Part 70
(9:50—3) Bacchides' decision to build fortresses in strategic locations in Judea is the most serious attempt to rule over the Judean countryside, and shows that Bacchides and Alcimus understood well that a basis of power in Jerusalem alone was not sufficient to rule Judea as a whole. The hard core of the revolt was in the land, the chora of Antioch-in-Jerusalem and the presence of armed forces was necessary to dominate Judea. For the location of the various fortresses see Galil (1992). v. 52, 'stores of food', storing food, which in part at least came as taxes in kind, in royal fortresses helped the government to subdue the population, because it was dependent on those food reserves, especially in years of shortage, like the present time (see v. 24). And see Rappaport, Pastor, and Rimon (1994). Also cf. i MACC 13:33. v. 53, 'hostages', this may indicate that the local aristocracy outside Jerusalem was not trusted by the Seleucid government, and was suspected of supporting the Hasmoneans. (9:54^7) The motivation of Alcimus to destroy the wall ofthe inner court is not clear. Was it an architectural enterprise described by i Maccabees as sacrilege, to blacken Alcimus, or was it a meaningful ideological step, intended to open to the view of all, including Gentiles, the cultic performances in the temple? For an ideological interpretation see Schmidt (1994: 98-9). v. 54,153 ES is 159 BCE, and the second month is about May. w. 55-6, the illness (probably a stroke) and death of Alcimus are interpreted as a divine punishment, which put an end to his sacrilegious plan. v. 57, Bacchides' return to Syria after Alcimus' death shows that his arrangements were
(2:65—6) above does not reflect the actual situation at that time. As for the legal aspects of Jonathan's appointment, it seems to be irregular: the electing body consisted of the warriors who were present at this point in the camp, and they must have been few in number.
(9:32—4) The major achievement of Jonathan in an almost desperate situation was the mere survival of the Hasmonean
725 I MACCABEES
people', a biblical phrase, common in the book of Judges. It associates with the judges of old, and is in line with the style of i Maccabees in general. 'Destroyed the godless', the internal war goes on, though now, without Seleucid support, the liquidation of the aristocratic opposition to the Hasmoneans arrives at its almost final stage.
efficient, and kept the country quiet for two years (approximately from mid-159 BCE to mid-157 BCE). The author of i Maccabees does not inform us about the arrangements which took place after Alcimus' death. Was there a intersacerdotium period of about seven years (from 159 to the appointment of Jonathan in 152 BCE (see 10:20))? Or was there a high priest, whose name and very existence are concealed by i Maccabees for political reasons? And if there was no high priest for such a long period, how did the temple function?
(Ch. 10) The agreement between Jonathan and Bacchides made Jonathan the one who could supply military reinforcements to contending Seleucid pretenders in their internecine wars. The opportunity to exploit Seleucid difficulties for his own aggrandizement came when Demetrius I was challenged by a certain Alexander, who pretended to be Antiochus IV's son. The threat to his rule incited Demetrius to look for support wherever he could get it. To prevent Jonathan from joining Alexander, Demetrius made friendly overtures to him.
Josephus, when he lists the high priests from beginning to end, mentions a vacancy of seven years between the death of Alcimus (Jacimus in the text there, Ant. 20 § 237) and Jonathan's appointment to the high-priesthood. Most commentators follow this statement of Josephus, which is in accordance with i Maccabees. In Ant. 12 ff 414, 419, 434, Josephus gives contradictory information, probably wrong. This vacuum in our information has tempted some scholars to propose that the Teacher of Righteousness mentioned in the Dead Sea scrolls was the high priest in these years. Needless to say, no proof can be posited for this ingenious proposal.
J> I^° Es is J52 BCE- 'Alexander Epiphanes', many ancient sources and most contemporary scholars reject an affiliation between Alexander and Antiochus IV. He was put forward as Antiochus IV's son by the enemies of Demetrius, who utilized for their aim a certain outward similarity between him and Antiochus V, who was a real son of Antiochus IV Alexander is known by his nickname Balas, the meaning and origin of which is not clear. This nickname is never used in i Maccabees. Ptolemais was an important harbour west of Galilee, which became at this period a kind of secondary capital, and served as a base for the invasion of Alexander into Demetrius' realm. On Ptolemais see i MACC 5:15. v. 6, the permission to raise and to equip an army was intended to encourage Jonathan to render support to Demetrius in the war against Alexander, w. 7-11, Jonathan took full advantage of Demetrius' gestures to strengthen his position. The release of the hostages increased his support by various families; he left Michmash and turned Jerusalem into his seat, fortifying the city and the Temple Mount, v. 12, 'fled', actually the withdrawal of most of the Seleucid garrisons from Judea was part of the preparations for the war with Alexander. Their withdrawal made Jonathan the uncontested master of the Judean countryside, v. 14, the remaining forces, in the Akra and Beth-zur, were composed of both Syrian soldiers and Jews, the remnants of the once powerful nobility.
(10:1—14) v-
See Murphy O'Connor (1976). (9:58-61) The enemies of the Hasmoneans initiated a new attempt to get rid of Jonathan. Their dependence on Seleucid help against the Hasmoneans finally brought about their abandonment by the government, because they became an unbearable burden to it. In spite of what is said about the large force Bacchides assembled, it looks like a limited military operation, the success of which depended mainly on secrecy, v. 61, 'men of the country', it seems that Bacchides was successful in installing (or reinstalling) the pro-Seleucid nobility to their lands in the country, and now Jonathan was trying to undo it. The main struggle took place in the countryside, as in the beginning of the revolt.
(9:62—9) When his plan for a surprise attack failed, Bacchides tried to crush Jonathan in his base in the desert. Clearly he did not muster a big force, and probably the king could not spare great forces for a small war in Judea because of more serious preoccupations, v. 62, Bethbasi is between Jerusalem and Tekoa, not far from Bethlehem. Bacchides' co-operation with his local allies, which did not bring any valuable results, finally led to a reversal of Seleucid policy in Judea. v. 66, 'Odomera... Phasiron' are unknown Arabic tribes. Jonathan is again involved in skirmishes with the nomads, or seminomads ('in their tents' here), near the scene of battle, w. 678, Bacchides is unable to face the attack on both sides, though performed by a small force (v. 65, Jonathan 'went with only a few men'). Despite the text ('he was crushed by them'), it is clear that he was forced only to give up the siege, v. 69, Bacchides' rage and frustration were turned now against the 'renegades', who called him but did not deliver any valuable goods for the Seleucid government. It is reminiscent in a way of Lysias's reaction towards Menelaus.
(10:15—17) The great opportunity for Jonathan came when Alexander tried to draw him to his side. Jonathan accepted his proposal to appoint him high priest. It meant the achievement of the highest position in Judea, equal to princely or even royal status, though under Seleucid suzerainty. It surpassed by far Demetrius' proposals, of which Jonathan had already made use. Jonathan's support of Alexander had various goals: to achieve national aims through his own personal advancement; to obtain the high-priesthood; to co-operate with Rome and the Ptolemies (and perhaps also other states) for the weakening of the Seleucids. This last target was already adopted by Judas and was in line with Ptolemaic interests. It was a policy developed constantly by Jonathan, by Simon, and by John Hyrcanus, until Alexander Janneus. For Janneus' change of policy see Rappaport (1968).
(9:70—3) The relations between the Seleucids, represented by Bacchides, and the Hasmoneans are now reversed. Whatever remained of the former Judean nobility, it was almost ignored by the Seleucid government. Jonathan gradually became the real representative of the Seleucids in Judea, and the agreement with Bacchides was the first step in this direction, v. 73, Michmash is eight miles north of Jerusalem; 'to judge the
Jonathan, High Priest and Ruler of Judea (10:18-12:53)
(10:18—20) This is the first document, beside the treaty with Rome, that is cited in i Maccabees. On documents see i MACC
I MACCABEES 726
on Samaria, and the mention of Galilee is either a mistake in the Hebrew original or a mistake by the translator (galil in Heb. means 'district', and this may have caused confusion), w. 31-2, the complete cancellation of taxation and the evacuation of the Akra were achieved only in Simon's days (see 13:39). The inclusion of these privileges already in a document from Demetrius I's time makes the authenticity of the document suspicious, though those who believe in its authenticity claim that his desperate situation could have brought him to such extreme concessions, v. 33, the release of captives is a common stipulation in post-war arrangements, cf Josephus, Ant. 12 § 144. A tax on cattle is well-known, but mention here seems out of place, belonging better in w. 29 or 30.
