cf. i MACC 3:11—12 and 8:40). The failure of Eleazar to tip the scales of the battle is due not to a lack of courage, but to a wrong guess he made about the whereabouts of the king. Eleazar's death serves as an excuse for Judas's withdrawal, v. 44, 'everlasting name', a typical phrase in i Maccabees, similar to 'honour' (Gk. time or doxa), to describe the reward for heroic death or deeds. Cf. i MACC 9:7-10. (6:48-54) After his victory at Beth-zechariah Lysias turned to besiege Judas and his men in the Temple Mount. He also forced the Jewish garrison of Beth-zur to surrender, an act which the author explains as a result of shortage of food. Judas's position very quickly becomes desperate. Some scholars stress the fact that Judas's name is not mentioned explicitly in this passage, and doubt the adherence of the beseiged to his supporters. This is one of the arguments for the opinion that there were other rebel groups at this stage of the revolt which are ignored by i Mace. v. 49, 'sabbatical year', every seventh year the cultivation of the fields was interrupted according to biblical law (Ex 23:11; Lev 25:3—7). This sabbatical year explains the weakness of Jewish opposition in Beth-zur and the great difficulties in defending Mt. Zion. It seems quite probable indeed that letting the fields lie fallow at the time of war, when many of the farmers were serving in the rebels' ranks, could cause a situation more severe than in a normal sabbatical year, yet it seems that it is also used by the author as an excuse to explain the dire situation of the rebels, v. 52, 'engines of war', their use by the Jews in the siege testifies again to professional elements in Judas's camp (cf. v. 20). v. 53, here an explanation is brought forth as to why the usual preparations for a sabbatical year, such as the storage of provisions in advance, did not help. Yet at the same time it shows the altruistic and brotherly attitude of Judas towards the refugees.
(6:18—27) Th£ siege of the Akra shows that the rebels became stronger in the course of the war. This first attempt was repeated under Jonathan. Capture was achieved finally by Simon (see i MACC 13:50-3). v. 20, 'siege-towers', the use of these and siege-engines shows a professional military knowledge among Judas's followers. It brings to mind the proposals of various scholars that some groups or individuals who had prior military training joined the rebellion. These could have been Jewish veterans of Hellenistic armies, soldiers of the Tobiad troops, or Jewish volunteers from Ptolemaic Egypt, v. 21, in the Akra lived Jewish Hellenizers, probably citizens of the polls Antioch-in-Jerusalem, and soldiers of the Seleucid garrison, w. 22—7, the speech before the king, attributed to the delegation from the Akra, is clearly the work of the author of i Maccabees who had in mind both earlier and later events related to the Hasmonean dynasty, v. 24, 'our inheritances' may refer to the allotments (Heb. nahalot) which were confiscated from the rebels and given to the Hellenizers (see i MACC 7:6). v. 27, cf EZRA 4:12-16. (6:28-31) The decision to renew the war in Judea and the preparations for the expedition are attributed to the 7-year-old king (see i MACC 3:33), but were almost certainly made by Lysias. The numbers of the soldiers are incredible, v. 30, 'elephants', shortly after this war the elephants were destroyed by a Roman delegation (162 BCE), because their use was contrary to the treaty of Apameia concluded between the Romans and Antiochus III, after his defeat at Magnesia in 190 BCE. v. 31, Beth-zur—this time Lysias invades Judea from the south also, probably because he had at his rear the friendly population of the coastal region. The siege of Beth-zur is a new phase in the war, when Judas tries to fight neither in the open field nor by surprise, but from a strategic fortress which he held.
