� 4. Religious Destitution And Revival, B.C. 175-165

§ 4. RELIGIOUS DESTITUTION AND REVIVAL, B.C. 175-165
SOURCES
1 Maccabees 1-4 2 Maccabees 4-11.
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5-7. Epitome of it in Zonaras, Annal. iv. 19-20.
The Book of Daniel, chap. 11:21-45, and Jerome’s Commentary (Opp., ed. Vallarsi, v. 711-724).
Some facts collected from Megillath Taanith in Derenbourg, Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 59-63.
LITERATURE
The works already mentioned in p. 170 on Syrian history by Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe, Stark, etc.
Treatises and Commentaries on the Books of the Maccabees, by Wace, Birrell (Apocrypha, with introd. notes, etc., New York 1880), Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, etc.
Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. 286-306.
Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel (3 Aufl.), iv. 219-261.
Hitzig, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 367-395.
Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. ii. 2, pp. 268-352.
Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften Alten Testaments, § 451-460.
Pauly’s Real-Encyclop. der class. Alterthumswissensch. i. 1 (2 Aufl.), art “Antiochus IV.”
Rossmann, Die makkabäische Erhebung. Vortag. Jena 1860.
Hoffmann (John Fried.), Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, König von Syrien. Leipzig 1873.
Wiederholt, Antiochus IV. Epiphanes nach der Weissagung, Dan. xi. 21, xii. 3, und der Geschichte (Tüb. Theol. Quartalschr. 1874, pp. 567-631).
Menke’s Bibelatlas, Bl. IV. Specialkarten über “Judäa und Phönicien zur Zeit des Antiochus Epiphanes.”
Since the conquests of the Assyrians and Chaldeans, the Jewish people had lost their political independence. The northern kingdom of the ten tribes had been overthrown by the Assyrians, the southern kingdom of Judah by the Chaldeans. The sovereignty had passed from the Chaldeans to the Persians, and from the Persians, after a supremacy of two centuries, to Alexander the Great.[98] In the wild commotions of the Diadochean period, Palestine formed a main object of strife between Ptolemy Lagus and his opponents, and was therefore sometimes under one, sometimes under another master. With short intervals it continued throughout the third century under the sway of the Ptolemies. But in the beginning of the second century, Antiochus the Great succeeded in permanently securing possession of Phoenicia and Palestine. In place of the Ptolemies, the Seleucidae now became the suzerains of the Jewish people.[99]
[98] According to Josephus, Antiq. xi. 8. 4-5, Alexander is said to have made a sacrifice in Jerusalem. The story in its details perhaps is unhistorical. The thing is not, however, in itself impossible. Compare generally: Flathe, Geschichte Macedonicus, i. 310 ff. Henrichsen, Das Verhältniss der Juden zu Alexander dem Grossen (Studien und Kritiken, 1871, pp. 458-480). Blümmer, Alexander der Grosse in Jerusalem, Festschr. Büdingen 1872. Reuss, Geschichte der heil. Schriften A. T.’s, § 426.—Also the later Jewish legends have much to say about Alexander. See Vogelstein, Beiträge zur Alexandersage (Monatsschr. für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judenthums, Bd. xv. 1866, pp. 121-134, 161-178). Donath, Die Alexandersage in Talmud und Midrasch mit Bücksicht auf Josephus Flavius, Pseudo-Callisthenes und die mohammedanische Alexandersage, Fulda 1873 (Rostocker Dissert.). Hamburger, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. art. “Alexander der Grosse.” Lévi, La légende d’Alexandre dans le Talmud (Revue des études juives, t. ii. 1881, pp. 293-300). Lévi, Les traductions hebraïques de l’histoire légendaire d’Alexandre (Revue des études juives, t. iii. 1881, pp. 238-275). Lévi, La légende d’Alexandre dans le Talmud et le Midrasch (Revue des études juives, t. vii. 1883, pp. 78-93). Lévi, Le voyage d’Alexandre au Paradis (Revue des études juives, t. xii. 1886, p. 117 sq.). ס׳ תולדות אלכסנדר, Hebrew Text with Introduction by Lévi, Paris, Durlacher, 1887 (see Revue des études juives, t. xiv. 1887, p. 299 sq.).
[99] See further particulars in the above-named works on Syrian history. Stark has clearly proved (Gaza, pp. 403 ff., 423 ff.) that after the battle of Panias, in B.C. 198, Phoenicia and Palestine continued permanently under the dominion of the Seleucidae.
Even in the beginning of the Persian domination the Jews had resolved to organize themselves anew as a religious and political community. But the form in which the Jewish commonwealth was restored after the exile was essentially different from that which prevailed before. It was from this time forward a government of priests. As they were preeminently religious interests that had given the impulse to the reconstruction, so also the form of the new commonwealth was more that of a religious than of a political association. The priests had in it a predominating influence, at least from the time of Ezra. Indeed, a priest stood at the head of the political organization. For the so-called high priest was not by any means simply the supreme director of worship, but was at the same time also the supreme head of the State, in so far as civil authority was not exercised by the great king and his officers. The rank of high priest was held for life, and was hereditary.[100] Alongside of him, probably even during the Persian period, and in any case from the beginning of the Greek domination, stood a council of elders, the γερουσία, with the high priest at its head as its executive organ. How far administration and legislation lay in the hands of this native board, and how far these were exercised by the Persian and Greek suzerains, cannot now be determined with any certainty. Under the Greek suzerains the political independence of the Jewish people could not be less, but probably greater, than it had been before (compare generally, § 23. 3).
[100] See the list of high priests from Joshua, the contemporary of Zerubbabel, down to Jaddua, in Nehemiah 12:10-11. Jaddua was a contemporary of Alexander the Great. (Josephus, Antiq. xi. 7. 2, 8. 7). The successors of Jaddua, according to Josephus, were:—
Onias I., son of Jaddua (Antiq. xi. 8. 7), or, according to 1Ma_12:7; 1Ma_8:20, a contemporary of King Areus of Sparta, B.C. 309-265.
Simon I. the Just, son of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 2. 4. Compare Div. ii. vol. i. 355).
Eleasar, brother of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 2. 4), according to the book of Aristeas, a contemporary of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus, B.C. 283-247.
Manasseh, uncle of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 4. 1).
Onias II., son of Simon the Just (Antiq. xii. 4. 1-2), of the age of Ptolemy III. Euergetes, B.C. 247-222.
Simon II., son of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 4. 10). Compare Sir_1:1 ff.; 3Ma_2:1.
Onias III., son of the preceding (Antiq. xii. 4. 10), of the time of Seleucus IV. and Antiochus Epiphanes, B.C. 175, and hence referred to in the early history of the Maccabean struggle; 2 Maccabees 3-4; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1.