0.2(1). The appointment of Jonathan as high priest was a new starting-point for the house of Mattathias, on his way to hegemony over Judea. Yet it aroused criticism from various quarters. It is similar, from a legal point of view, to the appointment of Jason and Menelaus by Antiochus IV, and of Alcimus by Antiochus V, and not in accordance with the laws of the Torah and the traditional inheritance of the high-priesthood by the house of Zadok. It is also quite possible that there were still in Judea supporters of the Zadokite Oniad family, and there may have been others who doubted the moral quality of Jonathan to serve as high priest. It is no wonder then that some Qumranic scholars see Jonathan as the one who is called in the Dead Sea scrolls the Wicked Priest. Cf. i MACC 9:57. v. 20, 'king's Friend', Jonathan was the first Hasmonean to be a Friend (Gk. philos), a hierarchical rank in Hellenistic courts. 'He also sent him... crown', this sentence is not part of the letter, because it is not in direct speech as is the rest; 'purple robe and a golden crown', both were symbols of royalty or high rank, and under various regimes their use was restricted to privileged persons. See Rheinold
w. 34—5, the exemption of the Jews from any disturbance on their holidays is quite understandable, but what are the three days before and after, and why is it declared for the whole kingdom? The three days are explained as the time necessary for a journey to Jerusalem (probably from other districts, because in Judea no more than one day was necessary for such a trip). But the exemption to all the Jews of Demetrius' kingdom is incomprehensible. See Wise (1990). w. 36-7, on the one hand this passage fits well with the need of Demetrius to muster whatever military support he can get, on the other hand the number of 30,000 seems to be far beyond the manpower potential of Judea. Generally speaking the conditions of service proposed to those who register are within the norms of Hellenistic military customs. The Jews often served as mercenaries in Persian and Hellenistic armies, see Shatzman (1991: 14, 17-18, with further lit.), v. 38, the three districts were mentioned in v. 30 in relation to the removal of taxation. Here the king allows them to be annexed to Judea. The high priest is mentioned here, but not his name. v. 39, the annexation of Ptolemais to Judea and its being granted to the temple is either an absurd or a cunning move by Demetrius to incite Jonathan to attack the city, which served as a temporary capital for his adversary, Alexander. On this city see i MACC 10:1. v. 40, royal contributions to temples were common, and we know of such donations given to the Jerusalem temple. See Ezra 6:5; 8:9—10; 7:20; Ant. 12 1138; 2 Mace 3:2—3. w. 41—2, the details of this account are not clear, yet it seems to be intended to regulate, and add important sums of money to, the temple treasury, which was probably in bad shape after the troubles of the last two decades or more. v. 43, this is reminiscent of the asylia, granted to temples and cities by Hellenistic kings. In this case it is limited to debts to the government, w. 44-5, there are precedents for subsidies by the king to various building projects, as for example by Cyrus (Ezra 6:4) and Darius (Ezra 6:8), and by Antiochus III (Ant. 12 § 141).
(1970).
(10:21-4) v2I> Z6o ES is 152 BCE. Jonathan begins to perform as high priest on Sukkoth (the Feast of Tabernacles or Booths) of that year. w. 22—4, the disappointment of Demetrius provides an explanation of his letter cited below.
(10:25—45) The authenticity of this long letter is doubtful according to various scholars. Those who accept it explain the difficulties as problems of textual transmission, v. 25, the opening of Demetrius' letter is more formal and less personal than Alexander's letter (v. 18). Jonathan is not mentioned by name, which is strange in a letter which tries to convince Jonathan to join Demetrius, w. 26-8, the contents of these verses are blatantly untrue, but may serve Demetrius' effort to draw Jonathan to his side. v. 29, 'all the Jews', is this to be understood as an exemption of all the Jews in the Seleucid empire, as some commentators think? It seems unreasonable from a Seleucid point of view and irrelevant for Jonathan. It may refer to all those who are within Jonathan's jurisdiction, or at most to those in the land of Israel.
These three categories of tax are known in the Seleucid empire: tribute (Gk. pi. phoroi) was an annual payment by communities and may refer here to taxes in general; tax on salt, a vital product for conservation of food; and the crown (Gk. Stephanos) tax, which from a voluntary donation on the crowning of a new king became a permanent tax. v. 30, 'third of the grain... half of the fruit', this is a very high rate, especially when we consider the relatively low fertility of the land of Judea. Some scholars suppose that it was not the usual rate of taxation, but a punitive measure imposed on Judea because of the revolt. See M0rkholm (1989: 285). The three districts—Aphairema, Lydda, and Ramathaim—are mentioned in 11:34. They were populated mainly by Jews. Modein itself was in the district of Lydda. It is evident that the administrative division of the land did not suit its ethnic division. It is not at all clear when and why these districts were transferred from Judea to Samaria, but be that as it may, they were annexed to Judea by Jonathan's days, and it seems that de facto they were already in Jewish hands and under Hasmonean influence. 'Samaria and Galilee', the three districts bordered
(10:46-7) This explanation is right, but not full. For additional reasons see w. 15-17.
(10:48-58) About the international political activity involved in these affairs see Gruen (1984: ii. 585-6, 666-8, 709-11). w. 51—4, the support Alexander got from Ptolemy VI Philometor and other rulers, with Roman tacit encouragement, is omitted here. The message of Alexander's ambassadors is given in direct speech, as quite often in i Maccabees, but it cannot be taken as authentic. The same is true of Ptolemy's reply, v. 57, on the importance of Ptolemais see i MACC 5:15; 10:1, 39.
727 I MACCABEES
greater benefits. A 'golden buckle' was a symbol of honour in the hierarchic Seleucid order. Ekron was formerly a Philistine city. Probably it was a royal domain (Gk. ge basilike), which was given to Jonathan as a present (Gk. ge en dorea). This is the first known territorial annexation to Judea, seemingly under personal title.
(10:59-66) v. 60, Jonathan's meeting with the two kings cemented his participation in the pro-Roman coalition, which included Ptolemaic Egypt, the Attalids, and in this case also Alexander. Yet the pomp and presents of Jonathan remind one of the Tobiads' relations with the Ptolemaic court in the third century BCE, and show Jonathan's urge to take part in political affairs, v. 61, 'malcontents ... renegades', we do not know who these opponents of Jonathan were. Cf i MACC 15:21. w. 62-4, the description of the change in Jonathan's position is reminiscent of that of Mordecai in Esth 6:6—9. v- ^5> 'chief Friends', the Greek is protoi philoi, 'first friends', a rank above Friends.
(11:1—12) This passage discusses mainly the relations between the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. In it Ptolemy VI is the bad guy and Alexander the good one. But we should be cautious regarding the author of i Maccabees, who manifests a great sympathy towards Alexander, v. i, 'like the sand by the seashore', a biblical expression, cf. e.g. Gen 22:17; 'ty trickery', i Maccabees attributes to Ptolemy sly intentions (see also v. 8), yet it is doubtful if Ptolemy thought it feasible to annex the
See i MACC 10:20. 'general and governor', Greek strategos and meridarches. The second office is known mainly as a Ptolemaic one, and may show a persistence of Ptolemaic terminology in Israel or the strong Ptolemaic influence on Alexander, who was, to some extent, a vassal of Ptolemy VI; or it may be a usage of a translator familiar with Ptolemaic terms (especially so if we suppose that the translation was made in Egypt). The area entrusted to Jonathan is not specified, so that it is reasonable to assume that it was Judea. Later on Jonathan and Simon were appointed as governors of some additional regions. (10:67-9) In I47 BCE ^e war between the two branches of the Seleucid dynasty was resumed. The branch of Seleucus IV is represented now by his grandson Demetrius II. v. 69, Apollonius cannot be identified, because it is a very common name. He represents Demetrius against Jonathan, a supporter of Alexander, his adversary.
