CHAPTER VII

The First Book of Maccabees

[LITERATURE.—Grimm, _Das erste Buch der Maccabäer erklärt_ in “Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen des A.T.” (1853); Keil, _Commentar über die Bücher der Maccabäer_ (1875); Bissell, _The First Book of Maccabees_, in Lange-Schaff’s “Commentary ...” (1880); Schürer, _Op. cit._, II, iii. pp. 6-13; Fairweather and Black, _The First Book of Maccabees_, in the Cambridge Bible (1897); Kautzsch, in _Op. cit._ (1900); Knabenbauer, in _Cursus Scripturæ Sacræ_ (1907); Oesterley, in Charles, _Op. cit._ (1913).]

I. TITLE AND AUTHORSHIP OF THE BOOK

What the title of this book in its original Hebrew form (see below) was is not known for certain. Origen gives a transliteration of the title (Eusebius, _Hist. Eccles._, vi. 25, 2) which is equivalent to “The book of the house of the Hasmonæans”; but he transliterates here an Aramaic title which probably stood at the head of an Aramaic translation of the Hebrew; possibly this title represented the Hebrew form. On the other hand, the writer of the book has clearly taken as his pattern the Books of the Kings, so that the supposition is reasonable that he framed his title in accordance with the form of the title of these; in this case the title given in the Septuagint (which is followed in the English Apocrypha) would probably represent the original. The name “Maccabee” was applied in the first instance to Judas (see 1 Macc. ii. 4, 6, etc.), but later to all the members of the family and their followers.

As to the author, or more strictly compiler, of the book, it is clear that he was an ardent patriot, and a rigid adherent of orthodox Judaism; his intimate knowledge of the geography and topography of the Holy Land marks him out as a native of Palestine. His religious standpoint is of particular interest, for he writes at a time (see § II below) when the distinct development of the Sadducees and Pharisees as opposing parties had already taken place; yet, while he is an upholder of Jewish orthodoxy and imbued with an intensely patriotic spirit, he seems, nevertheless, to have belonged to the circle of the Sadducees; “although a loyal upholder of the Law, his zeal is not characterized by any approach to Pharisaic fanaticism; his sympathy for the Jewish high-priesthood is frequently manifested; his tolerant attitude towards the profaning of the Sabbath (see ii. 41, ix. 43 ff.) is very different from that which would have been adopted by a Pharisee; there is not the slightest hint of a belief in the life after death, (see ii. 52 ff., where a reference to this would have been eminently appropriate had it been believed in). These reasons go far in justifying the opinion that the author was a Sadducee.”[440] Further, it is noticeable that the writer has a strong belief in what may be expressed by the modern proverb, that “God helps those who help themselves”; but his insistence on man’s free-will being the decisive factor in human affairs is balanced by his firm belief in the existence of an all-seeing Providence (see, e.g., iii. 18 ff., iv. 10 ff., ix. 46, xii. 15); yet it is strange that God is not once mentioned by name in the whole book. This attitude was doubtless, in part, owing to the influence of certain religious tendencies, centering around the doctrine of God, which were beginning to manifest themselves. “Just as there was a disinclination, on account of its transcendent holiness, to utter the name of God, and instead, to substitute paraphrases for it, so there arose also a disinclination to ascribe action among men directly to God, because of His inexpressible majesty.”[441] It would seem, therefore, that the author represented a type of Jew who was ready to assimilate much of what appealed to him in Pharisaism while holding to the traditional orthodoxy of the Sadducees.

II. THE DATE OF THE BOOK

The First Book of Maccabees must have been written between the dates 135 B.C. and 63 B.C. The events recorded in the book took place between the years 175 B.C. and 135 B.C., so that this latter date is the earliest possible at which it can have been written. On the other hand, Pompey took Jerusalem in the autumn of 63 B.C., and by entering into the Holy of Holies desecrated the Temple[442]; had this happened before our book was written it is inconceivable that no mention should have been made of it; but as no reference is made to it there can be no doubt that it took place after the book was written. We can, however, get nearer than this; it is said in xiii. 30, in reference to the sepulchre which Simon the Maccabee built for his parents and his four brothers at Modin: “This is the sepulchre which he made at Modin, and it is there unto this day.” It is said in xiii. 25 that this sepulchre was built on the death of Jonathan, i.e. in 143 B.C., and the words “unto this day” imply that it had been in existence for some considerable time when the author wrote his book. There are no means of ascertaining how long a time elapsed between the building of the sepulchre and the writing of the book, but if we assume that it was about half a century, this would give as the date of the book some time between 100 B.C. and 90 B.C.; and this is a date to which a further fact points; for in xvi. 23, 24 it is said: “And the rest of the acts of John, and of his wars, and his valiant deeds which he did, and of the building of the walls which he built, and of his doings, behold they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood, from the time that he was made high-priest after his father.”[443] Presumably the chronicles here referred to took up the narrative at the point at which the writer of our book ceased, for the Old Testament formula (and it will have been noticed that the phraseology of this passage is based on that of the Old Testament): “And the rest of the acts” etc., is always employed in reference to a ruler whose reign has already come to an end; so that the writer of our book was writing subsequently to the time at which the chronicles of John’s high-priesthood had been compiled. The high-priest John, i.e. John Hyrcanus, died in 105 B.C., and therefore the writer of our book must have begun his work some time after this date, though it is not likely to have been long after this. Our conclusion is that the book in its finished form appeared between 100 B.C. and 90 B.C. But it is probable that the gathering of his materials was begun by the author some considerable time before this; for there are some graphic passages in the book which give the impression that he was an eye-witness of what he describes (see, e.g., xiv. 4-15, in which the details of Simon’s reign are described). It seems not improbable that the writer began to gather materials for his history as early as the reign of Simon. The careful way in which his book is written, and the numerous official documents from which he made extracts, shows that the author must have taken a long time over his work.

III. THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE AND LITERARY CHARACTER OF THE BOOK

That this book was originally written in Hebrew scarcely admits of doubt; we have already pointed out that the writer framed his work on the pattern of the Books of the Kings, a fact which in itself suggests that he wrote in Hebrew. But apart from this there are numberless indications in our present Greek text which stamp it indubitably as a translation from Hebrew; to give examples of this would involve technical details which would be out of place here[444]; it must suffice to say that the Greek again and again has sentences which are literal translations of Hebrew idiomatic phrases. But in spite of this the writer has a distinct individuality of style; the narrative is written in a simple, straightforward manner; it is full of interest, the frequent graphic accounts of events impelling attention throughout. The author writes as a historian, whose duty it is to record the facts without bias; he is impartial, and frankly recognizes and registers the defeat of his own side when necessary. That he sometimes bursts out into poetical strains, and not infrequently exaggerates, especially where numbers are concerned, does not affect the substantial truth and trustworthiness of his narrative.

IV. THE SOURCES OF THE BOOK[445]

The possibility of the author of our book having himself been an eye-witness of some of the events he records has already been hinted at; but whether this was so or not, there can be little doubt that he utilized the accounts of some, be they one or more, who had themselves seen what they recounted. What impels one to this conviction are the wonderfully graphic descriptions of some of the episodes recorded; examples of this can be seen in iv. 1-24, vi. 28-54, vii. 26-50, ix. 1-22, 32-53, x. 59-66. The accounts of eye-witnesses may, therefore, be reckoned as one of the sources of the book. That he also had written sources to draw from may be assumed from such passages as ix. 22: “And the rest of the acts of Judas, and his wars, and the valiant deeds which he did, and his greatness, they are not written,” the implication being that some other things relating to him were written (cp. xi. 37, xiv. 18, 27, 48, 49); and xvi. 23, 24, already quoted: “And the rest of the acts of John ... behold, they are written in the chronicles of his high-priesthood....”

In addition to these sources, there are a certain number of documents which have been incorporated into the book. These are for the most part important, and will require a little detailed consideration. There are, in the first place, some letters of _Jewish origin_, as follows:

(_a_) A letter from the Jews in Gilead asking Judas to send them help because they were being attacked by the Gentiles (v. 10-13). Although this purports to contain the very words which were written, it is more probably merely a summary of what the author of the book had derived from some well-informed source. That it represents, however, the contents of some written document, and was not simply a verbal message, is evident; for it stands in contrast to what is stated to have been a verbal message in v. 15.

(_b_) A letter from Jonathan to the Spartans (xii. 6-18). The somewhat artificial way in which this letter has been pressed into the text is sufficient to arouse suspicion. In xii. 1 we are told of an embassy being sent to _Rome_; the narrative is broken by verse 2, which refers to a letter that had been sent to the _Spartans_ and “to other places”; in verse 3, which comes naturally after verse 1, the thread of the narrative is taken up again. Then in verse 5, where one might reasonably have expected further details concerning the embassy to Rome, it goes on to say: “And this is the copy of the letter which Jonathan wrote to the _Spartans_.” The copy of this letter then follows; but the main subject with which the chapter began (viz., the embassy to Rome), obviously a more important one, is left without further mention. The simplicity and straightforward flow of the narrative, so characteristic of the book, is lacking here, and the impression of something being out of order is forced upon one. Then as to the letter itself, it is not quite easy to understand what the purpose of it was. In verse 10 the object is said to be the renewing of brotherhood and friendship with the Spartans; but in the same breath, as it were, it is said that the Jews needed none of these things, “having for our encouragement the holy books which are in our hands.” Then again, in verse 13, after reference has been made to the afflictions which the Jews had endured, the letter continues (in verses 14, 15): “We were not mindful, therefore, to be troublesome unto you, and to the rest of our confederates and friends, in these wars; for we have the help which is from heaven to help us, and we have been delivered from our enemies, and our enemies have been brought low.” The letter concludes with the words (verses 17, 18); “We commanded them (i.e. the ambassadors), therefore, to go also unto you, and to salute you, and to deliver you our letters concerning the renewing (of friendship) and our brotherhood. And now ye shall do well if ye give us an answer thereto.” Thus, in one and the same letter, while, on the one hand, friendship and brotherhood are asked for, on the other, it is said that these are not required; and yet, in the concluding words of the letter some anxiety is evinced that a reply should be forthcoming. That a relationship of some kind had existed between the Jews and the Spartans is possible enough. But the ambiguous character of this letter inclines one to doubt its genuineness. Probably it was inserted by a later editor who desired to emphasize the fact that a relationship had existed between his people and the Spartans, while not wishing to make it appear that his people had any need to depend upon foreign help in their struggle against their enemies.

In connection with this letter the following one must be considered.