The high priest Hezekiah, spoken of by the Pseudo-Hecataeus (quoted in Josephus, contra Apion. i. 22) as the contemporary of Ptolemy Lagus, is not reckoned by Josephus in the list given in his history.—The Christian chroniclers (Eusebius, Demonstr. evang., ed. Gaisford, viii. 2. 62-72; Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, ii. 114-124; Chronicon Paschale, ed. Dindorf, i. 302-339, 356 sq., 390 sq.; Syncellus, ed. Dindorf, i. 484, 512, 525; Χρονογραφεῖον σύντομον in Eusebius, Chron., ed. Schoene, i. Append. col. 95; and others) have devoted special attention to these Jewish high priests, and have thus, in so far as their chronistic requirements went, fixed precisely the period of each. But it now appears from their statements that they had at their command no other authority than Josephus. Their conclusions are therefore purely arbitrary, and every attempt to determine the chronology accurately with their aid is necessarily doomed to failure. This applies specially to the endeavour of Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israels, ii. 368 ff., who makes use even of the Pseudo-Philonic “Breviarium temporum,” on which compare Fabricius, Bibliotheca graec., ed. Harles, iv. 743, and the article on Annius of Viterbo, by Fabricius, Biblioth. graec. 1 Augs. xiv. 211-219, and Wachler in Ersch and Gruber’e Allgem. Encyclop. Section I. Bd. iv. pp. 183-185.—A thoroughgoing examination of the lists of high priests in the Byzantine Chroniclers is made by Gelzer, Julius Africanus, Bd. ii. 1885, pp. 170-176.
The extent of the Jewish commonwealth, which still possessed a relatively considerable measure of independence, was probably limited to Judea proper, that is, the province lying south of Samaria, which in its range corresponded nearly with the kingdom of Judah of earlier days. All the coast cities were excluded from it, for these were mainly occupied by a heathen population, and formed independent communities by themselves (see § 23. 1). How far those Gentile districts extended inland may be seen from this, that even Ekron and Gazara did not belong to Judea. Ekron was first united with the Jewish domain and Judaized in the time of Jonathan (1Ma_10:88-89), Gazara first in the time of Simon (1Ma_13:43-48). On the situation of these towns, see below under § 6 and 7. Also the whole of the land east of the Jordan was excluded from the Jewish territory. We find there partly Hellenistic communities (see § 23. 1), partly independent tribes, under native rulers.[101] In the country west of the Jordan, towards the end of the third and the beginning of the second century, “Judea” and “Samaria” formed each a separately administered province alongside of “Coele-Syria” and “Phoenicia.”[102] Galilee was not reckoned as a distinct province, and so it belonged to one of the four above named, but scarcely to Judea, toward which it did not conveniently lie. Now the Pseudo-Hecataeus, indeed, expressly affirms that Alexander the Great gave to the Jews Samaria as a district free from tribute.[103] But even if this statement were more credible than it is, it could not by any means apply to the period of the Seleucid rule, since even under the Maccabean high priest Jonathan it is related as a proof of the special favour of King Demetrius II., that he took three νομοί from Samaria and united them with Judea, and made over this whole district to the Jews free of tribute.[104] Ordinarily, therefore, the territory of the Jewish high priest embraced only Judea. And that, too, Judea in the narrower sense, without Galilee, for this is evidently the meaning of the passages quoted from the First Book of Maccabees.[105]
[101] One such who may be cited as an example was that Timothy, ἡγούμενος of the Ammonites, against whom Judas Maccabees fought (1Ma_5:8; 1Ma_5:11; 1Ma_5:34; 1Ma_5:37; 1Ma_5:40). For it is extremely improbable, from what we are told in 1Ma_9:35-42 of the independence of the tribes living there, that he was a general set over the Ammorites by the King of Syria.—Also Aretas, the τύραννος of the Nabateans (2Ma_5:8), belonged to that same class.
[102] This is made quite evident from the two thoroughly harmonizing accounts given in Josephus, Antiq. xii. 4. 1 and xii. 4. 4.
[103] Pseudo-Hecataeus in Josephus, contra Apionem, ii. 4: τὴν Σαμαρεῖτιν χὡραν προσέθηκεν ἔχειν αὐτοῖς ἀφορολόγητον.
[104] Macc. 11:34: ἑστάκαμεν οὖν αὐτοῖς τά τε ὅρια τῆς Ἰουδαίας καὶ τοὺς τρεῖς νομοὺς Ἀφαίρεμα καὶ Λύδδα καὶ Ῥαμαθέμ· προσετέθησαν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἀπὸ τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος. Compare 11:28. This present was promised before, but not bestowed (1Ma_10:30; 1Ma_10:38); it was confirmed by Antiochus VI. (1Ma_11:57).
[105] “Judea” when mentioned alongside of “Samaria” can only mean Judea in the narrower sense, that is, the southern province. This also is in accordance with the linguistic usage of the First Book of Maccabees, in which, so far as I see, always Judea proper is meant by γῆ Ἰούδα or Ἰουδαία (so e.g. 1Ma_12:46-52). The linguistic usage prevailing in Josephus, in the New Testament, and in the Mishna, which distinguishes “ Judea,” “Samaria,” and “Galilee” as three separate districts (see § 22. 1), was thus already firmly maintained in the Maccabean age. But if we admit that in the quoted passages (1Ma_10:30; 1Ma_10:38; 1Ma_11:28; 1Ma_11:34) Judea in the narrower sense is meant, then this result follows, that not only before the beginning of the Maccabean rising, but also even under the Maccabean high priests Jonathan and Simon, the province of Galilee did not belong to the territory of the Jewish high priest. For it is always only Judea that is spoken of in the three νομοί of Samaria attached thereto. It is only in 1Ma_10:30 that three νομοί of “Samaria and Galilee” are said to have been united with Judea. But, on the one hand, that scheme was never fully carried out; and so even here, in accordance with the exact parallels in other passages, only the three νομοί in the south of Samaria can be meant. There has therefore been either an interpretation of Γαλιλαίας, or “Samaria and Galilee” are taken together to mean the province of Samaria. Most probably it was first through the conquests of John Hyrcanus and his successors that Samaria and Scythopolis, as also Galilee, were united politically with the Jewish domain.
The spread of the Jewish population was by no means limited to the bounds of Judea in the political sense. Even the circumstance that during the Maccabean age stress was laid upon the union with Judea of the three southern districts of Samaria (1Ma_11:34; Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim), leads to the conjecture that the population within those districts was mainly Jewish,—in other words, that they had not with the schismatical Samaritans offered sacrifices on Mount Gerizim, but in Jerusalem, and that they had maintained religious fellowship with the Jews there.[106] But also in the province of Galilee, and even in Gilead, in the country east of the Jordan, at the beginning of the second century, a considerable number of Jews must have resided, who maintained religious intercourse with Jerusalem; for it was one of the first acts of the Maccabee brothers, after the restoration of the Jewish worship, to bring help to their brethren in the faith in Galilee and Gilead who had been oppressed by the heathen : Simon went to Galilee, Judas to Gilead (1Ma_5:9-54). The manner in which they afforded this help shows us, however, on the other hand, that then the general mass of the population of those districts was no longer Jewish. For neither Simon nor Judas took the provinces as such under Jewish protection. But after Simon had defeated the heathen in Galilee, he led all the Jews away out of Galilee and Arbatta (properly עֲרָבוֹת, the lower districts of the Jordan), together with their wives and children and all their possessions, into Judea, in order that there he might keep them in safety (1Ma_5:23).[107] In precisely the same way Judas dealt with those Jews that lived in Gilead, after he had overthrown the heathen there (1Ma_5:45-54). It therefore seems quite evident that the Jews in Galilee and Gilead formed then a “dispersion” among the heathen; and the first Maccabees made no sort of attempt to Judaize those provinces, but, on the contrary, withdrew from them their Jewish population. It was John Hyrcanus, or one of his successors (probably not before Aristobulus I.), who first introduced that policy.
[106] Observe how in 1Ma_11:34, “doing sacrifice at Jerusalem” is brought forward as a characteristic of the position of those who are free from tribute.