Seleucid empire without incurring a collision with Rome, and more so at such an early stage of his intervention in Syria, v. 2, it seems that at this stage Alexander was friendly towards Ptolemy, v. 3, 'stationed forces as a garrison' may show that Ptolemy had in mind the reannexation of southern Syria to the Ptolemaic empire, w. 4-7, Jonathan's position was strong enough to sustain the blame of the people of Azotus, and Ptolemy was not yet, at least openly, an enemy of Alexander. The Eleutherus was a river north of Tripolis, in what is now Lebanon, v. 8, Seleucia in Pieria was the harbour of Antioch, at the mouth of the river Orontes. w. 9-12, Ptolemy transferred his support from Alexander to Demetrius, perhaps because of the feeble and weak personality of Alexander, or, conversely, his refusal to give up southern Syria to Ptolemy. In any case, neither was very popular, and Ptolemy was acclaimed by the Antiochians. It should also be remembered that Ptolemy had
(10:70—3) The message of Apollonius is a literary invention by the author of i Maccabees or one of his sources. Yet it stresses some interesting points, v. 71, 'come down to the plain', the Jewish forces were well-adapted to fight in the mountainous area of Judea, but deficient in the plain, where the Seleucid forces could use their phalanx and cavalry. The readiness of Jonathan to descend to the plain is a turning-point in Hasmonean warfare, and shows the considerable development of the Jewish army (see Shatzman 1991: 12). The 'power of the cities', Apollonius' force included, or was mainly composed of, the poltis' militia. These Hellenistic cities were inimical to the Hasmoneans, and lent their support to Apollonius against Jonathan.
Seleucid blood in his veins, through his mother, Cleopatra I, daughter of Antiochus III the Great. (11:13-19) v. 13, it is not credible that Ptolemy made himself king of the Seleucid empire, as he never deposed Demetrius II. According to Josephus (Ant. 13 ff 113—15) and Diodorus (32. 39c), the crown was offered to him, but refused. 'Asia' is a nonofficial term for the Seleucid empire (cf. i Mace 8:6; 12:39; 13:32). v. 17, Zabdiel was an Arab chieftain in the Syrian desert, called Arabia in v. 16. With the decline of the Seleucid empire, Arab tribes became important all along the fertile crescent. Zabdiel had a Greek name too: Diocles (ABD s.v. no. 3,1031-2, and see i MACC 11:39; I2:3i). v. 18, 'Ptolemy died', he was wounded in the battle against Alexander and died after three days. v. 19, the year 167 ES is 146/5 BCE.
(10:74—85) For this important battle see Bar-Kochva (1975; 1989: 76—81); Shatzman (1991:19, 23, 311). v. 75, Joppa was an important harbour and the main sea-route out of Judea. v. 77, Azotus was formerly one of the five Philistine cities, and now served as a base for Apollonius. v. 83, 'Beth-dagon' means the house of Dagon, a god whose identity is somewhat unclear. It was once thought to be derived from the Semitic root d-g
(11:20—9) Jonathan appears as an assertive and astute politician, who used brinkmanship in his negotiations with Demetrius II (esp. v. 23). v. 20, 'engines of war' shows the professional and technological advancement of the Hasmonean army. See i MACC 6:20, 52. v. 21, 'renegades', despite its constant failure there remained a hard core of Jewish opposition to Jonathan. The motivation of his opponents is not known, v. 23, three acts of Jonathan are listed here: continuation of the siege of the Akra; choosing of elders and priests; risking his own life by going to Ptolemais. Many commentators follow Josephus (Ant. 135124), and assume that the elders and priests went with Jonathan to Ptolemais. It seems to me more probable that they compose the gerousia, which Jonathan left in charge of the siege and the state's business, and which is mentioned in various documents, cited below.
(fish), but a derivation from root d-g-n (corn) seems preferable, w. 84—5, the motivation for this cruel act is not clear. It may have been a savage revenge for the evildoings perpetrated on the Jews in earlier times, or, as sometimes understood, an attempt to clean the holy land from idolatry (cf. i Mace 5:44). (10:86-9) v86, Askalon was the only city towards which the Hasmoneans were friendly, because of the strong Ptolemaic influence on it; this caused it to be immune to Hasmonean expansionist policy, w. 88-9, the difficult situation of Alexander because of Demetrius II's success in gaining support from within and without his kingdom made Jonathan's alliance even more importantto him, and he poured on him even
I MACCABEES 728
(11:54—9) The most natural step for Jonathan was to renew his alliance with the son of Alexander, the child Antiochus VI, who was now under the tutelage of Trypho. This branch of the
v. 25, see v. 21. w. 26-7, the reinstallation of Jonathan shows his strong position and the weak position of Demetrius at this time. v. 28, waiving of taxes in return for one sizeable instalment was agreed upon by Demetrius II in Simon's days. See 13:37; 'three districts', see v. 34 and i MACC 10:30. (11:30-7) This letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan contains many characteristics of a genuine Seleucid royal letter. From this aspect it is different from the letter of Demetrius I to Jonathan (10:25-45), which is considered by some scholars to be a forgery, probably influenced by this genuine letter, v. 30, the opening formula is regular, and contains both the ruler and the people, as is true from now on in similar documents (e.g. 15:2). v. 31, 'copy', it was a regular chancellery rule to send copies of relevant orders to various functionaries, and to other interested parties (cf Ant. 12 ff 138—44). Lasthenes was from Crete, a leader of mercenaries who became prime minister to Demetrius II (Diodoros, 33.4.1). He is ranked as 'kinsman' and 'father' (v. 32), in line with the Seleucid hierarchic order (see ABD s.v). v. 34, 'Aphairema and Lydda and Rathamin'—see i MACC 10:30. 'To all those who offer sacrifice in Jerusalem' differentiates between Jews and Samaritans, who offer sacrifice on Mt. Gerizim (see Rappaport (19950). v. 37, putting important documents in public places was common, and the Temple Mount was such a place. Cf. 14:48.
Seleucids was his reliable ally in Alexander's days. v. 54, despite Trypho's success Demetrius was able to keep some bases in the kingdom. For the chronology and division of the
Seleucid empire at this time see Houghton (1992). w. 57—8, Antiochus VI confirms to Jonathan what was given to him by his father, Alexander. There is no mention of the evacuation of the Akra here, which means that Trypho refused to give up the last vestiges of Seleucid sovereignty in Judea. v. 59, 'from the Ladder of Tyre to the borders of Egypt', the appointment of Simon as a governor of the Paralia (Gk. 'the coastal plain'), shows the relative great importance of the Hasmoneans in Seleucid politics, and their progress and involvement in it. Jonathan was already a strategos (10:65), though the area under his control is not defined. The Paralia was one of the subdivisions of southern Syria, and some other governors of it are known (see 15:38; 2 Mace 13:24). The idea behind this appointment was to encourage Simon and Jonathan to take control of this area from Demetrius II's supporters.
(11:60-74) Two fronts now confronted Jonathan and Simon. Jonathan was fighting against Demetrius' supporters in the north and on the southern coastal plain and Simon against Beth-zur in Judea. v. 60, 'beyond the river', see i MACC 7:8; 'the army of Syria', the Syrian army, which supported Antiochus VI, joined Jonathan against Demetrius. Askalon sided with Jonathan as before (cf. 10:86). w. 61—2, Gaza participated in the eastern commerce of luxuries in co-operation with the Nabateans and in competition with the Ptolemies. On Askalon and Gaza see Rappaport (1970). Damascus was the most important city in southern Syria. Jonathan's arrival there shows his involvement in matters and areas not related to Jewish interests, v. 63, Kadesh was a city in northern Galilee, in the territory of Tyre, which supported Demetrius II. v. 64, the two brothers are not fighting in their respective provinces, and it seems that their activity is functional, v. 65, Beth-zur was the second most important Seleucid base in Judea after the Akra. With its conquest the Akra remained the last Seleucid fortress in Judea. v. 67, 'waters of Gennesaret', the Sea of Galilee. Hazor was in upper Galilee, a city well-known in biblical times (Josh 11:1). v. 70, we do not know anything else about these two officers. The mention of Jewish individuals, other than the Maccabees, is relatively rare in this book. v. 71, here Jonathan's courage and piety are exemplified, as well as the importance of divine help. Yet divine help is not miraculous, but through human acts, that is, through Jonathan's bravery and the return of his men to the battlefield; cf. also 9:47.
(11:38—40) v. 38, Demetrius decided to release the regular Seleucid troops, who were recruited from among the military settlers in Seleucis, in northern Syria, either because of pecuniary considerations, or because their fidelity to him was questionable. This aroused the enmity of the core of the Seleucid army, and pushed it to support the rival Seleucid branch of Alexander (issued from Antiochus IV). 'Recruited from the islands of the nations', i.e. the Cretan mercenaries under Lasthenes. v. 39, 'Trypho', an appellation for Diodotus, an officer of Alexander, a native of the region of Apamea in north Syria. Trypho was influential among the soldiers of this region, whom Demetrius had estranged. He began as regent for Antiochus VI, Alexander's son, and later set himself up as a king, the only pretender who was not of the Seleucid dynasty. Tmalkue the Arab', son of Zabdiel, who killed Alexander (v. 17) but brought up his son.