(_c_) A letter from Areios, king of the Spartans, to Onias the high-priest (xii. 20-23). This owes its presence here to the fact that in the letter just dealt with Jonathan cites the existence of former friendship between the Jews and the Spartans as a reason for renewing the same (xii. 7-9); it is added as an appendix to Jonathan’s letter. The original of this document must have been written at least a century and a half earlier; the fact of its being quoted here shows with what care such documents were preserved.

(_d_) In xiv. 27-47 we have a source of an entirely different character. This passage contains a panegyric on Simon, together with a _résumé_ of his prosperous reign. It is stated to have been engraved on tables of brass, and to have been set up in a conspicuous place within the precincts of the sanctuary; copies of it are also said to have been deposited in the treasury (verses 27, 48, 49). On comparing the details of Simon’s reign given in this section with those in chapters xi.-xiii., however, it will be found that there are several chronological discrepancies. The course of the history, as given in the book itself, is acknowledged on all hands to be, on the whole, of a thoroughly trustworthy character; but if the passage in question be really the copy of an original document, which seems very probable, the accuracy of chapters xi.-xiii. is, to some extent, impugned. It is difficult to suppose that one and the same author would write the historical account of Simon’s reign in these chapters, and then in the very next chapter go on to give a _résumé_ of what had preceded differing from it in a number of particulars. The suggested explanation of the difficulty is as follows: The original writer of the book gave in chapters xi.-xiii. a substantially correct account of the period of history in question, but was inaccurate in the sequence of events; a later editor added a copy of the document under consideration, to which the original author of the book, for some reason or other, did not have access. The later editor was not concerned with the discrepancies between the written history and the copy of the document which he added, because he saw that, in the main, they were in agreement. Thus the two accounts of Simon’s reign, differing to some extent, were left side by side.

A second class of documentary sources comprises letters from _Syrian kings_ to the Jewish leaders.

(_a_) The first is a letter from Alexander Balas (he was not yet king at the time) to Jonathan (x. 18-20). This is not a copy of the letter itself, but merely its purport, which the author of our book has woven into the narrative. It is far too short and abrupt to be the actual letter of one who was seeking the help and alliance of the Jewish leader, and for whose friendship this aspirant to the Syrian throne was bidding. The author of the book, moreover, adds some words of his own in the middle of the letter (verse 20), a thing which he would scarcely have done had he been quoting the actual words of the letter itself. On the other hand, there is not the slightest reason to doubt that use has here been made of a genuine document.

(_b_) A letter from Demetrius I to the Jewish nation (x. 25-45). This was written for the purpose of out-bidding Alexander Balas in promises of favour and privileges. It is probably based on some original document; but the accuracy of the details is open to question. The promises and concessions are over-stated, and correspond so exactly, in many respects, with the highest aspirations of the Jews at this time that they suggest rather the expression of Jewish ideals than actual promises.

(_c_) A letter from Demetrius II to Jonathan, enclosing one to Lasthenes (xi. 30-37). What has just been said applies here too. It represents an original letter, the contents of which were utilized by our author, and elaborated by him in accordance with his ideals.

(_d_) A letter from Antiochus VI to Jonathan (xi. 57). This is clearly a succinct summing-up of the contents of the original letter; its extreme shortness and the absence of salutation show that, although written in the first person, it does not profess to give more than the general sense of the original.

(_e_) A letter from Demetrius II to Simon (xiii. 36-40). This letter, in which the Syrian king acknowledges receipt of certain presents from the Jewish high-priest, and confirms earlier privileges, is stamped with the mark of genuineness; it reads like an original, and is doubtless a copy of one.

(_f_) A letter from Antiochus VII to Simon (xv. 2-9). To some extent what has been said in regard to (_b_) and (_c_) applies also to this letter. It is probably not a _verbatim_ copy of the original, but represents, at all events in parts, the contents of the original. On the other hand, there are elements in it which are the expression of ardent desires rather than of actual facts.

Lastly, there is a third class of documentary sources which record the relations between the Jews and the _rulers of foreign kingdoms_.

(_a_) A treaty of alliance between the Romans and the Jews (viii. 23-32). In verses 24 ff. it is stated, as one of the articles of the treaty, that if the Romans are attacked by an enemy the Jews may not render that enemy any help, whether of “food, arms, money, or ships” (verse 26). This mention of ships is held by some to show that this document belonged to a date later than the time of Judas, in whose time the Jews possessed no ships, and that therefore the whole section is a later interpolation. But it is quite possible that the foresight of the Romans sufficiently explains this mention of ships; or they might have assumed the possession of ships by a nation whose country had a long coast-line. It was not long after the death of Judas that the Jews did acquire a harbour (see xiii. 29, xiv. 5). There seems no sufficient reason to doubt that a genuine document has here been utilized.