(6:55—63) On the verge of destruction Judas was saved by a turn in the political situation in Syria. Philip appeared in Antioch as the new regent, appointed by Antiochus IV on his deathbed (v. 15). This forced Lysias to return immediately to the capital. The author puts Lysias's decision into a speech attributed to him (w. 57-9). Judas accepted Lysias's conditions, and Lysias left to attend to more urgent business which awaited him at home. v. 57, 'our food supply is scant', it is very probable that the sabbatical year also made difficult the supply of the besieging army, because it would usually live off the country in which it was camping. Yet at the same time the author tries to depict the Syrian army as being forced to evacuate Judea. v. 60, what were the conditions of this peace? If we follow Habicht's (1976) interpretation, that the letter of Antiochus V preceded the surrender of the rebels at this juncture, then it seems that the rebels' sole benefit was that they were let out with immunity from Mt. Zion. v. 61, according to the most simple reading, the Jews left the Temple Mount as a result of the peace conditions. This is strength-
(6:32—41) v. 32, the first achievement of Lysias seems to be that Judas was forced to lift the siege on the Akra. v. 33, Bethzechariah is on the way from Beth-zur to Jerusalem, v. 34, 'juice of grapes', wine was used to excite elephants before battle. Here we should accept the textual proposal 'saturated' instead of'offered' (the elephants) (the two words are similar in Heb.). w. 35—7, the exotic appearance of elephants on the battlefield caused the author to give them the central place in his description, which though dramatic is, generally speaking, plausible, w. 39-42, the description is very embellished but may reflect an authentic impression made by the Seleucid troops, v. 39, 'shields of gold' is an obvious exaggeration; 'ablaze', since the disposition of the army took place in the morning (v. 33) the blazing of the arms may have been more striking because of the sun shining from the east, that is from in front of them. v. 42, 'the clanking of their arms' might have been an intentional noise meant to strike fear in the enemy.
721 I MACCABEES
in Antioch. No wonder, as will be seen below, that the patience of the Seleucid government ran short, till power was transfered to the Hasmoneans, the only ones who were not in need of support, but could even supply troops to their Seleucid overlords.
ened by the fact that later on the temple was not in the rebels' hands. See i MACC 7:33. v. 62, it is hard to say if indeed the king broke his word, or if the author describes the destruction of the wall as a breach of the agreement with the rebels. It seems to me that, as in Beth-zur, the besieged got a free leave from the place and nothing else. By attributing to the king this act the author tries to save the prestige of Judas, who was forced into an almost unconditional surrender. Compare this to the similar blame laid on Antiochus VII when John Hyrcanus surrendered to him (Ant. 13 J 247). v. 63, although the king is the subject here, it was Lysias who got the upper hand against Philip—but not for long.
(7:8—11) v. 8, Bacchides is known only from i & 2 Maccabees; a namesake officer is mentioned in 2 Mace 8:30, but this maybe a coincidence. At this juncture he is the governor of the western part of the Seleucid empire, anachronistically called Beyond the River (feber hannahar), as in the Persian period and in the Bible (see Ezra 4:11). v. 9, Alcimus was probably already appointed high priest by Antiochus V, to replace Menelaus (cf. 2 Mace 14:3), and confirmed by Demetrius I. w. 7:10—11, it is not the only time that peaceful messages are repudiated by Judas (see Nicanor's message to Judas, v. 26). The author tries to present Judas as both a peace-lover and a clever leader who will not let himself fall into a trap. (7:12-18) This is one of the most discussed passages in the book, the issues being whether the Hasideans deserted Judas, what their attitude was towards the revolt, and so on. The common understanding of this passage is that the cancellation of the religious persecution made the Hasideans reluctant to continue the revolt, which from now on was aimed at political, national, or personal achievements. So they were ready to recognize an Aaronide high priest and to end the war. Their fate is a postfactum proof for the author that Judas was right in disbelieving Bacchides' and Alcimus' peaceful overtures. Recently D. R. Schwartz (1994) proposed that i Mace 2:42 should be read differently (ioudaion (Jews) instead ofhasidaion (Hasideans)), because of textual and other considerations. If Schwartz's suggestion is accepted, and it seems convincing, then there is no question of the Hasideans deserting the Maccabean camp, but only of their negotiations with Alcimus and Bacchides, which failed for some unknown reason, w. 12—13, 'Scribes... Hasideans', there seems to be no satisfactory answer to the question of whether these two words are synonymous, or, if not, what the relation is of one group to the other, v. 16, no information is given here or elsewhere as to why these Hasideans were butchered, v. 17 is a citation of Ps 79:2—3 (see Dimant 1988: 390—1).