(11:41—51) w. 41—4, Jonathan tried to benefit from the difficult situation of Demetrius II, and to achieve more independence. He requested the evacuation of the remaining forces in Judea, especially those in the Akra. Demetrius prudently agreed to Jonathan's demand, but on condition of military help against the rebels. Jonathan accepted, and sent Jewish troops to Antioch. w. 45-51, the revolt of the Antiochians and its suppression is told also by other historians (Diodorus, 33. 4.2 and others). These do not mention the Jewish involvement, whereas i Maccabees does not mention the involvement of the mercenaries. Josephus (Ant. 13 § 137) combines i Maccabees' report with some Hellenistic source, and mentions both the Jewish soldiers and the mercenaries. We see here Jonathan's deep involvement in the internal affairs of the Seleucid state, but at the same time his intention to get advantages for Judea. (11:52-3) The refusal of Demetrius to evacuate the fortresses in Judea pushed the frustrated Jonathan to support Demetrius' enemies.
Jonathan's Exploits (12:1-53)
(12:1-4) If the order of events here is chronological and not thematic, then Jonathan considered his rule stable enough to embark on diplomatic activity, and to renew and expand Judea's involvement in the political activity of the Mediterranean world, v. i, since the Roman state and senate were stable and kings and rulers were transitory, they were expected to take the initiative and to renew former alliances with Rome. This was done by Jonathan, v. 2, 'Spartans', see 14:16—23;
729 I MACCABEES
BCE. v. 21, around the figure of Abraham various stories were entwined, which relate him to different peoples. Cf. Josephus, Ant. 14 f 255, and further references in Stern (1974-84, nos. 46, 83, 335). (12:24-32) Jonathan is again active in the service of his Syrian ally, this time Trypho, Antiochus VI's regent. The war is far north of Judea proper, but probably within the borders of southern Syria, of which Jonathan was strategos. v. 24, Demetrius II, the enemy of Trypho and now also of Jonathan. v. 25, Hamath was probably on the river Orontes, north of Israel; 'his own country', probably not the small Judea of that period, but the greater area encompassed by Jonathan's administration, v. 28, the kindling of fires is a well-known strategem to cover withrawal (cf. i MACC 4:5). w. 30—1; the Zabadeans were one of the Arab tribes on the borders of the cultivated land of the fertile crescent. On other Arab tribes see i MACC 5:4, 25; 9:36-7; 11:17. v32> Damascus was probably included in Jonathan's strategia. See i MACC 11:62.
'other places', it was common to assign to an embassy more than one destination; cf 15:22—4. v. 3, 'senate chamber', bouleuterion in the Greek, not an exact term, but a suitable one in the transmission of Roman institutions into Greek. We do not know the Hebrew word behind it. v. 4, giving letters of recommendation to envoys for the authorities in the places along their route was a common custom in Hellenistic diplomacy.
(12:5—23) The relations between the Jews and the Spartans have intrigued many scholars, and various explanations have been suggested for the problems raised by this passage, including the historicity of Jonathan's letter to the Spartans; the authenticity of the letter of Arius to Onias, cited in Jonathan's letter (w. 19-23); and the supposed 'brotherhood' of the Jews and the Spartans. The last problem is the easiest to resolve. Assertion of relations between various peoples was popular in the ancient world (see Gen 10), and was revived in the Hellenistic period, when new connections were invented to suit the new map of the world. It was utilized also to facilitate diplomatic relations, or to forge alliances and friendships between states, v. 6, the letter is addressed to the Spartans by the Jewish authorities of that time. The formula is a common one, including the gerousia (the senate) and the people, with a special mention of the priests. 'Brothers', in accordance with the genealogy specified at v. 21. w. 7—8, for Arius and Onias see at v. 19. v. 8, 'the envoy', Josephus relates that the envoy's name was Demoteles (Ant. 12 § 227), but we do not know on what authority this information was based, v. 9, this passage is considered impolite by various scholars, and therefore not authentic, v. 13, 'the kings', this expression is rather strange, but may refer to various kings attacking the Jews not simultanuously, but successively (Antioctius IV, Antiochus V, and Demetrius I), v. 16, here we have the names of the envoys mentioned in v. i. Numenius is a relatively rare name in Greek, and his father's name, Antiochus, is even more surprising. Yet it could have been given to him in honour of Antiochus III, a benevolent king in Jewish eyes. The name of the other envoy, Antipater son of Jason, may be connected to Judas's envoy to Rome, Jason son of Eleazar (i MACC 8:17). We may conclude that diplomatic tasks were confided, in some cases at least, to members of families that had provided diplomats for more than one generation
(12:33—4) Simon was occupied with defending his strategia, the Paralia (see i MACC 11:59) against Demetrius II's supporters, as his brother Jonathan was doing in his own area. v. 33, for Askalon, see i MACC 10:86. v. 34, the annexation of Joppa by the Jews was gradual. This time it was the installation of a garrison, but later on the pagan population was replaced by Jews (see i MACC 13:11). (12:35-8) Jonathan and Simon tried at this stage to stabilize their achievements by occuping the Akra and by strengthening the strategic places on the borders of the Jewish territory, v. 35, 'the elders', Jonathan was co-operating with the senate
(Gk. gerousia; Heb. zeqenim), the assembly of elders usually translated 'elders' except in 12:6. The functioning of the gerousia gives a glimpse of the internal constitution of Judea at the time, and reflects a certain power base of the Hasmoneans in Judean society. No wonder the elders appear also when Simon is appointed by national decision as ruler and high priest (14:28). v. 36, the Jews could not storm the Akra, and so they resorted to a prolonged siege, which indicates the limits of their military power, v. 37, Chaphenatha was probably a quarter of Jerusalem, but its location is unknown, v. 38, Adida was a village north-east of Lydda (Heb. hadid), guarding one of the western entrances to Judea (see 13:13).
(cf. ibid.).
(12:39—53) That Trypho resorted to enticing Jonathan into a trap shows the limits of his power to impose his will on the Jews. w. 39-40, indeed, Trypho did assassinate Antiochus and replace him on the Seleucid throne. Yet Jonathan was not an obstacle for him, and it seems to be a Judeocentric point of view that he had to get rid of Jonathan before murdering Antiochus. It is also interesting to note the persistence of the author of i Maccabees in his sympathy for the descendants of Alexander Balas. v. 41, 'forty thousand', the strength of Jonathan's army is considered by many commentators to be exaggerated, v. 47, 'three thousand... one thousand', the numbers may refer to various components of the Hasmonean army: 40,000 may represent the full conscription of Judea, including the reserve; 3,000 may be a unit in the standing army, which may have been composed of two or three similar units; the 1,000 soldiers who remained with Jonathan may have been his bodyguard. Cf. Shatzman (1991: 28—31). v. 48, for the hostility of Ptolemais towards the Jews see i MACC 5:15;
(12:19-23) The authenticity of this letter of Arius is based on even less firm foundations than the letter of Jonathan. Many ingenious proposals were made to support it, but nevertheless it remains bizzare that Sparta would appeal to a small people under Ptolemaic suzerainty. Some scholars have therefore repudiated the authenticity and historical value of this letter, and even of the whole correspondence between Sparta and Judea. If there is any good argument to support the authenticity of this letter, it is, to my mind, the lively interest shown in various quarters at that period in ethnic genealogies, which triggered here and there diplomatic activity as well. Even if the letter is a forgery, it shows an interest, in Jewish circles, in ethnic genealogies and in their potential help in forging relations between oriental peoples and the Greeks. For further bibliography see Schiirer (1973-87: i. 184-5). vI9> Arius is usually identified with the Spartan king Areius II (309—265 BCE); Onias is supposedly Onias II, who began his office c. 270
I MACCABEES 730
cf. at 12:39—40. v. 32: 'Asia', cf. at 11:13. v33> 'stored food in the strongholds', see at 9:52.
2 Mace 6:8; 13:25. The capture of Jonathan maybe reflected in the Temple Scroll, Ivii 9—11, where very strict rules for the king's bodyguard are stated.