(_b_) A letter from the Spartans to Simon (xiv. 20-22). We are confronted here with a difficulty similar to that which occurs in the letter from Jonathan to the Spartans in xii. 6-18 (see above). The section opens (verse 16) with the words: “And it was heard at Rome that Jonathan was dead, and even unto Sparta, and they were exceedingly sorry.” It then goes on to say that the Romans wrote to Simon, who had succeeded his brother Jonathan, on tables of brass to renew “the friendship and the confederacy” (verse 18); but then, instead of giving a copy of this document, as might reasonably be expected, it goes on to say: “And this is a copy of the letter which the Spartans sent.” In this letter it is stated that the two Jewish ambassadors who were the bearers of it were Numenius, the son of Antiochus, and Antipater, the son of Jason. But then the narrative (verse 24) goes on: “After this Simon sent Numenius to Rome with a great shield of gold of a thousand pound weight, in order to confirm the confederacy with them.” On the previous occasion on which mention is made of a confederacy between the Jews and the Romans, on the one hand, and the Spartans on the other, the same two ambassadors were sent, first to the Romans and then to the Spartans, on the same journey (see xii. 16, 17); on the present occasion it is to be presumed, for the text implies it, that this was again done; but if so, how is one to account for the fact that in the letter to the Spartans these ambassadors are said to be the bearers of it, while, immediately after (verse 24), it is said that Numenius started on his journey? There is also a further difficulty; is it likely, as stated in the text, that on the death of Jonathan the Romans would have taken the initiative in renewing the treaty with the Jews? This seems to be directly contradicted by what is said in verse 24 (quoted above). It would appear that verses 17-23 are an interpolation added later; this would also explain the otherwise unaccountable words, “and even unto Sparta,” in verse 16, which were presumably put in because of the interpolation. The contents of this letter read like an official document, the probability is that use was made of some genuine record which was interpolated at a later period.

(_c_) A letter from Lucius, the Roman consul, to Ptolemy Euergetes II, king of Egypt (xv. 16-21). This is the copy of a circular letter written in the name of “Lucius the consul,” and brought back from Rome by Numenius. In it the friendship between the Romans and the Jews is proclaimed; copies of it are sent not only to the kings of Egypt and Syria, but also to a number of small independent States. Now Josephus (_Antiq._, XIV, viii. 5) mentions a letter from the Roman Senate, written in the name of the praetor Lucius Valerius in reply to a message brought by a Jewish embassy. As in the case just referred to, Numenius, the son of Antiochus, is one of the ambassadors (two others accompany him), and he brings a gift of a golden shield; the contents of this letter are similar to those of the letter in our book, and it is likewise sent to a number of petty independent States. But, according to Josephus, this happened in the ninth year of Hyrcanus II, who reigned B.C. 63-40. Now if, as is maintained by some, especially by Willrich,[446] Josephus is right here, the passage we are dealing with must be an interpolation. Mommsen[447] has, indeed, proved that Josephus is recording genuine history in saying that the praetor Lucius Valerius sent a letter to the Jews, with the contents as given, during the reign of Hyrcanus II. This does not, however, constitute an insuperable difficulty, for one of the consuls in B.C. 139 was named Lucius Calpurnius Piso, and the “Consul Lucius,” spoken of in the text (xv. 16) could quite well refer to him. What is more difficult is the fact of the great similarity in the contents between the letter given in our book and of that given by Josephus; Mommsen maintains that they are not identical, which would mitigate the difficulty; but the mention of Numenius, the son of Antiochus, in both letters is a grave difficulty. Probably Willrich is right in regarding the passage as a later interpolation, added because it seemed to be appropriate in a place where Simon’s treaty with Rome was mentioned.[448]

These, then, are the sources from which our book was compiled; they show that the writer of 1 Maccabees had access to a number of official documents in addition to the accounts of events which he received from eye-witnesses. The documentary sources shed a most valuable light on the external policy of the Jews as well as on the important _rôle_ they played in shaping Syrian politics; so that for the history of the Jews of this period our book may well be described as the most valuable source which we possess.

V. THE HISTORY OF THE MACCABÆAN STRUGGLE

The momentous struggle for religious liberty and political independence which is described in our book deals with the period 175-135 B.C., i.e. from the accession of Antiochus Epiphanes to the death of Simon Maccabæus. The divisions of the book are clearly marked, recording respectively the progress of the war under the leadership of Mattathias, Judas, Jonathan, and Simon; and each division has as its central subject the description of an event of supreme importance to the Jews, thus: the first division records the opening of the struggle and its cause; the second tells of how religious liberty was acquired; the third describes the establishment of the Hasmonæan high-priesthood; and the last shows how the way to political independence was secured.[449] The contents of these, together with the short Introduction by which they are prefaced, must now occupy our attention.

(_a_) _The Conquests of Alexander the Great, and the Division of his Empire_ (i. 1-9)

In pregnant words Alexander’s conquests are thus summed up: “And he waged many wars, and won strongholds, and slew kings, and pressed forward to the ends of the earth, and took spoils from many peoples.” In describing what happened on Alexander’s death-bed the writer says that the kingdom was divided among the dying king’s chief ministers “while he was yet alive,” and that after he was dead “they all assumed the diadem.” This does not agree with the statement made by Justin Martyr, Diodorus Siculus, and Curtius, to the effect that when the dying king was no longer able to speak he handed his signet-ring to the captain of his bodyguard, Perdiccas, whom he thus indicated as his successor. That all the chief ministers assumed the diadem after the king was dead is an inaccurate statement, as only five of Alexander’s generals assumed the title of king, and that not until B.C. 306, seventeen years after his death. Here, as in a number of other cases, the writer of our book shows that his knowledge concerning the affairs of foreign nations is imperfect; but the value of the book as a whole, and the credibility of the narrative in general, is not affected by these inaccuracies; “we see in this only the simple standpoint of the observer who, following his sources, confines his view exclusively to the circle of Jewish affairs” (Schürer).