[107] a On the meaning of 1Ma_5:23, Keil remarks in his Commentary: “In τοὺς ἐν Γαλ. κ. ἐν Ἀοβ. it is not implied that he transferred all the faithful Jews of those districts to Judea, for he does not use πάντας. Josephus, in Antiq. xii. 8. 2, has therefore applied the words only to the Jews kept prisoners by the heathens; but for this he has no authority in the phrase employed. Probably only those are meant who through fear of new attacks from the heathen wished to settle in Judea, and had made this wish known to Simon.” This may be so far correct, but no one would be compelled to settle there. But undoubtedly all are meant who were really zealous adherents of the Jewish faith. This is proved by the full parallel report of the proceedings of Judas in Gilead (1Ma_5:45-54); the omission of the word πάντας in 1Ma_5:23 naturally makes no difference. Compare J. D. Michaelis, Deutsche Uebersetzung des ersten Buchs der Maccabäer, p. 108: “As I understand the verse, its meaning is: Simon took all the Jews dwelling in Galilee with him into Judea; because after his withdrawal they would have been exposed to new dangers and persecutions from the heathen. So also did the Syrian interpreter understand it.” Grimm, Exegetisches Handbuch, p. 83: “The verse makes no other impression than this, that Judas took with him into Judea the Jews true to the law whom he found in Galilee and round the Jordan, in order that they might not be exposed to new troubles on his departure.”
The internal development of Judaism from the time of Ezra to that of the Maccabees, or even down to the compilation of the Talmud, can be sketched only in very general outlines. The starting-point, indeed, is known to us in fuller detail—the priestly law introduced by Ezra in the fifth century before Christ; and then, again, the culmination: the codification of the Jewish law in the Mishna in the second century after Christ. Between these two points lies a period of six centuries. What stage of development had Judaism reached at the outbreak of the Maccabean revolution ? We can only say, it was already on the way to those results which are set before us in the Mishna; and the Maccabean age was simply the period of the greatest crisis through which it was called to pass during that whole era. The attempt was made to overthrow the foundations of its earlier development, to convert the Jewish people to heathenism. The result was that the foundations laid before by Ezra were now strengthened, and the theoretical elaboration of the law and its practical applications were prosecuted with glowing enthusiasm. The law which Ezra had introduced was essentially a ceremonial law. The religion of Israel is there reduced to strictly legalized forms, in order that it may be made more secure against the influences of heathenism. In the form of a law given by God Himself, the Jew was told what he had to do as a faithful servant of Jehovah, what festivals he should celebrate, what sacrifices he should offer, what tribute he should pay to the priests who conduct the services, and generally what religious ceremonies he should perform. Precision in the observance of all these prescribed rites was to be made henceforth the gauge and measure of piety. And in order to make this precision as exact as possible, it was necessary that an authentic interpretation be supplied. A special order under the name of “Scribes” devoted themselves to the study of the law as a profession, and engaged upon a subtle and refining exposition of it. But the pious considered it to be their chief business to fulfil with zeal and conscientiousness the law as thus expounded. That very considerable progress in this direction had been made even in the second century before Christ, is distinctly proved by the history of the Maccabean revolution. There was a religious party which interpreted the Sabbath command so strictly, that they would rather surrender without a struggle than infringe upon the observance of the Sabbath by wielding the sword (1Ma_2:32-38). It also belonged to the ideal of piety, which even the author of the book of Daniel had already set before the eyes of his comrades in the faith as an essential condition, that they should not defile themselves with the eating of the food of the heathen (Daniel 1).
But alongside of this legalistic tendency there were operating in Palestine, from the time of Alexander the Great, influences of an altogether different kind, which proved the more decidedly and dangerously hostile to the interests of the law and its promoters the longer they existed. These were the Hellenizing tendencies. It had been the fond dream of Alexander to found a universal empire, which would be held together not merely by the unity of the government, but also by the unity of language, customs, and civilisation. All the Oriental races were to be saturated with Hellenic culture, and to be bound together into one great whole by means of this intellectual. force. He therefore took care that always Greek colonists should directly follow in the steps of his army. New cities were founded, inhabited only by Greeks, and also in the old cities Greek colonists were settled. Thus over one half of Asia a network of Greek culture was stretched, which had as its object the reducing under its influence of the whole surrounding regions. The successors of Alexander continued his work; and it is a striking testimony to the power of Greek culture, that it fulfilled in large measure the mission which Alexander had assigned it. All Western Asia, in fact, if not among the wide masses of the population, yet certainly among the higher ranks of society, became thoroughly Hellenized. Even in Palestine about the beginning of the second century this movement was in full progress. It cannot indeed be proved that all those cities, which we have come to reckon during the Roman period as Hellenistic cities (see § 22. 2 and § 23. 1), had been already Hellenized in the beginning of the Maccabean period. But this may safely be assumed in regard to the majority of them. Many had Hellenic institutions introduced by Alexander the Great himself, others by his successors, and everywhere Greek influence and Greek ideas were promoted.[108] Even in the pre-Hellenic age, Gaza, as its coins prove, had lively commercial intercourse with Greece; from the time of its conquest by Alexander it was a Macedonian arsenal and residence for troops; and Josephus describes it as a πόλις Ἑλληνίς.[109] Anthedon by its very name betrays its Greek origin. In Ashkelon coins of Alexander the Great were stamped.[110] Ashdod on its coins, which date from the age of the Diadochae or even earlier, makes use indeed of the Hebrew language, but writes the letters in Greek characters (ΙΡ ΑΣΔΩΔ ΑΣΙΝΑ). Joppa is the old site of the myth of Perseus and Andromeda, and was in the age of the Diadochae a Macedonian garrison town. Apollonia is manifestly a foundation of the Greek times. Straton’s Tower has indeed a Greek name, but was really founded at an earlier date by the Sidonians. On the other hand, Dora was possibly even in the fifth century before Christ put under tribute by the Athenians. In Acre, afterwards Ptolemais, as early as the times of Isaeus and Demosthenes, there was a Greek trading colony. The coins impressed there with the name of Alexander were already very numerous, and in the age of the Diadochae it was an important garrison town. The real Hellenizing and refounding of it as Ptolemais was probably the work of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus.—Along with these coast towns we must also include a number of inland cities. We know certainly of Samaria that it was colonized by Alexander. Scythopolis is met with bearing this Greek name as early as the third century; and even earlier we have Paneion, the grotto at the source of the Jordan, as the sanctuary of Pan. Along with Scythopolis, Polybius (v. 70) makes mention of an important city not otherwise known, Philoteria on the Lake of Gennesaret, in the time of Antiochus the Great, B.C. 218, which, like the similarly named city in Upper Egypt, had its name probably from a sister of Ptolemy II. Philadelphus.[111]—Of the cities of the countries east of the Jordan, Hippus and Gadara were distinctly reckoned πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες.[112] Pella and Dium are denominated Macedonian cities, and were founded perhaps by Alexander the Great, and at latest during the Diadochean age. The derivation of the name Gerasa from the γέροντες, the veterans of Alexander the Great, is probably nothing more than an etymological fancy. This, however, is certain, that the old capital of the Ammonites was Hellenized by Ptolemy II. Philadelphus under the name of Philadelphia. And finally, the Second Book of Maccabees speaks generally of πόλεις Ἑλληνίδες within the boundaries of Judea (2Ma_6:8).