(13:36—40) Simon renewed the alliance with Demetrius II, who issued a royal letter announcing the complete release of Judea from taxation. This was considered to liberate Judea from Seleucid rule and to be the beginning of its independence, v. 36, the letter formally addresses the high priest, the gerousia, and the nation in general, v. 37, the release from tribute was not given gratuitously. A lump sum, in the form of a gold crown and palm branch, was paid for it. Cf. at 11:28. w. 38—40, the sweeping measures of the king's decision included the evacuation of Judea, general amnesty, and an appeal to Jews to join the Seleucid army. (13:41-2) Our author pauses here in his narrative to declare solemnly the beginning of the independence of Judea. v. 41, 170 ES is 142 BCE. v. 42, dating according to a local ruler is one ofthe symbols of sovereignty, as is, for example, the issuing of coins (cf. 15:6). Evidence for the use of dating according to Hasmonean regnal years is meagre, but see 14:27, and some coins of Janneus bearing dates (Naveh 1968).
Simon's Rule (13:1-16:24)
(13:1—11) These verses are concerned with the transfer of leadership from Jonathan to Simon, which did not follow the usual hereditary pattern. It avoids the problem of the succession of Jonathan's sons, and ignores the fact that Jonathan was still alive at that time. Indeed Simon's position was consolidated about two years later (see ch. 14). Interestingly Simon initiated the proposal that he should take the leadership, and was not called upon by the people (cf Jonathan's appointment in 9:28—31). To sum up, this seems to be a passage with an apologetic flavour, written by the author of i Maccabees under Hyrcanus (see i MACC B. 2). v. 6, 'all the nations', a common stereotype in i Maccabees (see 5:7 and 12:53). v8> 'leader' (Gk. hegoumenos), cf. 14:35, 41. Jonathan was still alive (see above), v. n, 'Jonathan son of Absalom' was probably a brother of Mattathias son of Absalom, mentioned in 11:70. At this time Simon did not garrison Joppa, but replaced its Gentile population with a Jewish one (cf. 12:33—4, an(^ I4:34)-
(13:43—7) Simon's policy and military activity were generally directed inwards. Contrary to Jonathan he refrained from intermingling with Seleucid affairs, v. 43, Gazara was on the road between Jerusalem and Joppa. It served as a military base under the command of John Hyrcanus, who lived there (v. 53). 'siege-engine', the Greek has helepolis (lit. city taker—a movable tower). It shows the continuation ofthe military development ofthe Hasmonean army. See Shatzman (1991: 24).
(13:12-19) This is a very strange passage, which ascribes to Simon action taken against his better judgement. Since Simon inherited from his brother, under very difficult circumstances, it might have given place to various rumours and laying of blame, as well as rivalries and tensions within the ruling family. So we may see in this passage an apologetic or even polemical effort to vindicate Simon, the real founder of the dynasty, from culpability for the fate of Jonathan (and his two sons), murdered by Trypho (see v. 23). v. 13, 'Adida', see at 12:38.
(13:47—8) The cleaning of Gazara from impurity stresses the religious motivation behind the Hasmonean conquest. See i MACC 5:44. v. 48, Simon was severe in replacing the pagan population with a Jewish one (cf. 11:66; 13:11; 14:34). This policy combines military, national, and religious motivations. Later on, in Idumea and Galilee, it was replaced by the enforced conversion ofthe population. (13:49-53) The Akra was not taken by storm, as Gazara partially was, but by prolonged siege and starvation (cf. 12:35-7). The procedure of its recovery was similar to that of Gazara, but it served as an occasion for festivity and commemoration, being the last vestige of foreign rule and part ofthe holy city, v. 51, the date is the 23rd of lyyar (the second month in the Jewish year, which begins from Nisan), and the year is 141 BCE. This date is also mentioned in Megillath Tcfanith, as one ofthe days on which mourning and fasting are prohibited, v. 53, Simon took measures to assure an orderly succession to his rule, by preparing his successor in advance and giving him enough authority and power to take over the government. His old age played a role in his decision, as shown at 16:3. (14:1-3) This is a digression, correct in its major lines but its source unknown, v. i, 172 ES is 140 BCE. The reason given for Demetrius' expedition is incorrect, as it was forced on him because ofthe Parthian advance westwards, v. 2, 'Arsaces' is a generic name of all Parthian kings. The king at this time was Mithridates I (171-138 BCE). 'Persia and Media', itis because of biblical influence that the Parthian empire is so-called. In Jewish sources it is often called Persia.
(13:20—4) Trypho failed to invade Judea by surprise, and was unable to overcome Simon's defensive tactics, v. 20, Adora was a Hellenistic town in eastern Idumea, also called Adoraim. Trypho arrived there after encircling Judea, trying in vain to invade it. v. 22, 'heavy snow', indeed, very rare in Judea. 'Gilead', we do not know why Trypho chose this way. v. 23, Baskama was probably in the Golan, but identification is uncertain.
(13:25-30) This passage, like some other passages, stresses Simon's role as the head of the dynasty, v. 27, burial monuments are known all over the Mediterranean world. Similar to this one are the monuments from the Kidron valley in Jerusalem and the tomb of Jason, which are not much later than this period, v. 28, 'pyramids', as in the tomb of Jason, v. 29, 'columns', as in the tomb of Benei Hezir. The carvings, or basreliefs, are common in Hellenistic art, but less common on Jewish monuments of this period. Yet it does not seems out of place on a royal monument, and it bears neither anthropomorphic nor zoomorphic figures, as was customary in Jewish art of that period. 'Ships', though often signifying death and afterlife, in this case, and in the author's eyes, their message is related to Hasmonean maritime aspirations. Cf. the paintings in the tomb of Jason, v. 30, 'to this day', i.e. some time before Hyrcanus' death in 104/3 BCE (see J MACC B.2).
(14:4—15) This is one ofthe most important poetic passages in i Maccabees, because of the service it renders to the ruling
(13:31—40) v. 31, the sympathy of the author is clearly with the branch issued from Antiochus IV, through Alexander Balas;
731 I MACCABEES
This assembly is supposed to represent the nation (cf. Neh 10:1 for the assembly in his days). When the will of God could not be known, as there were neither true prophets (see v. 41), nor Urim and Thummim, the national assembly is called forth to legitimize the appointment of Simon.
dynasty. It was composed by the same hand as the rest of the book as can be seen from the common motifs (unlike the decision about Simon's appointment in ch. 14). It is written in a biblical style and includes factual statements. The principal topics mentioned here are: Simon's broadening of the borders of Judea; caring for peace; security and material prosperity; caring for the law and the temple, v. 5, Joppa, see 13:11. v. 10, the supply of food was one of the main concerns of Hellenistic rulers, and cf 13:33.
w. 29—40, the reasons that justify the appointment of Simon are listed here in the form of a review of Hasmonean history, v. 32, 'own money', this detail in the catalogue of
Simon's virtues discloses one of his sources of power, which was a direct pecuniary connection with the army. v. 35, this appointment refers either to that by the people immediately after the kidnapping of Jonathan by Trypho (13:8-9), or when independence was declared after Demetrius II's letter (13:412). w. 38—40: Simon's success and prestige abroad are highlighted. The mention of Demetrius II's confirmation of
(14:16—23) w. 16—19, me author tries to make of Jonathan's death and Simon's installation as high priest a major international event. Yet this is not supported by his own report, because the Spartan letter is a response to Jonathan's letter, and does not mention, even out of politeness, Jonathan's murder, and the Romans are approached by Simon, not vice versa (see below), w. 20-3,this letter is taken to beaforgery by various scholars, and as authentic by others. We think that in the light of the author's source for other documents he cites
Simon as high priest shows that, in spite of the effort made by Simon to get national legitimation of his position, the royal appointment was not ignored, and even if it did not carry much weight legally it was considered to be prestigious. The alliance with Rome is mentioned for the same reason, v. 41 is the beginning of the decision of the assembly, which is the core of the document. Simon gets two appointments, as leader and high priest. We do not know what was the Hebrew title behind the hegoumenos (Gk. leader) here (and in 13:8). On some Hasmonean coins of John Hyrcanus I the inscription reads: 'Head of the community of the Jews' (Heb. ro'sh heber hayyehudim), so ro'smay be proposed, but nasi' and mosef have a good claim too. As high priest, Simon is not dependent any more on the appointment of a pagan king, yet his nomination by vox populi is not comparable to divine appointment. But this was out of the question at the time, so the national approval was the best he could get. 'For ever', usually understood to mean that Simon's post is hereditary, as indeed it was; 'until a trustworthy prophet should arise', considering the problematic nomination of Simon (at least from a religious point of view), this sentence seems to be a kind of a compromise, to achieve a wide agreement for his appointment. Criticism of his nomination could have come from various quarters, such as Pharisees, supporters of the Oniad dynasty, Essenes, or other sectarian or political groups. Some of them, and especially the Pharisees, could have been positively responsive to such a formula, which theoretically acknowledged the temporariness of Simon's nomination, but in practice did not affect his rule over Judea. w. 42-3 give a list of Simon's tasks, which are part of his double office as both leader and high priest. His military tasks are part of his leadership, not a third role as a general, w. 44—5, these stipulations made the decision irreversible, and also show the ephemeral place of the assembly in the Jewish constitution. 'Purple... gold', see i MACC 10:29. w4-6—7 > mere is here a mutual agreement as to the contents of the decision, and some scholars point out its contractual character. 'Ethnarch' is again a Greek word, chosen by the translator perhaps for the same Hebrew word translated as hegoumenos in v. 41. w. 48—9, the arrangements to be taken with the decision are specified here. They may have been a part of the decision, or an authorial expansion.