(_b_) _The Original Cause of the Struggle; the Leadership of Mattathias_ (i. 10-ii. 70)

As we are clearly shown in this division the original cause of the Maccabæan struggle was of a twofold character; internal and external forces brought it about. A not inconsiderable section of the Jewish people had been captivated by the attractions of Hellenism, and were ready to give up their own faith and practice in exchange for that of the Gentiles; “they joined themselves to the Gentiles, and sold themselves to do evil” (i. 15). When Antiochus Epiphanes had overcome Ptolemy, king of Egypt, he proceeded to deal with the Jews; “he went up against Israel and Jerusalem with a great army; and in his arrogance he entered into the sanctuary” (i. 20, 21); having taken everything in the Temple on which he could lay hands, he returned home. For two years the people were left in peace; then another blow was inflicted on them. Apollonius, a “chief collector of tribute,” was sent by Antiochus to Jerusalem with an army; he pretended that his mission was a peaceful one, and with smooth words imposed upon the people; then suddenly he fell upon the city, and a general sack seems to have taken place. The citadel was occupied by the foreign troops, and the people were reduced to sore straits. All this, however, did not rouse the people to resistance. Then came the edict of uniformity of worship, put forth by Antiochus; to realize how this was intended to affect the Jews it will be well to quote some words from it; the Jews were commanded that “they should practise customs foreign to the traditions of the land, and that they should cease the sacrificing of the whole burnt-offerings, and sacrifices, and drink-offerings in the sanctuary; and that they should profane the sabbaths and feasts, and pollute the sanctuary and those who had been sanctified; that they should, moreover, build high places, and sacred groves, and shrines for idols, and that they should sacrifice swine and other unclean animals; and that they should leave their sons uncircumcized, and make themselves abominable by means of practising everything that was unclean and profane, so that they might forget the Law, and change all the traditional ordinances” (i. 44-49). It was this which was the immediate cause of the Maccabæan revolt. But it may be questioned whether Antiochus would have attempted such a cruel coercion had it not been for the presence of that strong Hellenistic party among the Jews to which reference has already been made. No sooner was the edict promulgated than this Hellenistic party began to carry out its commands; “many in Israel took delight in the king’s form of worship, and they began sacrificing to idols, and profaned the sabbath” (i. 43). The king’s officers went from city to city to enforce the edict; a rigorous search was also made for all copies of the Law, which were burned; horrible cruelties were perpetrated on all who remained faithful to the ancestral religion. Intense indignation took hold of the faithful in Israel; numbers resisted, and suffered death rather than deny their God; but resistance of individuals was of no avail; what was required was a leader around whom the people could gather, and who would direct corporate action. Such a leader soon appeared.

In going from city to city to enforce the decrees of the king’s edict, the royal officers came to Modin, the present El-Medije, east of Lydda; this was the native city of the family of the Maccabees, of whom Mattathias was the head. The officers called on him to set an example of obedience to the royal commands, but he indignantly refused; thereupon an apostate Jew stepped forth with the object of sacrificing according to heathen rites on the altar at Modin; this aroused the righteous wrath of Mattathias to the highest pitch, he rushed upon his faithless fellow-townsman and killed him as he stood by the altar; then, turning upon one of the king’s officers, he slew him too. “Let every one that is zealous for the Law,” he then cried out to his people, “and that would maintain the covenant, come after me!” The standard of revolt was now definitely raised; large numbers of the Jews followed Mattathias into the mountains, among them many of the _Chassidim_. It was not sufficient for these patriots merely to act on the defensive, but, as the writer of our book says, they “smote sinners in their anger, and lawless men in their wrath.... Mattathias and his friends went round about, and pulled down altars, and they circumcized by force the children that were uncircumcized ... and they pursued after the sons of pride, and the work prospered in their hand” (ii. 44-47).

In the following year (B.C. 167-166) Mattathias died; but his bold step had done its work in consolidating a vigorous and determined body of patriots. He directed that his third son, Judas, should take his place as leader in war, while Simon, the elder brother of Judas, should act as chief counsellor.

(_c_) _The Leadership of Judas Maccabæus; Religious Liberty Secured_ (iii. 1-ix. 22)

Judas’ capacity as a military leader was very soon vindicated by two signal victories gained over Apollonius, already mentioned, and Seron, the Syrian commander. Judas had taken the initiative in attacking the armies under these two generals in each case; his quickness in appreciating the position of affairs, and his promptitude in action were the cause of these victories, which seem to have had a profound moral effect both on his own people and on others. Even allowing for some very natural exaggeration the following words doubtless reflect the actual facts: “Then began the fear of Judas and of his brethren, and the dread of them fell upon the nations round about them. And his name came near even unto the king; and every nation told of the battles of Judas” (iii. 25, 26).

Antiochus was, of course, greatly incensed when he heard of the defeats of his forces; but being in want of money he found it necessary to go to Persia in order to raise funds charging Lysias, “one of the seed royal,” to undertake to punish the rebels. The first act of Lysias was to raise a force of forty thousand footmen and seven thousand horse, which he despatched under three of his generals, Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias, to Judæa to subdue Judas. An attempted night surprise by Gorgias with part of the Syrian army failed through the vigilance of Judas; and the following day Judas again took the initiative with great success, the Syrians fleeing in disorder, and losing about three thousand men. The next year Lysias raised a still larger army which he commanded in person; but again the fortune of war went against him, and he suffered a serious defeat.