(7:1-5) Demetrius was the son of Seleucus IV (187-175 BCE). When his father was murdered he was young and was kept as a hostage in Rome, while his uncle Antiochus IV (175—164 BCE), took advantage of the situation and usurped the throne. After the death of Antiochus IV Demetrius tried to get permission from the Roman government to return to Syria to try to regain his ancestral throne. As the Romans were reluctant to let him go, he escaped from Rome. When he arrived in Syria he easily dismissed Lysias and his protege the boy-king Antiochus V, and took over the government. In the first years of his rule, and despite Roman enmity, he succeeded in suppressing various rebellions in the empire, among them the one in Judea. v. i, 151 ES is 162/1 BCE; 'a town by the sea' is Tripolis (cf 2 Mace 14:1).
(7:5-7) i Maccabees does not differentiate any specific groups among the Hellenizers. Yet there were various groups within the Jewish nobility that differed not solely on religious questions, but also on political issues (such as Ptolemaic versus
Seleucid orientation) and social issues (such as power struggles between the leading aristocratic families). In contrast to Jason and Menelaus, who were condemned to damnatio memoriae by i Maccabees, Alcimus is mentioned by name, though very little is told about him (but see below). We do not know his father's name, his priestly tribe, who his supporters were, or their attitude to Menelaus and his policy. Nevertheless it may be guessed that Alcimus did not represent the former Menelaus' party, led probably by the 'house' of Bilga and by what remained of the Tobiads; that he did not support the descration of the Jewish cult (but i see MACC 9:54—7); that he had no pro-Ptolemaic inclination; and that he represented a certain segment of the nobility, who were trying to keep their property in Judea (see v. 6). v. 5, Alcimus may be referred to in a Talmudic story (Gen. Rab., Theodor-Albeck edn., pp. 742—3). There it is told that when Rabbi Yossi ben Yoezer was led to his execution, he was met on the road by his nephew Yakim, who is identified as Alcimus, about whom Josephus told that his Hebrew name was indeed Yakimos (Ant. 12 J 385; 20 J 235). v. 6, 'your Friends' is stressing the pro-Seleucid inclination of Alcimus' party. 'Our land' may stress the main grievance of this group, who felt that their property, acquired rightly or wrongly, is jeopardized (see i MACC 6:24). v. 7, Antiochus IV was looking for a strong pro-Seleucid government in Judea, but he got the opposite. He was forced militarily to support Menelaus, and if Lysias hoped that by replacing him he would have a supportive leadership in Judea, he was wrong again. The new high priest, Alcimus, also could not rule without the active military support of the government
(7:19—20) It seems that Bacchides, on a grand scale, took punitive measures aimed at various groups of the population. v. 19, 'men who had deserted'—why would Bacchides kill deserters who joined him? Perhaps for 'crimes' which he did not forgive. Anyhow Bacchides' punitive expedition was intended to intimidate any potential opposition. (7:21-5) The struggle between Alcimus and his supporters and Judas and his party seems to be now mainly in the countryside outside Jerusalem, where the interests of many of the Judean nobility were in danger. Probably part of the land had once belonged to their opponents, and had been confiscated by the Seleucid authorities and allocated anew to pro-
Seleucid aristocrats, probably citizens of Antioch-in-Jerusalem. Being shut in Jerusalem they could not benefit from their fields, which the rebels tried to regain, v. 25, the opponents of the Maccabees were unable to overcome Judas with their own power, even with some small governmental support. Their constant need of Seleucid help was finally the cause of their desertion by the government in Antioch.
I MACCABEES 722
and which lists the days of joy, on which fasting (Heb. tcfanit) is prohibited). In this work the story and its moral are the same as in i & 2 Mace, but Judas's name is not mentioned.