(see i MACC 0.2(1)), we should consider the correspondence of Jonathan/Simon and Sparta as authentic, with the exception of Arius' letter (i MACC 12:19—23). v. 22, for the envoys see i MACC 12:16. v. 24 is out of context here, and should be linked with the Roman document later. For its contents see i MACC 15:16-24. A 'gold shield weighing one thousand minas': sending a decorative shield made of precious metal, like a golden crown (see 13:37), was a common custom, and may have been a sign of submission. The weight of 1,000 minas, about 500-1,000 kg., depending to which mina it is equated, is excessive; see i MACC 15:18. (14:25-49) The document cited here is a most important one for the history and constitution of Hasmonean Judea. It is the only document which tells about the internal procedure of an appointment of a Jewish ruler, his responsibilities, legal standing, titles, and authority. This is the starting-point of the new state, and dynasty, and its consequent history is to be viewed in the light of this document. Its authenticity is undisputed, because, among other reasons, it is not fully in accord with the point of view of i Maccabees. The structure of the document is similar to Hellenistic usage (most parallels are decisions of Hellenistic poleis). Its composition is the following: date (v. 27); place and circumstances (v. 28); motives for the decision (w. 29-40); the decision (w. 41-5); the people's and Simon's mutual agreement (w. 46-7); details concerning its copying, publicizing, etc. (w. 48—9).
w. 25—70, an introduction to the decision, which explains the motivation for it and the whereabouts of the document. v. 27/7, there is here a double dating, Seleucid era and Simon's era, and the equation is correct, the date falling on 13 September, 140 BCE. v. 28, 'Asaramel', an incomprehensible combination of letters, thought to be a transcription derived from the Hebrew original. From among the various ingenious suggestions we prefer Azara megale (azara, Heb. 'a court', esp. in the temple, and megale, Gk. 'big' which becomes Heb. gedold), as proposed by Schalit (1969: 781). 'Great assembly', some scholars think it refers to the great synagogue, mentioned in the Mishnah ('Abot, 1:1). It is indeed the Greek word sunagoge, which appears here, but in the Greek of the Septuagint it translates various Hebrew words, so that it is not necessary to restore the Greek into keneset haggedold (great synagogue).
(15:1—9) v. i refers to Antiochus VII Sidetes (so-called because he was raised in Side, in Asia Minor), son of Demetrius I and younger brother of Demetrius II, who fell in Parthian captivity
I MACCABEES 732
especially in the east (see Rappaport 1995/7: 282). Most of the kings and cities mentioned in the list need no comment. Ariarathes V was king of Cappadocia, 162-130 BCE; for Arsaces see at 14:2. The name Sampsames is unknown and probably corrupt. Among the suggestions made to replace it are Lampsakos and Amisos (in western and northern Asia Minor respectively). The names in this list also include regions, which do not always represent a political entity, v. 24, the copy cited above is the one to Ptolemy, who is properly not mentioned in the list. It would have been superfluous to send copies of every letter, all of them being similar, to Simon. Probably each one of them had an appendix with all the other addressees except himself, like the copy of the letter to Ptolemy.
(see 14:1-3). w. 2-9, this document is considered to be genuine, and to reflect the situation of Antiochus VII at the beginning of his struggle to regain his hereditary kingdom. Trypho was still powerful, and Antiochus needed all the support he could get. His friendly attitude towards Simon changed when his position became more secure (see w. 26—31). v. 3, 'scoundrels', obviously Trypho and his supporters, v. 5, probably for conciseness' sake, details about tax release are skipped, and the reference is made to former arrangements, v. 6, 'your own coinage', this privilege was one of the more conspicuous symbols of sovereignty in the Hellenistic-Roman world, especially in the case of silver coinage. Nevertheless Simon did not utilize it, and the earliest Hasmonean coinage known is from John Hyrcanus' time. See Rappaport (1976) and Meshorer (1990—1: 106).
(15:25—31) Here our author resumes the story of the siege of Dor, cut off after v. 14. The siege is going on (v. 2 5), and the end of it is told in v. 37 after a digression about Simon, v. 26, Simon, like a faithful vassal, sent aid to Antiochus. v. 27, Simon's support became unnecessary in view of Antiochus' imminent victory over Trypho, and the king's interest was now to curtail his power, v. 28, Athenobius is known only from i Maccabees, w. 28-31, it is important to notice that the king is not trying to restore Judea to its prior position, as a province under direct Seleucid rule, but to curtail its expansion, especially into the coastal region, and to restore it to its former borders. Simon could even have kept these places had he been ready to pay for them. So Antiochus' policy was not to return to the glorious days of his ancestors, but to restore obedience of the vassal princes and to replenish his treasury in preparation for a war against Parthia. (15:32-6) w. 33-4, Simon's response to the demands of the king is extremely important. It may not be a verbatim citation, but it reflects, at least, the current opinion in the Hasmonean court or the author's circle. This response is based on the idea of historical right, as an ideological and legal argument, to justify Hasmonean conquests in the land of Israel. It is in contrast to the legal basis of the rule of the Hellenistic dynasties, which was the conquest itself—their kingdoms were doriktltoi, conquered by the spear. So it is not a conquest, runs this argument, but a reacquisition of an inheritance, v. 35, typically of Simon, he is not rushing into an armed conflict, and proposes a small sum of money, 100 talents as against 1,000 demanded, to placate the king. (15:37-41) v. 37, Orthosia was in what today is northern Lebanon, v. 38, Cendebeus was strategos of the Paralia, as was Simon before him. v. 39, for the use of Kedron to put pressure on Simon by harrassing the population see w. 40-1. 'The king pursued Trypho', Trypho fled further on to Apamea, where, with the support of the Seleucid military settlers, his revolt had originally begun, and was slain there.
(15:10—14) Dor was a Phoenician coastal city south of Acco/ Ptolemais. Excavations there revealed some vestiges of the siege by Antiochus, e.g. lead missiles bearing the inscription: obv. 'For the victory of Trypho'; rev. 'Dor, year 5, of the city of the Dorians, Have the taste of sumac'. See Gera (1985). For an alternative reading see Fischer (1992). v. 10,174 ES is 138 BCE. Antiochus' landing in Syria brought him general support. Trypho, who was a usurper, was quickly driven away and was besieged in Dor.
(15:15—24) According to many commentators, this passage should have come after 14:24, to which it is related. The linkage is not only because it is the same envoy and delegation, with the same golden shield, but also because chronologically it was already mentioned in the document about
Simon's rule, from September 140 BCE (14:40). It is reasonable to assume a misplacement of this passage somewhere in the chain of the transmission of i Maccabees, v. 15, 'Numenius', see 12:16; 14:22, 24. v. 16, Lucius Caecilius Metellius was consul in 142 BCE. 'Ptolemy' refers to Ptolemy VIII (VII) Euergetes II Physcon (145-116 BCE). The copy of the Roman letter, cited here, is the one sent to Ptolemy, though there were other recipients (w. 22—4). v. 17, 'renew', see 14:24. v. 18, 'thousand minas', here it is not said that the shield weighed 1,000 minas (despite the NRSV tr.). Various scholars understand it to mean 'of the value of a thousand minas', and correct it and 14:24 accordingly, v. 19, circular letters announcing Roman policy and decisions were an instrument of Roman diplomacy; see at w. 22-4. v. 21, 'scoundrels', such an extradition clause is not common in our sources, yet some incomplete analogies can be found. See Rappaport (1995^). w. 22—4, the list ofpoleis, kings, and states, recipients of a letter similar to the one sent to Ptolemy, cited above, has evoked many suggestions, aimed mainly at finding a common denominator for these incongruous political units. Some have suggested that all had Jewish communities; others that the itinerary of the envoys back to Judea passed through these places; others that those states were allied to Rome. But none of these criteria can be applied to all the states on this list. It has also been suggested that it is metaphorical: that such an impressive list is meant to express the whole sphere of Roman influence.