The Jews were now able to enjoy a short respite, which was utilized for the purpose of rebuilding and re-dedicating the Temple. It was on this occasion that the feast of _Chanukkah_ (“Dedication”) was instituted; it has been regularly observed by orthodox Jews ever since.

But peace did not last long; the Jews were now attacked by some of the smaller peoples who had made common cause with the chief enemy. However, Judas had little difficulty in silencing these, viz., the Edomites, Bæanites, and Ammonites. Scarcely was this accomplished, when Judas received news that many of his people in Gilead were in straits owing to the hostility of the Gentiles; in Galilee also the same thing was happening. He thereupon sent his brother Simon with an adequate force into Galilee, while he himself went over the Jordan. In both theatres of the war success continued to attend the Jewish arms.

In B.C. 163 Antiochus Epiphanes died while yet in Persia; he was succeeded by his son, Antiochus Eupator, who had been nourished up while yet young by Lysias. But the death of Epiphanes brought no rest to the Jews. Judas had, in the meantime, returned to Jerusalem; and he determined now to expel the garrison which had been stationed in the citadel from the beginning of the struggle. He, therefore, besieged the citadel, and further strengthened his own position by fortifying Bethsura; this place occupied an important strategical position on the road between Jerusalem and Hebron; Josephus (_Antiq._, XIII, v. 6) speaks of it as “the strongest place in all Judæa.” Those who were besieged in the citadel managed to send word to the king, who came, accompanied by Lysias, with a large army to check the designs of Judas. In this he succeeded for the time; Bethsura was starved out, and Jerusalem was taken by means of an act of the basest treachery. This happened in the following manner: when Antiochus Epiphanes was on his death-bed he designated Philip, one of his nearest friends, as regent during the minority of the new king (vi. 14, 15); but the latter had been under the special care of Lysias hitherto; and as Philip was in Persia, while Lysias, with the new king, was in Syria at headquarters, Lysias took the place of adviser and guide to the king. Now while the king was busy fighting against Judas, as just recounted, Philip, determined to assert himself, returned from Persia and “sought to take unto him the government” (vi. 56); he had with him the army which Epiphanes had led into Persia; the position was clearly serious for the king and Lysias; so on the advice of the latter peace was made with Judas, and all that he had been fighting for, i.e. religious liberty, was accorded. Judas, trusting to the good faith of the king and Lysias, came forth, and “the king entered into Mount Sion”; but having thus got possession of the stronghold the king repudiated his oath, and had the place dismantled, though the Jews still retained their hold upon it. Then he went to deal with Philip, whom he found in possession of Antioch, the capital; he fought against Philip, defeated him, and took the city. His triumph was, however, short-lived; for in the following year he was assassinated by command of Demetrius, who now became king. A short digression is necessary here in order to explain the position of Demetrius. When Antiochus III (the Great) died he left two sons, Seleucus IV (Philopator), the elder, who became king, and Antiochus (afterwards Epiphanes), who lived at Rome as a hostage. In order that his brother might be released, Seleucus IV sent his own son, Demetrius, as a hostage to Rome. When Antiochus reached Syria he found that his brother had been murdered, and instead of requiting the kindness that had been shown him by endeavouring to help Demetrius, the lawful heir, to the throne, he usurped the kingdom himself, while Demetrius was left in Rome. When Antiochus Epiphanes died his son, as we have seen, came to the throne, though Demetrius was, of course, still the rightful heir. But Demetrius succeeded in making his escape from Rome, and was thus enabled to come to his own. This was in B.C. 162; he was the first king of this name to reign over Syria, and received the name of Soter[450]; he reigned till B.C. 150.

No sooner was Demetrius seated on the throne than the war against the Jews recommenced. Bacchides, one of the “king’s friends,” and the “ungodly Alcimus,” whom Demetrius had made high-priest, were sent against Judas; but Bacchides soon returned to the king, leaving Alcimus with an army to look after the land. He, however, also returned to the king when he saw that Judas was too strong for him. The king, therefore, sent a new army against the Jews under the command of Nicanor. Once more Judas was victorious, Nicanor fell in the battle and his army was scattered. Then, it is said, “the land of Judah had rest a little while” (vii. 50). If we are to trust the contents of chapter viii. of our book, Judas at this point made an alliance with the Romans (see above, p. 420), in consequence of which they wrote to Demetrius, saying, “Wherefore hast thou made thy yoke heavy upon our friends and confederates the Jews? If, therefore, they plead any more against thee, we will do them justice, and fight thee by sea and land” (viii. 32). This threat did not, however, have any effect, for on Demetrius hearing of the death of Nicanor and the defeat of his forces, he despatched Bacchides and Alcimus a second time against Judas; this time they were too strong for the Jews, who were defeated, and, worst of all, Judas fell. But Jerusalem continued in the possession of the Jews, and the Temple services were celebrated; so that religious liberty had been gained and retained by the devoted courage and perseverance of Judas.

(_d_) _The Leadership of Jonathan; the Establishment of the Hasmonæan High-priesthood_ (ix. 23-xii. 53)

The first result of the death of Judas was, not unnaturally, to fill the patriots with despair. But this did not last long; and the people came to his brother Jonathan and elected him as their leader.