[108] See the proofs given in § 22. 2 and § 23. 1. On the cities founded by Alexander the Great and his successors, see: Droysen, Geschichte des Hellenismus, 2 Aufl. Thl. iii. 2, pp. 202 ff., 302 ff. Stark, Gaza und die philistäische Küste, 447-459.
[109] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3. For the rest, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 66 ff.
[110] The proof for this and many of the following statements is given in § 23. 1.
[111] On the Philotera of Upper Egypt (that name is so written), see Strabo, p. 769. Our Philoteria in Palestine had this name conferred upon it at a later date, and is identical with some town known formerly under another designation. A trace of its existence is still to be found in the days of Alexander Jannäus. See § 10 towards the conclusion.
[112] Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 6. 3.
Within the encircling network of Hellenistic cities the small province of Judea kept itself clear of the influence of Greek customs and ways. There, too, Hellenism encroached more and more. The indispensable requirements of daily life obliged the Jews to make use of the universal language of the Greeks. How otherwise would commercial intercourse with foreign lands have been possible? But with the language came also the manners and customs, and indeed the whole culture of Greece. In the beginning of the second century the progress of Hellenism in Palestine must have already become quite observable. For only thus can we explain how a section of the people, including the upper classes and the educated, readily gave their consent to the Hellenizing projects of Antiochus Epiphanes, and even went beyond him in carrying them out.[113]—Had this process been allowed to go on in its natural and peaceful course, then the Judaism of Palestine would probably have in time assumed a form in which it would be scarcely recognisable,—a form even more syncretistic than that of Philo. For it belonged to the very essence of Hellenism that it should dominate and colour the modes of religious worship, and at least clothe them in Grecian garments. We find it so in Syria as well as in Egypt. Nor would it have happened otherwise in Judea, if matters there had been permitted to take a smooth course. But the more perfect that legalistic Judaism had become on the one hand, and the more thoroughly developed the central principle of Hellenism had grown upon the other, the more decided and irreconcilable did the opposition between the two appear. Within the circle of the Jewish people itself there now arose two antagonistic parties: the party friendly to the Greeks and the party of “the pious” (חֲסִידִים, Ἀσιδαῖοι, 1Ma_2:42; 1Ma_7:13), who held stoutly by the strict ideal of the scribes. But the whole preliminary history of the Maccabean revolution makes it evident that already the adherents of the former party were in the majority. Everything seemed conspiring to present before Hellenism an open door. It appeared as if nothing else was now left for “the pious” but to form themselves into a sect. But just then a powerful reaction set in, brought about by the attempt of an unintelligent despot, Antiochus Epiphanes, prematurely and with rude violence to force upon them Hellenic institutions. The Jewish worship was to be completely abolished, purely Greek rites were to be introduced, all Jewish ceremonies were all at once to be forbidden. It was just the extreme and radical character of this attempt that saved Judaism. For now not only the strict party of Chasidim, but the whole mass of the people, was roused to do battle for the old faith. And the further development of events led to the complete expulsion of Hellenism from Jewish soil, at least in matters of religion. So far as our information reaches, this is the only example of an Oriental religion completely emancipating itself from the influence of Hellenism.
[113] On the spread of Greek culture in Palestine in the times of the Maccabees, and that even among men well disposed towards Judaism, compare: Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor (1875), pp. 127-129. Freudenthal calls attention particularly to the following points. 1. The Book of Aristeas takes for granted that the Palestinian scholars, who had been summoned to Alexandria for the translation of the Pentateuch, were skilled in Greek. 2. The grandson of Jesus Sirach, who translated his proverbs into Greek, was a native of Palestine. The Greek translator of the book of Esther was also a Palestinian, according to the representation of the book in the Septuagint.—But further, it seems quite certain that the Jewish Hellenist Eupolemus, of whose works fragments are still extant (see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 203-206), is to be identified with that Eupolemus of Palestine whom Judas Maccabeus sent as leader of a Jewish embassy to Rome (1Ma_8:17; 2Ma_4:11).
Antiochus IV. Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the Great, had succeeded his brother Seleucus IV. in the government of Syria, after that king had been murdered by his minister Heliodorus, and held possession of the throne from B.C. 175 till B.C. 164.[114] He was by nature a genuine despot, eccentric and undependable, sometimes extravagantly liberal, and fraternizing with the common people in an affected manner; at other times cruel and tyrannical, as he showed himself in his treatment of Judea. The picture drawn of him by Polybius describes him under the more pleasing aspect. This is the sketch he gives:[115]—
[114] With reference to the particular circumstances under which Antiochus IV. came to the throne, see Appian. Syr. 45; Johannes Antioch. in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 558.
[115] Polyb. xxvi. 10: Ὡς ἀποδιδράσκων ἐκ τῆς αὐλῆς ἐνίοτε τοὺς θεράποντας, οὗ τύχοι τῆς πόλεως ἀλύων ἐφαίνετο δεύτερος καὶ τρίτος. Μάλιστα δὲ πρὸς τοῖς ἀργυροκοπείοις εὑρίσκετο καὶ χρυσοχοείοις, εὑρητιλογῶν καὶ φιλοτεχνῶν πρὸς τοὺς τορευτὰς καὶ τοὺς ἄλλους τεχνίτας. Ἔπειτα καὶ μετὰ δημοτῶν ἀνθρώπων συγκαταβαίνων ὡμίλει ᾧ τύχοι, καὶ μετὰ τῶν παρεπιδημούντων ξένων συνέπινε τῶν εὐτελεστάτων. Ὅτε δὲ τῶν νεωτέρων αἴσθοιτο τινας συνευωχουμένους ὅπου δήποτε, οὐδεμίαν ἔμφασιν ποιήσας παρῆν ἐπικωμάζων μετὰ κερατίου καὶ συμφωνίας, ὥστε τοὺς πολλοὺς διὰ τὸ παράδοξον ἀνισταμένους φεύγειν. Πολλάκις δὲ καὶ τὴν βασιλικὴν ἀποθέμενος ἐσθῆτα τήβενναν ἀναλαβὼν περιῄει κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν ἀρχαιρεσιάζων, καὶ τοὺς μὲν δεξιούμενος, τοὺς δὲ καὶ περιπτύσσων παρεκάλει φέρειν αὐτῷ τὴν ψῆφον, ποτὲ μὲν ὡς ἀγορανόμος γένηται, ποτὲ δὲ καὶ ὡς δήμαρχος. Τυχὼν δὲ τῆς ἀρχῆς καὶ καθίσας ἐπὶ τὸν ἐλεφάντινον δίφρον κατὰ τὸ παρὰ Ῥωμαίοις ἔθος, διήκουε τῶν κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν γιγνομένων συναλλαγμάτων καὶ διέκρινε μετὰ πολλῆς σπουδῆς καὶ προθυμίας. Ἐξ ὧν εἰς ἀπορίαν ἦγε τῶν ἀνθρώπων τοὺς ἐπιεικεῖς· οἱ μὲν γὰρ ὰφελῆ τινὰ αὐτὸν εἶναι ὑπελάμβανον, οἱ δὲ μαινόμενον. Καὶ γὰρ περὶ τὰς δωρεὰς ἦν παραπλήσιος· ἐδίδου γὰρ τοῖς μὲν ἀστραγάλους δορκαδείους, τοῖς δὲ φοινικοβαλάνους, ἄλλοις δὲ χρυσίον. Καὶ ἐξ ἀπαντήσεως δέ τισιν ἐντυγχάνων, οὓς μὴ ἑοοάκει ποτέ, ἐδίδου δωρεὰς ἀπροσδοκήτους. Ἐν δὲ ταῖς πρὸς τὰς πόλεις θυοίαις καὶ ταῖς πρὸς τοὺς θεοὺς τιμαῖς πάντας ὑπερέβαλε τοὺς βεβασιλευκότας. Τοῦτο δʼ ἄν τις τεκμήραιτο ἔκ τε τοῦ παρʼ Ἀθηναιοις Ὀλυμπιείου καὶ τῶν περὶ τὸν ἐν Δήλῳ βωμὸν ἀνδοιάντων. Ἐλοῦτο δὲ κἀν τοῖς δημοσίοις βαλανείοις, ὅτε δημοτῶν ἦ τὰ βαλανεῖα πεπληρωμένα, κεραμίων εἰσφερομένων αὐτῷ μύρων τῶν πολυτελεστάτων. Ὅτε καί τινος εἰπόντος, Μακάριοί ἐστε ὑμεῖς οἱ βασιλεῖς καὶ οἱ τοιούτοις χρώμενοι καὶ ὀδωδότες ἡδύ, καὶ μηδὲν τὸν ἄνθρωπον προσειπών, ὅπου ἐκεῖνος τῇ ἑξῆς ἐλοῦτο, ἐπεισελθὼν ἐποίησεν αὐτοῦ καταχυθῆναι τῆς κεφαλῆς μέγιστον κεράμιον πολυτελεστάτου μύρου, τῆς στακτῆς καλουμένης, ὡς πάντας ἀναστάντας κυλίεσθαι λουμένους τῷ μύρῳ, καὶ διὰ τὴν γλισχρότητα καταπίπτοντας γέλωτα παρέχειν, καθάπερ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν βασιλέα.