J> f°r Gazara becoming John's seat see 13:53; now it was on the front line, against Cendebeus. v. 2, we know by name three sons of Simon: John, Judas, and Mattathias (v. 14). All three names are common in the Hasmonean family. John, the successor of Simon, is known also as Hyrcanus in the writings of Josephus Flavius, but not in i Maccabees, nor in Talmudic sources, nor on his coins. We do not know Simon's age, but since about thirty years have passed from the beginning of the Maccabean revolt, and at that time Simon was not a young person, he should by now be about 70 years old.
(16:1—3) v-
My opinion tends to the list being accurate, that the letter was indeed sent to those addressees, with intent to demonstrate the wide extent of Roman activity and influence,
733 I MACCABEES
(1951), 'Les Maccabees de Malalas', Byzantion, 21: 63-84. (1968), Chronology of the Ancient World (London: Thames & Hudson).
(16:4-10) v. 4, the number of soldiers is quite reasonable here. Cavalry in the Hasmonean army is explicitly mentioned here for first time (butcf. 2 Mace 12:35). Bar-Kochva (1989: 68-81) thinks that cavalry was already used by Judas and Jonathan.
(1979), The God of the Maccabees (Leiden: Brill). Dancy, J. C. (1954), Commentary on First Maccabees (Oxford: Black-
Shatzman (1991: 19, n. 42, 22) is more sceptical, v. 6, John, following the example of the Maccabees, took part in battle in person. (16:11-17) vn> nothing is known about Ptolemy except what is told here. His patronymic may point to an Arabian origin (Habubus/Habib). Was he born Jewish or was he a proselyte? (It is unlikely that he was a non-Jew, as he was the son-in-law of the high priest, Simon, himself.) We may then consider the possibility that Ptolemy was a local chief who accepted Judaism and married into the Hasmonean family. He may have been a prototype of Antipas, Herod's grandfather, but there is no way to prove it.
well). Davies, P. (1977), 'Hasidim in the Maccabean Period', JJS 28:127-40. Dimant, D. (1988), 'Use and Interpretation of Mikra in the Apocrypha
and Pseudepigrapha', in J. Moulder (ed.), Mikra (Assen: Van Gorcum), 379-419. Fischer, T. (1992), "Tryphons verfehlter Siegvon Dor?', ZPEqy.29—30. Galil, G. (1992), 'Parathon, Timnatha and the Fortifications of Bac-
chides', Cathedra, 63: 22-30 (Heb.). Gera, D. (1985), "Tryphon's Sling Bullet from Dor', IE] 35: 153-63.
(1990), 'On the Credibility of the History of the Tobiads', in A. Kasher, U. Rappaport, and G. Fuks (eds.), Greece and Rome in Eretz Israel (Jerusalem: Yad Izhak Ben-Zwi), 21—38.
(1996), "The Battle of Beth Zacharia and Greek Literature', in I. Gafni et al. (eds.), Studies in Memory ofMenahem Stem, 25-53 (Heb.). Goldstein, J. A. (1975), "The Hasmoneans: The Dynasty of God's
'Governor', we may learn from this passage that Judea was divided into regions, Jericho and its surroundings among them, under governors (Gk. stratcgoi) who might have the power to build fortresses (v. 15), and that they could come from the local nobility (see above), v. 14, Simon attended to the administration of the country by means of inspection tours. The year 177 ES is 134 BCE. v. 15, Dok was a fortress above Jericho to the north-west, v. 16, according to Josephus, who is not relying on i Maccabees on this matter (see i MACC 0.2(4) )> Ptolemy murdered only Simon, and took his two sons and wife prisoner (Ant. 13 JJ 228—9).
Resisters', HTR 68: 53-8.
(1976), I Maccabees, AB (New York: Doubleday). Goodman, M. D., and Holladay, A. J. (1986), 'Religious Scruples in
Ancient Warfare', CQi,6:151—71. Grabbe, L. J. (1991), 'Maccabean Chronology, 167-164 or 168-165
BCE',JBLno: 59-74. Gruen, E. S. (1984), The Hellenistic World and the Coming of Rome
(2 vols.; Berkeley: University of California Press). Habicht, C. (1976), 'Royal Documents in Maccabees II', HSCP 80:
1-18. Hengel, M. (1974), Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols.; London: SCM). Holladay, C. R. (1983), Fragments from Hellenistic Jewish Authors
(16:18—22) Ptolemy's appeal to Antiochus VII after the murder raises the possibility that the conspiracy itself was coordinated with him. His motivation to murder the high priest, his father-in-law, may hint that he was not integrated into Jewish society, and was linked to the Hasmoneans very lightly (see v. i). Ptolemy tried also to get rid of John, but the men whom he sent to murder him were forestalled. Josephus
(Chico, Calif: Scholars Press). Houghton, A. (1992), "The Revolt of Tryphon and the Accession of
Antiochus VI at Apamea', RSN (=SNR) 71: 119-41.
and G. le Rider (1985), 'Le deuxieme filo d'Antiochos IV a Ptolemais', RSN64: 73-85. Isaac, B. (1991) 'A Seleucid Inscription from Jamnia-on-the-Sea: An-
tiochus V Eupator and the Sidonians', IE] 41:132—44. Johns, A. F. (1963), The Military Strategy of Sabbath Attacks on the
(ibid.) has some more details, which stress that the popularity of the Hasmoneans caused the failure of Ptolemy's conspiracy. (16:23-4) Tlus passage is very similar to the concluding verses in Kings, at the end of the acts of the various kings
Jews', VT13: 482-6. Kasher, A. (1988), Jews, Idumeans and Ancient Arabs (Tubingen: Mohr
[Siebeck]). Kloner, A., Regev, D., and Rappaport, U. (1992), 'A Hellenistic Burial
Cave in the Judean shephela', Atiqot, 21: 27^—50* (Heb. with Eng. summary, 175—7). le Rider, G. (1965), Suse sous les Seleucides et les Parthes (Paris:
(e.g. i Kings 14:19, 29; 16:14, 27> 22:40; 2 Kings 1:18; 10:34, etc.). It raises the question of whether there was a book, named 'The Chronicles of the High-Priesthood of John', or whether this is merely an imitation of biblical style, adopted by the author of i Maccabees. Since the formula used here is not complete, and does not contain the number of the ruler's regnal years and the name of his successor, it leads to the conclusion that i Maccabees was written before Hyrcanus' death in 104 BCE (after Shatzman (forthcoming)).
P. Geuthner).
(1993), 'Les ressources financieres de Seleucos I Vet le paiement de 1'indemnite aux Remains', in M. Price et al. (eds.), Essays in Honour ofR. Carson and K. Jenkins (London: Spink), 49-67. Martola, N. (1984), Capture and Liberation (Abo: Abo Akademi). Meshorer, Y. (1990-1), 'Ancient Jewish Coinage: Addendum I', INJ n:
104-33. Millar, F. (1993), The Roman Near East jiBC—ADjjj (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press). Momigliano, A. (1976), The Date of the First Book of Maccabees',
L'ltalie preromaine et la Rome republicaine, Melanges J. Heurgon (Rome:), 657-61. M0rkholm, O. (1989), 'Antiochus IV, The Cambridge History of Juda-
Abel, F.-M. (1949), Les livres des Maccabees (Paris: Gabalda). Bar-Kochva, B. (1975), 'Hellenistic Warfare in Jonathan's Campaign
ism, ii. 278—91. Murphy O'Connor, J. (1976), 'Demetrius I and the Teacher of Right-
Near Azotos', Scripta Classica Israelica, 2: 83—96.
(1989), Judas Maccabaeus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
eousness, I Mace., X, 25-45', R-B 93: 400-20. Naveh, J. (1968), The Dated Coins of Alexander Janneus', /EJi8:20—6. Oren, E. D., and Rappaport, U. (1984), The Necropolis of Maresha-
(1998), "The Description of the Battle of Beth-Zacharia: Literary Fiction or Historical Fact?', Cathedra, 86: 7-22 (Heb.). Bickerman, E. (1937), Der Gott der Makkabder (Berlin: Schocken).