As soon as Bacchides got to know of this he renewed the attack, but was repulsed by Jonathan. This seems to have been a more crushing defeat, judging by the sequel, than the short account of it (ix. 43-49) would imply; for the Jews were left in peace for two years. At the end of that time another futile attempt was made by Bacchides, and he was glad to make terms of peace with Jonathan. What immense progress had been made by the patriots can be seen by these pregnant words: “And the sword ceased from Israel. And Jonathan dwelt at Michmash. And Jonathan began to judge the people; and he destroyed the ungodly out of Israel” (ix. 73).

The Maccabæan struggle now enters upon a new phase owing to the activity of the rival claimants to the Syrian throne; the Maccabæan power, as it may now be called, comes to occupy the position of the “deciding factor,” and is thus courted first by one and then by the other claiment to the throne.

When it is said, as quoted above, that “the sword ceased from Israel ...” the period of peace was, according to our book, one of about seven years; during the whole of this time the only act of war recorded is the abortive attempt by Bacchides to subdue Jonathan, as told in ix. 58-73. So that it looks as though Demetrius I had given up the struggle against these formidable champions of liberty. But the Jews had not yet gained all they intended to have; their first objective, viz., religious liberty, was already attained, mainly through the efforts of Judas; but they had now learned to realize their own power, and had determined to acquire political independence as well.

In B.C. 153, when Demetrius had ruled for about ten years, a rival to the Syrian throne appeared in the person of one Alexander Balas. This man, a low-born native of Smyrna, gave himself out to be the son of Antiochus Epiphanes; the claim received some support owing to his resemblance to the late usurper, Antiochus Eupator. The cause of Alexander was taken up by Attalus II, king of Pergamum, who supported his claims to the kingdom of Syria against Demetrius. Although, according to Polybius (xxxiii. 14, 6), it was well known that the claims of Alexander were without justification, he was, nevertheless, supported by the Roman Senate, who promised to help him. His success, to which we shall refer presently, was largely due to the fact that Demetrius was hated by his own people on account of his “insolence and difficulty of access,” and because he was “slothful and negligent about public affairs”; so Josephus tells us (_Antiq._, XIII, ii. 1). Alexander appeared suddenly upon the scene; his first act was to take possession of Ptolemais; in this he had no difficulty, for he was welcomed as king by the inhabitants. As soon as Demetrius heard of this he gathered his forces together; but before going to battle he sought to gain Jonathan for his cause; “let us be beforehand to make peace with them,” he said, “ere he make peace with Alexander against us” (x. 4). The promises of Demetrius were, however, out-bidden by those of Alexander, who wrote to Jonathan as soon as he heard of Demetrius’ action. In his letter Alexander writes: “We have appointed thee this day to be high-priest of thy nation....” This was the first beginning of the establishment of the Hasmonæan[451] high-priesthood, though it was not fully consolidated until some years later (B.C. 141).[452] It was in vain that Demetrius wrote a second letter to Jonathan full of the most extravagant promises[453] (x. 26-45), for Jonathan and the people “gave no credence” to his words; an alliance was, on the other hand, made with Alexander. A battle was then fought between Alexander and Demetrius; but the account of this, as given in x. 48 ff., is incomprehensible, we have to turn to Josephus (_Antiq._, XIII, ii. 4) to understand what really happened: “And when it was come to a battle, the left wing of Demetrius put those who opposed them to flight, and pursued them a great way, and slew many of them, and spoiled their camp. But the right wing, where Demetrius happened to be, was beaten; and as for all the rest, they ran away. But Demetrius fought courageously, and slew a great many of the enemy; but as he was in pursuit of the rest, his horse carried him into a deep bog, where it was hard to get out, and there it happened, that upon his horse’s falling down, he could not escape being killed; for when his enemies saw what had befallen him, they returned back, and encompassed Demetrius round, and they all threw their darts at him; but he, being now on foot, fought bravely; but at length he received so many wounds that he was not able to bear up any longer, and fell.” The battle seems, thus, to have been indecisive until Demetrius fell, when evidently his followers lost heart. Alexander’s next step was to make a treaty with Ptolemy VI, Philometor, king of Egypt, whose daughter, Cleopatra, he married, the marriage being celebrated with great pomp at Ptolemais; the Egyptian king himself was present. Alexander, further, invited Jonathan to Ptolemais, where he was received with much honour, the friendship and alliance between the two being thus consolidated.

For a few years Alexander was left in peaceful possession of the Syrian throne, but in B.C. 147 the son of Demetrius, Demetrius Nicator, came from Crete, where he had been living in exile since the war between his father and Alexander began, and sought, as the rightful heir, to regain his kingdom. He appointed Apollonius his commander-in-chief. An army having been raised, Apollonius encamped in Jamnia (Jabneh), and tried conclusions first with Jonathan, Alexander’s ally. Jonathan was ably seconded by his brother Simon, and between them they inflicted a severe defeat on Apollonius. Alexander, on hearing this, “honoured Jonathan yet more; and he sent unto him a buckle of gold, as the use is to give to such as are of the kindred of the kings; moreover, he gave him Ekron and all the borders thereof for a possession” (x. 89).

This friendship between Alexander and Jonathan was soon destined to place the latter in a very awkward position, though he managed to extricate himself owing mainly to his having so firmly established his power. This came about in the following way. A treaty was made between Ptolemy VI and Demetrius Nicator, in spite of the former’s alliance with Alexander. Antioch was besieged by Ptolemy, and Alexander escaped to Arabia; but here he was treacherously murdered, while Ptolemy himself died only a few days afterwards. This left all clear for Demetrius, who now became king. As Jonathan had supported the new king’s rival, his position was now of a somewhat awkward character. However, both the king and Jonathan considered it to be of advantage to themselves if they were at peace, so friendship was concluded between them.