(7:26-32) When, after Bacchides' repressive activity, Judas resumed attacks on the supporters of Alcimus, again help was needed from the central government. For whatever reasons, the force under Nicanor seems to have been relatively small and insufficient. Nicanor's peaceful message is described as treacherous, either rightly so or as an excuse for Judas, for whom the appointment of Alcimus was unacceptable. It is quite possible thatthe Seleucid government inclined to a peace agreement, as is clear from its policy since the cancellation of the religious persecution. But Judas's demands were unacceptable to it at this stage, though similar conditions were accepted later on, when Jonathan was appointed high priest (see i MACC 10:18-20). But to arrive at such a decision the Seleucids needed about ten years more. v. 26, 'Nicanor', the name is a common one, and various Nicanors are mentioned in i & 2 Maccabees (see Bar-Kochva 1989: 352-3). w. 29-30, it is unclear why, if'the enemy were preparing to kidnap Judas', they did nothing on this occasion, and gave Judas the chance to avoid further meetings with Nicanor. It makes the story about Nicanor's treacherous intentions more apologetic then historic, v. 31, Capharsalama was about 5 miles north-east of Jerusalem, v. 32, nowhere is the number of Nicanor's army given. The number of those who fell in the battle is relatively small, and it seems that Nicanor's force was not a big one. 'The city of David', where the Akra was located. This too shows the limited size of Nicanor's force.
Rome and the Treaty between Rome and the Jews (ch. 8)
Chapter 8 deals with the relations between Rome and Judea in Judas's time. It has three parts: (i) what Judas heard about the Romans, which is probably what was common knowledge in Judea when i Maccabees was written down; (2) the delegation sent by Judas to Rome; (3) the treaty between Rome and the Jews. It raises many important questions: Is the document of the alliance authentic? What does this initiative mean from Judas's point of view? Is he striving now for political independence? How should this Roman intervention in the internal affairs of the Seleucid empire be understood? These and further questions have been profusely dealt with in the scholarly literature (for further bibliography see Gruen 1984: 748-51). (8:1-16) This passage includes some mistakes and provides some clues for its own dating and for that of the whole book. The sources for the information are not known, but it may be guessed that it was brought by Jewish diplomats, who visited Rome quite often from the time of Judas Maccabeus until the end of the rule of John Hyrcanus I. Additional sources could have been Roman propaganda, which either influenced such reports, or found its way somehow to Judea. v. i, 'Judas heard', Judas could not have received the following report because some details in it postdate his time. Nevertheless he was in no way ignorant about Rome. A Roman delegation which passed along the coast of Israel in about the spring of 164 BCE sent a friendly letter to the Jews (2 Mace 11:34-8), probably the rebels under Judas. Also Dan 11:18, 30, written about the same time, or even a little bit earlier, mentions the Romans. So Judas knew enough about Rome to be able to weigh up the situation. 'Pledged friendship', indeed the Romans made many treaties at that period, with both important and small states, and intervened in the internal affairs of independent ones. v. 2, 'Gauls' refers either to the Galatians of Asia Minor, beaten by the Romans in 189 BCE, or to the Gauls of Gallia Cisalpine
(7:33~8) v. 33, 'priests ... elders', these two groups seem to represent a kind of institution or representation of the people, probably the gerousia, which is mentioned in various documents of this period (see i MACC 12:6, 35; 2 Mace 11:27; Ant. 12 1138, and 'elders', as here, at i Mace 13:36). It also shows that the temple and its staff are not under Judas's authority, and it may even be supposed that Alcimus is the chief authority in the temple (a fact, that, even if true, i Maccabees is not expected to tell). Anyhow, we have here a component of Judean society which belongs neither to Judas's followers nor to the Hellenizers. 'Burnt-offering', offerings or prayers for the welfare of foreign rulers of Judea are known well before this period (Ezra 6:11), andafterit (Josephus,J. W 21408—17). v. 34, the reason for the anger of Nicanor is told only after his outburst against the priests (v. 35); 'defiled', probably by spitting.