Beit Govrin', IE] 34: 114-53.
2 MACCABEES 734
Peters, J. P., and Thiersch, H. (1905), Painted Tombs in the Necropolis of
Schmidt, F. (1994), La Pensee du Temple de Jerusalem a Qpumrdn (Paris:
Marissa (London: Palestine Exploration Fund). Rappaport, U. (1968), 'La Judee et Rome pendant le regne d'Alexandre
Editions du Seuil). Schurer, E. (1973-87), The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus
Jannee', REJ127: 329-45.
Christ (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T. £T. Clark). Schwartz, D. R. (1992), 'On Pharisaic Opposition to the Hasmonean
(1970), 'Gaza and Ascalon in the Persian and Hellenistic Periods in Relation to their Coins', IE] 20: 75-80.
Monarchy', in Studies on the Jewish Background of Christianity (Tubingen: MohrfSiebeck]).
(1976), 'The Emergence of Hasmonean Coinage', AJS Review, r. 171-86.
(1994), 'Hasidim in I Maccabees 2:42?', SCI 13: 7—18. Schwartz, J., and Spanier, J. (1991), 'On Mattathias and the Desert of
(1980), 'Notes on Antiochus' Persecutions as Reflected in the Book of Daniel', in B. Bar-Kochva (ed.), The Seleucid Period in EretzIsrael (Tel-Aviv: Hakibbutz Hameuchad) (Heb.).
Samaria', RB 98: 252-71. Schwartz, S. (1991), 'Israel and the Nations Roundabout: i Maccabees
(1993), The Hellenistic World as Seen by the Book of Daniel', RASHI: Hommage a E. E. Urbach (Paris:), 71-9.
and the Hasmonean Expansion', JJS 42:16-38. Shatzman, I. (1991), The Armies of the Hasmoneans and Herod (Tubin-
(199512), 'The Samaritans in the Hellenistic Period', in A. D. Crown and L. Davey (eds.), New Samaritan Studies: Essays in Honour ofG. D. Sixdenier (Sydney: Mandelbaum Publishing), 281-8.
gen: Mohr[Siebeck]).
(forthcoming) The Hasmoneans in Greco-Roman Historiography and Jewish Sources. Sherk, A. K. (1969), Roman Documents from the Greek East (Baltimore:
(1995!?), "The Extradition Clause in I Maccabees 15: 21', in K. van Lerberghe and A. Schoors (eds.), Immigration and Emigration in the Ancient Near East: Festschrift fir E. Lipinski (Leuven: Peelers), 271-83.
Johns Hopkins University Press). Stern, M. (1974-84), Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism
Pastor, J., and Rimon, O. (1994), 'Land, Society and Culture in Judea', Transeuphratene, 7: 73—82. Rheinold, M. (1970), History of Purple as a Status Symbol in Antiquity
(3 vols.; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities). Stern, M. (1981), 'Judea and her Neighbors in the Days of Alexander
Jannaeus', Jerusalem Cathedra, i: 22-46. Tcherikover, V. (1959), Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews (Philadel-
(Brussels: Collection Latomus). Rowley, H. H. (1953), 'Menelaus and the Abomination of Desolation',
phia: Jewish Publication Society), 189—222. Williams, O. S. (1999), The Structure of Maccabees (Washington, DC:
Studia orientaliaj. Pedersen dedicata (Copenhagen: E. Munksgaard), 303-15. Schalit, A. (1969), Konig Herodes, der Mann und sein Werk (Berlin: de
CBQ). Wise, M. O. (1990), 'A Note on the "Three Days" of I Maccabees X. 34',
Gruyter).
VT4O: 116-22.
48. 2 Maccabees R. DORAN
(2 Mace 4). The epitome ends with the defeat of the Seleucid general Nicanor in 161 BCE at the hands of Judas Maccabeus, while i Maccabees continues through the death of Judas and the successive leadership of his brothers Jonathan and Simon down to Simon's death in 134 BCE. The two works also differ in style: i Maccabees is the translation of an original Hebrew work and its style betrays its translation quality at times; the epitome follows the conventions of Hellenistic historiography, and is written in good Greek style, i Maccabees focuses primarily on the heroic exploits of the Hasmoneans: they are the family 'through whom deliverance was given to Israel' (i Mace 5:62). i Maccabees in fact closes with a refrain which echoes those found about the kings of Judah and Israel in 1—2 Kings, e.g. at i Kings 11:41. Judas is certainly a warrior hero in the epitome, but victory comes from the epiphanies of the God of Israel and God's mercy is gained through the sufferings of the martyrs. The epitome in fact falls within the genre of epiphanic collections which narrate how a god defends his/ her temple.
A. Title. The title, the Second Book of Maccabees, is a convenient tag to distinguish this collection of documents from the other history of the Maccabean revolt known as the First Book of Maccabees, i and 2 Maccabees, therefore, are not the titles for a two-volume work on the Maccabean revolt, but are quite distinct.
B. Subject-Matter and Literary Genre. 1. 2 Maccabees is composed of three documents, two letters prefixed to an epitome of a larger historical work. There is no explicit connection between the two prefixed letters and the epitome, although scholars have attempted to show interrelationships (Momigliano 1975; Doran 1981). The firstletter (1:1-100) is addressed to Egyptian Jews and exhorts them to celebrate the Feast of Hanukkah. The second (i:iofc—2:18) has a similar addressee and message, but also contains an account of the death of Antiochus IV, and attempts to show the continuity between the first and second temples. The first letter follows the conventions of letters written in Aramaic, while the second does not. The epitome (2:19—15:39) covers the history of the Maccabean revolt from the reign of Seleucus IV Philopator (187175 BCE) to Judas's defeat of Nicanor in 161 BCE. The epitome therefore covers a different time-period from that of i Maccabees, i Maccabees in one verse (1:9) notes the time between Alexander the Great and Antiochus IV, and in five verses (1:1115) the events of Antiochus IV's reign before the persecution of the Jews in Judaea; the epitome, on the other hand, devotes a whole chapter to events under Antiochus IV's predecessor (2 Mace 3) and another chapter to events prior to the persecution
2. A totally different question is how faithfully the epitomist preserves both the content and the style of the author he is condensing, Jason of Gyrene. The rapid-fire telling of events as at 13:22-6 and 14:25 and the brief mention of characters' names, e.g. Callisthenes at 8:33, without further introduction suggest a fuller fund of narrative events which Jason would have supplied. Did Jason's five-volume work end where the epitome ends, with the victory over Nicanor? Some scholars suggest so, and even go so far as to identify Jason of Gyrene with Jason son of Eleazar who was sent by Judas Maccabeus on an embassy to Rome after the defeat of Nicanor (i Mace
735 2 MACCABEES
The Second Letter (i:iofc-2:i8) The Epitome (2:ig—iyjg) Prologue (2:19—32) The Attack by Heliodorus (3:1-39) The Attack under Antiochus IV (3:40-10:8) Further Attacks (10:9—15:37)
8:17): Jason therefore would have ended his story with the defeat of Nicanor because that was where his participation in the events ended. Others would argue that the rhetorical style and flourish of the epitome would not have been present in Jason's work. Behind both these suggestions lurks the desire to show that the epitome is based on 'real' history, on the word of an eyewitness who wrote in a sober style. Unfortunately, all we have is the epitome and we simply are not able to say anything about what Jason wrote. The epitome ends where it does because it provides a fitting literary and rhetorical flourish as the blaspheming attacker of the temple is appropriately destroyed.
Under Antiochus V (10:9-13:26) Under Demetrius I (14-15:37) Epilogue (15:38-9).
C. The World-View of the Epitome. The author of the epitome confronts Judaism with Hellenism, particularly emphasizing traditional Jewish values as opposed to innovations such as Jews being educated at Greek gymnasia. Yet the author also stresses that Jews can be good citizens and can interact well with their Greek neighbours. Theologically the epitome is Deuteronomistic in tone: as long as the Jews obey the Torah, God will protect them. Punishment always fits the crime. One particularly important part ofthe world-view that God rewards the righteous is the author's strong belief in individual bodily resurrection for the pious (2 Mace 7). God will give back to the martyrs all their bodily parts in a new creative act.