But Demetrius II was not to be left in peace long. Alexander had left a son, Antiochus, in Arabia, whose cause was now about to be championed by Tryphon; the latter had been one of the close friends of Alexander. The time was propitious for Tryphon to attempt to gain the kingdom for his late master’s son, for Demetrius had unwisely disbanded the bulk of his troops when he saw that peace was established; in consequence of this they had revolted. In his distress he looked for help to Jonathan; nor did he look in vain; for Jonathan sent him three thousand men to Antioch. With the help of these Demetrius was enabled to re-establish himself. Things might have continued to go well with him, but he foolishly fell out with Jonathan, and had soon to pay the penalty. For Tryphon now made a second attempt; he brought the young Antiochus, still a child, with him, and gathered around him all the troops which Demetrius had disbanded. With these he stormed Antioch, and Demetrius had to flee. The first act of Antiochus (the sixth as he now was) again showed the position which Jonathan had gained; guided, of course, by Tryphon, he sent word to Jonathan, confirming him in the high-priesthood and in the governorship of the governments of Judæa, Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim, and conferring other honours upon him; at the same time setting Simon, Jonathan’s brother, over the district from “the ladder of Tyre”[454] to the Egyptian frontier. The Jewish leaders were not slow to appreciate this politic step on the part of Antiochus; they immediately undertook a victorious campaign against their own enemies as well as against those of the king. Jonathan himself went to Galilee, whither Demetrius had fled, with the purpose of punishing him; Demetrius seems to have succeeded in gathering an army again, and a pitched battle took place. At first it looked as though Jonathan were going to get the worst of it; but ultimately he triumphed, and Demetrius again fled, and, for the present, gave up the struggle in Syria in order to try his fortune against the Parthians; but he was taken prisoner by the Parthians, and remained in captivity for ten years, after which, as we shall see, he again appeared in Syria.

In the meantime Tryphon himself aspired to the Syrian throne; he caused Antiochus VI to be killed, and usurped the kingdom. But fearing Jonathan, Tryphon captured him by treachery and imprisoned him.

(_e_) _The Leadership of Simon_ (xiii. 1-xvi. 24)

Simon’s first act was to try to avenge his brother; he did, indeed, severely defeat Tryphon and drive him out of the country, but not until Tryphon had murdered Jonathan with his own hand. It was Simon’s conviction that his wisest course would now be to bring about the re-instatement of Demetrius II; he accordingly sent messengers to Demetrius with this intimation, and, of course, received a very favourable reply (xiii. 36-40). The next thing that we hear of Demetrius is that he went into Media to get help to fight against Tryphon, who had by no means given up his hopes of regaining the throne. Demetrius was captured, however, by the king of Persia and Media, and again shut up in prison.[455]

With Demetrius II in prison, and Tryphon driven out of the country, a new aspirant to the throne now appears in the person of Antiochus VII (Sidetes), the brother of Demetrius.

The new king, as had now become customary, first addresses himself to the Jewish leader; having gained his good-will by making many promises, Antiochus enters into the kingdom. Here he finds Tryphon, whom he besieges in Dor; Tryphon managed to escape by ship, and is no more mentioned in our book.[456] Shortly after this Antiochus, believing, presumably, that his position was sufficiently strong, and desiring to show that he could stand alone, repudiated his treaty with Simon, and would not receive him, “but set at nought everything that he had previously covenanted with him; and he was estranged from him” (xv. 27). Then he proceeded to send a force under Cendebæus to attack Judæa, and to worry the Jewish people in various ways. Simon, feeling the weight of age upon him, appointed his two eldest sons, Judas and John, to undertake the further prosecution of the war. They attack Cendebæus and defeat him; Judas was wounded, but John returned to Judæa in peace (xv. 9, 10).

Our book now gives an account of another act of treachery which threatened to annihilate the direct line of the family of the Maccabees. Ptolemy, “the son of Abubus, Simon’s son-in-law, who had been appointed captain over the plain of Jericho,” desired to secure for himself the supreme power, for which purpose it was necessary that Simon and his sons should be got out of the way. The writer of our book recounts in pregnant phrases what happened: “Now Simon was visiting the cities that were in the country, and taking care for the good ordering of them. And he went down to Jericho, he himself and Mattathias and Judas, his sons, in the one hundred and seventy-seventh year [= B.C. 135], in the eleventh month, the same is the month Sebat [= February]. And the son of Abubus received them deceitfully into the little stronghold that is called Dôk, which he had built, and he made them a great banquet; and he hid men there. And when Simon and his sons had drunk freely, Ptolemy and they that were with him rose up, and took their arms, and came upon Simon into the banqueting hall, and slew him and his two sons, and certain of his servants. And he committed thus a great act of treachery, and recompensed evil for good” (xvi. 14-17). John was not with his father at the time, but Ptolemy despatched his creatures to Gazara, where John was staying, to murder him. Fortunately, however, John was warned in time, and “he laid hands on the men that came to destroy him, and slew them” (xvi. 22).

Our book closes with a reference to the acts of John which are written in “the chronicles of his high-priesthood” (xvi. 24).