“Sometimes he would slip away from the palace and would appear at one time here, at another time there, in the city, sauntering along in company with one or two. Very often he was to be found in the workshops of the silversmiths and goldsmiths, where he would chat away with the moulders and other workmen, and seek to impress them with his love of art. Then he would condescend to familiar intercourse with any sort of people he chanced to come across, and would carouse with the meanest strangers who might happen to be present. But when he learned that young folks anywhere were to have a drinking bout, he would appear among them unexpectedly with horn and bagpipe, so that most, through sudden fright, would rush precipitately away. Often, too, he laid aside his royal robes, and, dressed in a toga, would go to the forum as a suppliant for an office. He would then seize some by the hand, others he would embrace, and entreat them to give him their vote, sometimes for the office of aedile, sometimes for that of tribune of the people. If he succeeded in obtaining the office, and was seated according to Roman custom in the ivory chair of state, he would take into consideration the cases that were to be adjudicated upon in the forum, and give his decisions with much earnestness and conscientiousness. Rational people, therefore, were at a loss what to think about him. Some regarded him as a simple and homely man, others looked upon him as crazed. He acted in a similar manner in the bestowal of his gifts. To some he gave bone dice, to others dates, to others gold. But if perchance he should meet any one whom he had never seen before, he would give him unexpected presents. But in the sacrifices which he had offered up in cities, and in the honours which he gave to the gods, he went beyond all other kings. As a proof of this we may point to the Temple of Zeus at Athens, and the images around the altar at Delos. He was wont also to bathe in the public baths, when they were quite full of their habitual visitors, where vessels of the most costly perfumes would be brought to him. When somebody once said to him: ‘Happy art thou, O king, since thou hast such perfumes and givest forth such fragrance;’ he went on the following day, without having said anything to the man, to the place where he bathed, and showered upon his head the contents of a large vase of that most precious ointment called stacte; whereupon all made a rush forward in order to wash themselves with the ointment But on account of the slipperiness of the pavement many fell, amid shouts of laughter, the king himself joining in the mirth.”—Thus far Polybius. Diodorus and Livy give similar accounts. They give special prominence to his love of pomp and his munificence. Brilliant spectacles, magnificent buildings, kingly presents, these were the sort of things in which he delighted.[116] But in everything he was inclined to rush to extravagant extremes, so that Polybius already styled him ἐπιμανής rather than ἐπιφανής.[117]
[116] Compare generally, Polybius, xxviii. 18. 3, xxix. 9. 13, xxxi. 3 f.—Diodorus, xxix. 32, xxxi. 16 (ed. Müller).—Livy, xli. 30.—Ptolemy VII. in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iii. 186.—Heliodorus in Müller, Fragm. hist. graec. iv. 425.
[117] Athenaeus, lib. x. p. 439 (in the editions of Polybius, xxvi. 10): Πολύβιος ὲν τῇ ἕκτῃ καὶ εἰκοστῇ τῶν Ἱστοριῶν καλεῖ αὐτὸν Ἐπιμανῆ καὶ οὐκ Επιφανῆ διὰ τὰς πράξεις.
Such being the character of the man, we need not trouble ourselves seeking to discover any very deep motives for his proceedings against Judea. Tacitus has, upon the whole, given a fair estimate of them when he said: Antiochus strove to overthrow the superstition of the Jews and to introduce among them Greek customs, but was prevented by the war with the Parthians “from improving the condition of this most detestable race.”[118] His endeavour was to advance everywhere the lustre of Greek culture. In Judea a section of the people declared in favour of his plans. He was naturally prepared to give that party his support, and to make over to it the government of Judea. But when the Jewish people organized an opposition to these schemes, this roused the capricious humour of the despot. He first of all chastised the refractory people by plundering the rich treasures of their temple, which must have been very enticing to the king, now sorely in need of money. Then, as the opposition still continued, he proceeded to radical and sweeping measures. The Jewish worship was completely suspended, all Jewish ceremonies were strictly forbidden, and with rude violence a thoroughgoing Hellenizing process was attempted.
[118] Tacitus, Historia, v. 8: rex Antiochus demere superstitionem et mores Graecorum dare adnisus, quominus taeterrimam gentem in melius mutaret, Parthorum bello prohibitus est.
At the head of the party in Judea attached to the old faith at the time when Antiochus Epiphanes ascended the throne, stood the high priest of that day, Onias III. The leader of the party friendly to the Greeks was his own brother Jesus, or, as he is better known under his Greek name, Jason.[119] In Jerusalem the inclination in favour of Greek customs was already so strong that the friends of the Greeks could venture upon the attempt to seize the government for themselves, and to carry out their plans by force. Jason promised the king a great sum of money,—whether as a gift bestowed once and for all, or as a regular tribute, is not very clear,—if he would transfer to him the high-priesthood, permit him to erect a gymnasium and an ephebeion, and finally allow “the inhabitants of Jerusalem to be enrolled as Antiocheans,” τοὺς ἐν Ἱεροσολύμοις Ἀντιοχεῖς ἀναγράψαι, that is, grant them the title and privileges of citizens of Antioch.[120] Antiochus was quite ready to concede all this. Onias was driven out, and Jason was installed as high priest.[121] The Hellenizing process was now carried on with energy. There is indeed no mention of any attack having been made upon the Jewish religion. But in every other direction he put down “the institutions that were according to the law, and brought up new customs against the law” (2Ma_4:11). A gymnasium was erected below the castle; the young men of Jerusalem exercised themselves in the gymnastic arts of the Greeks. The very priests forsook their service at the altar and took part in the games of the palaestra. The contempt for Jewish customs went so far that many sought artificially to remove the traces of their circumcision.[122] With a latitudinarianism of a genuinely Hellenistic type, Jason sent a contribution to the sacrificial festival of Hercules at the games celebrated every fourth year at Tyre. This, however, was so offensive to the Jews entrusted with the carrying of it, that they entreated that the money should be applied to building ships.[123]
[119] That Jason was originally called Jesus. is mentioned by Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1.