(modern France). Galatians are also mentioned in 2 Mace 8:20. w. 3—4, Spain was known for its rich silver mines; the Romans began to infiltrate there in the third century BCE and continued to subdue its various tribes after their victory over Carthage; 'kings', since the kings defeated by Rome are mentioned below, it seems here it must refer to Spanish chieftains, who fought against the Romans, v. 5, 'Philip, and king Perseus', Philip was defeated by the Romans in 197 BCE and Perseus, his son, in 168. v. 6, 'Antiochus the Great', Antiochus III (223—187 BCE) was beaten by the Romans in the battle of Magnesia, in Asia Minor, in 190 BCE. This defeat accelerated the disintegration of the Seleucid empire, w. 7-8, the details here are wrong. Antiochus III was not taken captive, though the rest of v. 7 is correct. Antiochus was obliged to pay a huge amount of money as war indemnities, and to give hostages, and he lost all the territories held by the Seleucids in Asia Minor, west of the Taurus mountains. 'Eumenes', the closest ally of Rome in this war and a winner at the expense of the Seleucids, but India and Media had nothing to do with either the Romans or Eumenes. w. 9-10, this war against the Greeks
(7:39-50) v. 39, Beth-horon, see i MACC 3:16; 'the Syrian army', its arrival shows again that up to now Nicanor's army was small, and the size of this reinforcement was probably also limited, and composed of local recruitments. Even the name of their commander is not mentioned, v. 40, Adasa is located between Beth-horon and Jerusalem, w. 41-2, as in other cases the author brings historical precedents to encourage the people, i.e. his readers. Here he refers to Sennacherib, king of Assyria, as a very suitable antecedent, v. 43, 'first to fall in the battle', attacking the commander was an effective tactic pursued by Judas (cf i MACC 3:11—12). 'On the thirteenth day', see v. 49. The year is 161 BCE. w. 44—6, the victory of Judas was complete and Nicanor's army was routed. The description of their debacle is vivid, and may be realistic, v. 47, for Nicanor's fate cf. 2 Mace 15:30-5. v. 49, 'the thirteenth day of Adar', see also 2 Mace 15:36. This day is included in Megilla Ta'anit (a tannaitic work which preceded the Mishna,
723 I MACCABEES
translations, from the Latin original into Greek, then to Hebrew (the original version of i Maccabees), then back to Greek (the surviving Gk. translation), v. 23, this opening formula is common in documents of this kind. v. 24, parallel and equal stipulations on both sides (cf. v. 27) were also a convention in this kind of treaty, though the difference in political and military importance between them was tremendous. This convention is best seen in the treaty between Rome and Astypalaea, a small city in the Aegean (see Sherk 1969: no. 16, 94—9). v. 26, 'ships', a convention, as the Jews had neither a harbour nor any exit to the open sea. v. 28, 'without deceit', probably a translation of the Latin formula, sine dolo malo. v. 30, this permission to introduce changes to the terms is common in such treaties.
is probably the Achaean war, which terminated with the destruction of Corinth in 146 BCE. If this is so, then it postdates Judas. It is somewhat astonishing to note the positive attitude of the author towards Roman brutality, especially when contrasted to the critical and negative stance of the Dead Sea sectarians (Pesher on Habakkuk (iQpHab), e.g. 3:5—6; 6:6—8, 10—12, etc.). w. 11—12, this sounds almost like a slogan of Roman propaganda, cf. Virgil, Aentid, 6. 853: 'to be merciful to the conquered and beat the haughty down' (tr. J. W. Mackail). v. 13, there are various cases in which the Romans interfered in the inheritance of thrones in eastern kingdoms, w. 14-16, some commentators suggest that the admiration for the non-royalist character of the Roman constitution is directed against royalist inclination, or actual kingship, in the Hasmonean court. I think that it is simply a factual description of the Roman constitution, with admiration and a focus on what was extraordinary in it, in the eyes of one who was used to the Hellenistic monarchies of his day. 'Purple' was a sign of royalty, but could be worn by various dignitaries in the Hellenistic courts, as also by Simon (see i MACC 14:43-4). The number of senators at that time was 300. At v. 16 we find a surprising mistake by the author of i Maccabees, in his description of the Roman constitution; he does not know about the system of two consuls, and thinks that there is only one at a time.
(8:31—2) These verses clearly do not form part of the treaty. They might be a part of an accompanying letter, or oral information brought by the envoys. In any case either Demetrius ignored the message, or it arrived too late to save Judas, or, indeed, it restrained Demetrius from taking extremely harsh measures after Judas's defeat (see i MACC 9:19-22).
The Last Stand of Judas (9:1-22)
(9:1—4) Again the Seleucid government is forced to send a considerable army to put down the revolt. Small reinforcements and local recruits do not suffice, v. i, 'the right wing', inexplicable as it stands. For the proper meaning see at v. 12. Dancy (1954: 131) explains it as a gloss, to which explanation Bar-Kochva (1989: 382) also adheres, v. 2 poses great historiogeographical problems. The reading arbdois is certain, and is usually taken to be Arbela in eastern Galilee, overlooking the
(8:17-22) v. 17, 'Eupolemus ... Jason', the envoys bear Greek names, as was fashionable among the Hellenizers (cf. to Jason, Lysimachus, Menelaus, mentioned in 2 Maccabees, and Alcimus). Their fathers' names, John (i.e. Yohanan) and Eleazar, are purely Hebrew, which shows that before their generation this custom was not yet fashionable, and that, unlike their fathers, their grandfathers gave Hebrew names to their children. Both were priests: Eupolemus was of the Accos family, a distinguished priestly clan. His father was active in foreign affairs at the time of Antiochus III (see 2 Mace 4:11). Jason was also, very probably, a priest, because his father's name Eleazar was common among priests in the Second Temple period. Their names show some Hellenistic colouring; their mission necessitated at least some knowledge of Greek, international politics, and worldly affairs. So through them we know that Judas had support not only among Judean farmers and shepherds, but also among the Jewish nobility, who may have been to some degree Hellenized, but were not of the Hellenizers' party. Some think that Eupolemus is the author of'On the Kings of Judea', see Holladay (1983: 93-156; ABD s.v).
Sea of Galilee, which argues that there was a Jewish population in Galilee before its conquest by the Hasmoneans. But then what is the connection of Arbela with the road to Gilgal
(further south on the Jordan)? Bar-Kochva (1989: 383-4, 5529), proposes that the translator wrongly transcribed har (mountain) bet-el in the Hebrew original into Arbelois, and he locates Har Beth-el west of Gilgal and north of Jerusalem. Mesaloth is probably not a place-name but a Hebrew word mesalot, meaning 'trails', v. 3, the date is about April/May 160. v. 4, various readings and locations have been proposed for Berea; Josephus thought it was Beer-zaith (Ant. 12 § 422). The numbers of Bacchides' soldiers are acceptable to many scholars. (9:5^7) Judas's camp is small from the beginning (3,000) and dwindles to 800 soldiers, which are hardly sufficient to oppose Bacchides' powerful army. Some explain this as a reaction of many who, having fought with Judas from religious motives, now deserted him, feeling that the war was becoming more and more political and national in character. BarKochva (1989: 388-9) suggests that the final small number given by the author is an excuse for Judas's defeat. (9:7-10) Judas decided to go to battle to keep his 'honour' (Gk. doxa) intact. When the author makes him speak about dying bravely, there is no mention of afterlife or of any reward but honour. See i MACC c.3. Also rare in i Maccabees is the
'Friendship and alliance', a common Roman terminology; the allies of Rome are often called 'allies and friends' (Lat.: socii et amid), v. 18, the author of i Maccabees thought, and may have been right, that Judas was already aiming at full political independence at this stage of the rebellion, v. 20, 'alliance and peace', an awkward expression, because there was peace between Judea and Rome. 'Friendship' might have been more suitable here (see v. 17). v. 21, this is the first authentic document cited in i Maccabees, and see i MACC 0.2(1). The original text, perhaps in Latin, was kept on bronze tablets in Rome.