[120] On the meaning of this formula, see commentaries by Grimm and Keil on 2Ma_4:9. Compare also the history of Ptolemais, § 23 (Div. ii. vol. i. p. 90 f.).
[121] 2Ma_4:7-10.—Josephus tells the story differently. For while, according to 2 Maccabees, Onias had been deposed and subsequently, even after Jason had himself lost the high-priesthood, murdered (2Ma_4:33-34), Josephus simply says that after the death of Onias his brother Jesus obtained the rank of high priest (Antiq. xii. 5. 1: ἀποθανόντος Ὀνἱου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην Ἀντίοχος δίδωσιν). But the narrative of Josephus is evidently given in a summary manner and inexactly; and the representation of 2 Maccabees is confirmed by Daniel 9:26; Daniel 11:22, since these passages probably refer to Onias III.
[122] See generally, 2Ma_4:11-17; 1Ma_1:11-15; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1. Removing the traces of circumcision (1Ma_1:15, ἐποίησαν ἑαυτοῖς ἀκροβυστίας) was done with a view to escape the reproach of the heathen in the baths and in the exercise grounds. It seems, according to various reports, to have become still more common in later times. See especially, Paulus on 1 Corinthians 7:18. Epiphanius, De mensuris et ponderibus, § 16. Jerome (adv. Jovinian. i. 21, Opp. ed. Vallarsi, ii. 270; comm. in Jes. lii. 1=Opp. ed. Vallarsi, iv. 601 sq.) is wrong in declaring the operation impossible. Compare generally, Buxtorf, Lex. Chald. col. 1274 sqq., under the word מָשׁוּךְ. Lossius, De epispasmo Judaico (also in Ugolini Thes. t. xxii.). Groddek, De Judaeis praeputium attrahentibus (in Schoettgen, Horae hebr. i. 1159-1177, and in Ugolini Thes. xxii.). Lightfoot, Horae hebr. on 1 Corinthians 7:18 (Opp. ii. 899). Wolf, Curae phil. in Nov. Test. on 1 Corinthians 7:18. Wetstein, Nov. Test. on 1 Corinthians 7:18. Fabricius, Biblioth. graec., ed. Harles, iii. 695, on Symmachus. Lübkert, Der jüdische ἐπισπασμός (Studien und Kritiken, 1835, pp. 657-664). Winer, Realwörterbuch, art. Beschneidung, at the end. Grimm. Commentary on 1Ma_1:15. Steiner in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, i. 410.
[123] 2Ma_4:18-20.
For three years, from B.C. 174 to B.C. 171, Jason administered his office after this fashion. Then he fell, through the machinations of a rival, who continued his work in a manner still more contemptible. Menelaus, by promising still larger gifts of money, was able to bring about Jason’s overthrow, and to secure the transference to himself of the high priest’s office.[124] He roused against himself the bitter animosity of the people by appropriating the treasures of the temple. He also was the instigator of the murder of the former high priest Onias III., who had sought the asylum of the sanctuary at Daphne, from which, however, he was decoyed and treacherously murdered.[125]
[124] 2Ma_4:23-27. According to Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1, consult also xv. 3. 1, xix. 6. 2, Menelaus was Jason’s brother. But this is in contradiction to the Second Book of Maccabees, which seems generally at this point to be pretty accurately informed.
[125] See generally, 2Ma_4:27-50.
Meanwhile Jason had not abandoned his claims to the high-priesthood. In B.C. 170, when Antiochus was engaged upon his expedition against Egypt, he succeeded by a sudden stroke in making himself master of Jerusalem, and forcing his rival to betake himself for protection to the castle. This success of Jason was, according to the representation of the Second Book of Maccabees, the occasion that led to the king’s direct interference against Jerusalem. Antiochus looked upon the proceeding as a slight to his majesty, and resolved to chastise the rebellious city.[126]
[126] 2Ma_5:1-11.
When, toward the end of B.C. 170, he had returned from Egypt,[127] he marched against Jerusalem in person with his army, and there gave direction for a terrible massacre, and plundered the enormous treasures of the Jewish temple, in which he is said to have received assistance from Menelaus himself. All the valuable articles, among them the three great golden pieces of furniture in the inner court of the temple, the altar of incense, the seven-branched candlestick, and the table of shewbread (on these see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 281 f.), he carried away with him to Antioch.[128]
[127] According to 1Ma_1:20, supported by Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 3, this expedition was made in the Seleucid year 143, or B.C. 170-169.
[128] 1Ma_1:20-24; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 3; 2Ma_5:11-21.—For the fact of the plundering of the temple, Josephus in Contra Apionem, ii. 7, refers to the statements of Polybius, Strabo, Nicolaus Damascenus, Timagenes, Castor, Apollodorus.
The cup of sorrow and humiliation for the believing Israelites, however, had not yet been completely drained, and the worst was yet to come. Two years later, in B.C. 168, Antiochus undertook another expedition against Egypt. But this time the Romans took the field against him. The Roman general, Popilius Laenas, had sent him a decree of senate, in which he was required, if he were to avoid being regarded as an enemy of Rome, to abandon once for all his schemes against Egypt; and when Antiochus answered that he wished time to consider the matter, Popilius gave him that well-known brief ultimatum, describing a circle round about him with his staff and addressing him with a determined “ἐνταῦθα βουλεύου.” Antiochus was thus compelled, whether he would or not, to yield to the demands of the Romans.[129] The result of this blasting of his plans with regard to Egypt was that Antiochus directed his energies immediately to a war of extermination against the Jewish religion.[130] Since nothing more could be done in Egypt, he would carry out all the more determinedly his schemes in Judea. He sent a chief collector of the tribute to Judea (his name is not given in 1Ma_1:29, but in 2Ma_5:24 he is called Apollonius), with orders to Hellenize Jerusalem thoroughly.[131] The Jewish population which would not yield was treated with great barbarity; the men were killed, and the women and children sold into slavery. Whoever was able escaped from the city. In place of the Jewish population thus destroyed, strangers were brought in as colonists. Jerusalem was to be henceforth a Greek city.[132] In order that such measures might have enduring effect, the walls of the city were thrown down; but the old city of David was fortified anew and made into a powerful stronghold, in which a Syrian garrison was placed. This garrison remained in possession of the citadel during all the subsequent struggles of the Maccabees, and maintained the supremacy of the Syrian kings amid all changes. Simon was the first, twenty-six years after this, in B.C. 142-141, to gain possession of the citadel, and so to vindicate the independence of the Jews.[133]
[129] Polybius, xxix. 11. Diodorus, xxxi. 2 (ed. Müller). Livy, xlv. 12 Appian, Syriaca, c. 66. Justin, xxxiv. 3. Compare Daniel 11:29 f.
[130] This connection between the failure of the Egyptian campaign and the persecutions in Palestine is pointed out in Daniel 11:30 f.