spirit of resignation on Judas's part, which reflects the author's attempt to cope with the death of his hero, a problem which the author, or epitomizer, of 2 Maccabees avoided by
(8:23—30) The majority of scholars today accept the authenticity of this document. Its oddities are explained by the various
I MACCABEES 724
party, v. 33, Tekoa and Asphar are in the wilderness of Judea, south-east of Bethlehem, v. 34, 'sabbath day.. .crossed the Jordan', probably there is here some conflation with v. 43. (9:35-42) This passage gives a good idea of the situation ofthe rebels at this time. They were forced to fight for their lives at the outskirts of the inhabited land, being supported by the Nabateans, who were already on friendly terms with them (5:25), but were ambushed by another tribe, who took advantage ofthe unstable conditions in the area (cf. 5:4-5, 35). v. 36, 'family of Jambri', an Arab tribe, acting independently ofthe Nabateans, though living at Medaba, near the Nabatean territory. See Kasher (1988: 34-5). v. 37, 'Canaan', see i MACC D.I. The location of Nadabath is unknown but must be in the approximate area of biblical Moab.
ending his book before the defeat of Judas, with his victory over Nicanor.
(9:11—18) The description of the last battle of Judas is detailed. Bar-Kochva (1989: 64), who assumes its authenticity, thinks that it shows that Judas must have had a larger army, because it would have been impossible for him to accomplish what is described here with only 800 men. Shatzman (1991:19 n. 42) suggests that the description is more literary than actual, v. 14, it may be that Judas's attack on the right flank, where Bacchides himself had been, was in accordance with his tactics, aiming to hit at the commander of the enemy, v. 15, 'Mount Azotus', no mountain of this name is known and many commentators accept a textual correction, based on an assumed mistranslation of the lost Hebrew original ('dsedot-hahar), which should be translated 'the slopes of the mountain'.
(9:43—9) Jonathan's dire position is clear. His encampment near the Jordan was probably intended to enable him to escape to the other side ofthe river when in danger, as indeed came to pass. v. 43 is a repeat of v. 34, and resumes the story, interrupted by the sons of Jambri incident, which for some reason was inserted here. 'Sabbath', this detail points to Bacchides' ignorance of Mattathias's decision to fight on the sabbath (see 2:40), which is not very probable. In any case it casts him in a negative light, as one who despises the Jewish religious ordinances and tries to take advantage of them. v. 47, the battle itself is a kind of a skirmish. Jonathan tried to repeat Judas's tactics, and to kill the commander ofthe enemy, Bacchides— as Judas had done to Apollonius (3:11—12) and Nicanor (7:44—5, 47). Though he failed, it shows that, like Judas, Jonathan took part personally in battle, an activity which is not recorded about Simon, and which may explain the preference given to Judas and Jonathan as leaders ofthe revolt.
(9:19—22) Taking Judas's body for burial could have been done either some time after the battle, when the enemy left the scene, or under truce. Some scholars think that a truce was indeed granted by the Syrians, because of the Jewish treaty with Rome. v. 19, Modein was where the family property was located, and where its mausoleum was later built by Simon
(13:25-30). v. 21, this dirge is reminiscent of 2 Sam 1:19. v. 22, 'the rest of the acts of Judas ... have not been recorded' is a phrase often repeated, in a positive form, in Kings (e.g. i Kings 11:41). It seems then that the author of i Maccabees did not have any written sources for Judas's acts.
The First Years of Jonathan (9:23-10:17)
(9:23—7) The extremely sombre situation is a suitable background for the difficult and slow reorganization of the revolt under Jonathan.
v. 23, 'renegades... wrongdoers', all opposition to the Hasmoneans is encompassed in one package, without differentiating the various groups which composed it. v. 24, 'famine' might be connected with the sabbatical year that preceded (see 6:49,53) and with the continuous war. As Bacchides now ruled the country he could have control of the agricultural produce, and through it dominate the population outside Jerusalem. We assume that the fortresses built by him were also intended to achieve this aim (w. 50—2). v. 25, 'the godless', cf v. 23. The word might also reflect the effort of some groups of the nobility to regain or take over land which changed hands in the course of the revolt, v. 27, see i MACC 4:46,14:41; Ps 74:9. (9:28-31) The election of Jonathan to lead the revolt raises some questions. He was the youngest among the five sons of Mattathias, and so we must assume that militarily he was the fittest for the task among them. The same consideration was valid for Judas's election after Mattathias's death, as he was also younger than John and Simon, but he may have been Mattathias's choice, and now an assembly of the rebels elected his successor. The election of Jonathan also demonstrates that the senior position given to Simon in Mattathias's testament