[131] The sending of this Apollonius, if we compare 1Ma_1:20; 1Ma_1:54 with 1Ma_1:29, occurred in the Seleucid year 145, or B.C. 168-167.
[132] 1Ma_1:29-40; 2Ma_5:23-26; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 4.—It is evident from 1Ma_1:38 compared with 1Ma_1:30-32 and 2Ma_5:24, that what was chiefly aimed at was the exterminating of the Jewish population and the repeopling of the city with Greek or Grecianized inhabitants. It was therefore quite the same procedure which the Jews themselves carried out at a later period in Joppa and Gazara (1Ma_13:11; 1Ma_13:43-48). On the consequences of these measures, see 1Ma_2:18; 1Ma_3:35; 1Ma_3:45.
[133] The ἀκρόπολις of Jerusalem had been already frequently referred to during the previous years (2Ma_4:12; 2Ma_4:27; 2Ma_5:5). But it was now newly strengthened, 1Ma_1:33-36; Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 4, while the walls of the city were thrown down, 1Ma_1:31. On the taking of this citadel by Simon, see 1Ma_13:49-52; during the period intervening it is often referred to (1Ma_2:31; 1Ma_3:45; 1Ma_4:2; 1Ma_4:41; 1Ma_6:18-21; 1Ma_6:26; 1Ma_6:32; 1Ma_9:52-53; 1Ma_10:6-9; 1Ma_10:32; 1Ma_11:20 f., 41, 12:36, 13:21).—The situation of this citadel is one of the most debateable questions in the topography of Jerusalem. But it seems to me an incontestable result of modern investigations, that it lay on the southern slope of the eastern hill, therefore to the south of the temple rock. Then the supposition that it had been built in place of the city of David would be out of the question (1Ma_1:33; 1Ma_2:31; 1Ma_7:32; 1Ma_14:36). But the city of David, according to Nehemiah 3:15, lay evidently in the neighbourhood of Siloah, therefore south of the temple, and indeed not on the great western hill on which at this day the main part of the city lies, but on a separate eminence of the rising ground to the east, that is, on the temple rock. For Zion, on which the city of David lay (2 Samuel 5:7; 1 Kings 8:1), is not, as later Christian tradition represents it, the west hill, but that same rising ground on which the temple lay, therefore the east hill. This is confirmed by the usual phraseology of 1 Maccabees, where “Zion” and “the temple rock” are used as identical terms (1Ma_4:37-60; 1Ma_5:54; 1Ma_6:48-62; 1Ma_7:33). The evidence afforded by these statements would long ago have been recognised, were it not that this was contrary to the geographical distribution of those days. For at present there is no rising ground visible to the south of the temple site which could have been suitable for a citadel. But that in earlier times it was otherwise has been demonstrated by the excavations of Guthe, according to which “a tolerably deep but not completely traced depression, which runs from north-west to south-east, turns round the southern spur of the temple rock, so that a fortress on the ridge of this spur would have a natural protection on all sides” (see Furrer’s Review of Guthe’s Excavations at Jerusalem, in the Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1884, p. 278).—The theory here set forth in regard to the situation of the citadel is opposed by Olshausen, Zur Topographie des alten Jerusalem, Kiel 1833, p. 6 ff. Caspari, Zion und die Akra der Syrer, in Theol. Stud. und Krit., and “Chronol. and Geograph. Introduction to Life of Christ,” Edin. 1876, p. 271. Menke, Bibelatlas (1868), Blatt V. Riess, Tüb. Theolog. Quartalschr. 1870, pp. 181-215, and Biblische Geographie, 1872, pp. 95-97. Klaiber, Zeitschr. des deutschen Palästina-Vereins, Bd. iii. 1880, pp. 189-213; iv. 1881, pp. 18-56; xi. 1888, pp. 1-37. Spiess, Das Jerusalem des Josephus, 1881, pp. 32-42. Guthe, Zeitschrift des DPV. Bd. v. 1882, pp. 313-332. Mühlau, art. “Zion” in Riehm’s Wörterbuch. Stade, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, i. 267 f. Birch, Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statements, 1877 ff. Then directly opposed to this theory: Gatt, Tüb. Theolog. Quartalschr. 1884, pp. 34-84. For other literature see above, p. 19, and Arnold, art. “Zion” in 1st ed. of Herzog, xviii. 620-622; and Jerusalem, by Schults in the 2nd edition, vi. 575. Köhler, Lehrbuch der biblische Geschichte, ii. l, 274. Stanley, Sinai and Palestine, 1881, p. 177 ff. Ewald, History of Israel, vol. v. p. 318 ff. Milman, History of Christianity, vol. i. p. 318.
The destruction of the Jewish population of Jerusalem was only a means towards the chief end after which Antiochus was striving. Throughout the whole land the Jewish religion was to be rooted out, and the worship of the Greek gods introduced. The observance of all Jewish rites, especially of the Sabbath and circumcision, was forbidden on the pain of death; the Jewish mode of worship was abolished. In all the cities of Judea sacrifices were to be offered to the heathen deities. Officers were sent into all the districts, charged with the duty of seeing that the commands of the king were strictly obeyed. Wherever any one showed reluctance, obedience was enforced with violence. Once a month a rigorous search was instituted: if a copy of the book of the law were found in the possession of any one, or if any one had had his child circumcised, he was put to death. In Jerusalem, on the 15th Chislen of the Seleucid year 145, that is, in December B.C. 168, at the great altar of burnt-offering a pagan altar was built, and on 25th Chisleu, for the first time, a sacrifice was offered upon it (1Ma_1:54; 1Ma_1:59; this is “the abomination that maketh desolate,” שִׁקּוּץ מְשֹׁמֵם or שִׁקּוּץ שֹׁמֵם, LXX.: βδέλυγμα τῆς ἐρημώσεως, of which the book of Daniel speaks, Daniel 11:31; Daniel 12:11). This sacrifice, according to the account given in the Second Book of Maccabees, was rendered to the Olympic Zeus, to whom the temple of Jerusalem has been dedicated. The Jews were also compelled to keep the Dionysiac festival, crowned with ivy, marching in procession as devotees of Bacchus.[134]
[134] See generally: 1Ma_1:41-64; 2Ma_6:1-11. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 4; Daniel 7:25; Daniel 8:11 f., 9:27, 11:31ff., 12:11.—The month Chislen of the Seleucid year 145 (1Ma_1:54) is not, as has been usually assumed, December B.C. 167, but December B.C. 168.
The Second Book of Maccabees relates wonderful stories of the bright martyr courage with which a certain section of the people firmly adhered to the ancient faith. With considerable rhetorical extravagance it tells how an old man ninety years of age, called Eleasar, was tortured; and then also seven brothers, one after another, suffered before the eyes of their mother, who at last herself likewise met a martyr’s death.[135] The question of the accuracy of these details must be left undecided. The fact is that a large circle of the people, notwithstanding all the violent measures of the persecutors, remained true to the faith and customs of their fathers. For their encouragement an unknown author, under the name of Daniel, published a hortatory and consolatory treatise, in which he set before his fellow-believers, for stimulus and incitement, stories culled from the history of earlier times, and with confident assurance of faith represents the speedy overthrow of the heathen rule, and the downfall of the worldly oppressors of the people of God (Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 44 ff.). The effect of such a work we can easily conceive must have been very great.
[135] 2Ma_6:18 to 2Ma_7:42. This story forms the theme of the Fourth Book of Maccabees, see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 244-248, and has also been treated in the later Jewish literature; see Zunz, Die gottesdienstlichen Vorträge der Juden, p. 124. On the use made of it in Christian ascetical literature, see Div. ii vol. iii. p. 214.
The passive resistance thus shown was soon succeeded by open revolt,—viewed from a human point of view, a foolhardy enterprise; for how could the small nation of the Jews secure any permanent advantage over the forces of the king? But religious enthusiasm waits not to ask about possibilities of success. The excitement broke forth into revolution in the town of Modein, at the call of a priest of the order of Joarib, named Mattathias, and his five sons, John, Simon, Judas, Eleasar, and Jonathan.[136] When the king’s officer had entered that place, in order to insist upon the presentation of the heathen sacrifice, Mattathias refused to obey the command. “Though all the nations,” said he, “that are under the king’s dominion obey him, and fall away every one from the religion of their fathers, and give consent to his commandments, yet will I and my sons and my brothers walk in the covenant of our fathers. God forbid that we should forsake the law and the ordinances.” When he saw a Jew preparing to offer sacrifice, he rushed forward and slew him upon the altar. He also killed the king’s commissioner, and levelled the altar to the ground.[137]
[136] 1Ma_2:1-5. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 1.—The name of the place is given in the First Book of Maccabees, according to the best reading, as Μωδεΐν (so Fritzsche, 1Ma_2:1; 1Ma_2:15; 1Ma_2:23; 1Ma_2:70; 1Ma_13:25; 1Ma_13:30; only in 9:19, Μωδεεΐμ); in Josephus, ed. Bekker, Antiq. xii. 6. 1, 11. 2, xiii. 6. 5, it is Μωδεεὶ; in Wars of the Jews, i. 1. 3, it is Μωδεείν. In the Mishna, Pesachim ix. 2 and Chagiga iii. 5, the reading vacillates between מודיעים and מודיעית, while indeed the latter form has in both cases a preponderating authority. It may, however, have arisen out of a misunderstanding occasioned by an emendation. In both passages מן המודיעים is rendered “from Modiim,” a distance from Jerusalem is represented as giving release from the discharge of certain legal obligations. It was therefore assumed that מודיעים was to be taken as an adjective, and the form was changed accordingly. A man from Modiim is called in Aboth iii. 11, המודעי. Eusebius writes Μηδεείμ; Jerome, Modeim. In regard to its variations of form, it may be compared with Sepphoris (צפורין, צפירים, צפירי, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 136). The plural is formed sometimes in the Aramaic, sometimes in the Hebrew manner, sometimes in a quite independent and peculiar style.—For determining its situation the following are decisive:—(1) The fact that the beautiful mausoleum built there for his parents and four brothers could be seen from the sea (1Ma_13:27-30); (2) The statement of Eusebius, to whose time the place was still known, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 281: Μηδεείμ, κώμη πλησίον Διοσπύλεως, ὅθεν ἧσαν οἱ Μακκαβαῖοι, ὧν καὶ τὰ μνήματα εἰς ἔτι νῦν δείκνυται. So, too, Jerome, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 140: Modeim, vicus juxta Diospolim, unde fuerunt Maccabaei, quorum hodieque ibidem sepulcra monstrantur. It must therefore have been situated in the neighbourhood of Lydda (Diospolis), and on a higher site, therefore up toward the mountains. The conjecture, therefore, that it was to be identified with the Sôba of the present day, two and a half hours’ journey west of Jerusalem, according to the monkish tradition, cannot be entertained for a moment (Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 896 ff.). It may rather now be regarded as certain that the modern village el-Medîjeh, east of Lydda, at the entrance into the mountain region, marks the spot of the ancient Modein. This was suggested first of all by the Franciscan, Emmanuel Forner (in le Monde, 1866, quoted by Guérin); then by Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, 1868, p. 99. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibel-lexicon, iv. 233. Sandreczki in Ausland, 1871, Nr. 36. Guérin, Description de la Palestine, Samarie, ii. 55-64, 395, 404-413, 415-426; Galilee, i. 46-57. Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch des bibl. Altertums, p. 1009 f. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 297, 341-352; and the great English Map, Sheet xiv.
[137] 1Ma_2:15-26. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 2.
He then fled along with his sons into the mountains. But soon a terrible disaster proved to him that mere flight meant nothing less than utter destruction. Multitudes of like-minded men had now withdrawn into hiding-places in the desert. There they were sought after by a detachment of the Syrian garrison of Jerusalem, and an attack was made upon them on a Sabbath day; and since they declined to offer any resistance because of the Sabbath, they were remorselessly hewn down to the last man, along with their wives and children.[138] To the vigorous, strong-minded Mattathias such a martyrdom seemed a poor way of contributing to the cause of God. He and those about him resolved to proceed to action, and, in case of necessity, not even to scruple engaging in battle upon the Sabbath day. And now the “Pious,” Ἀσιδαῖοι, הֲסִידִים, attached themselves to him; that is, those who proved faithful in their observance of the law, who had hitherto showed their resolution simply in endurance.[139] Mattathias then gathered together all the men fit for battle, who were ready to fight for their faith, passed with them up and down through the country, overturned the altars, slew the apostate Jews, circumcised uncircumcised children, and gave encouragement to all to engage in open hostility to the heathen persecutors.[140]
[138] 1Ma_2:27-38. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 2.
[139] The reading συναγωγὴ Ἀσιδαίων, 1Ma_2:42, has been rightly received by Fritzsche into the text. That the Asidaeans were not identical with the circle of Mattathias has been specially emphasized by Wellhausen in his Pharisäer und Sadducäer, pp. 78-86. They did indeed make common cause with the Maccabees, but afterwards they again separated from them (1Ma_7:13). Compare also Lucius, Der Essenismus, 1881, p. 91 f.; and Div. ii. of this work, vol. ii. p. 26 ff. The correct view of Wellhausen is adopted by Montet in his Essai sur les origines des partis saducéen et pharisien, 1883, pp. 139-142, 161 ff., especially 177-188.—The word חֲסִידִים frequently occurs in the Old Testament (e.g. Psalms 30:5; Psalms 31:24; Psalms 37:28), and means simply the “pious;” but it is used to designate specially those who are peculiarly distinguished for their piety or rigid observance of the law. So also in the Mishna, Berachoth v. 1; Sukka v. 4; Chagiga ii. 7; Sota iii. 4, ix. 15. It is therefore essentially the same circle which subsequently received the party name of Pharisees.—Of the literature we may here mention: Drusius, De Hasidaeis, quorum mentio in libris Machabaeorum, libellus, 1603. Serarius, Trihaeresion, 1604. Scaliger, Elenchus Trihaeresii Serarii, 1605 (all three together in: Triglandius, Trium scriptorum illustrium de tribus Judaeorum sectis syntagma, 2 Bde., Delphis 1703. Compare the account of the controversy about Daniel in his article “Pharisäer” in Ersch and Gruber’s Encyclop. sec. iii. Bd. xxii. p. 18). Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus, pp. 165-172. Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, Bd. iii. pp. 357 ff., 384, 395 f. Hamburger, Real-Encyclop. für Bibel und Talmud, Abth. ii. p. 132 ff., art. “Chassid.”
[140] 1Ma_2:39-48. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 2.
The work thus begun he was not to be permitted long to carry on. Soon after the beginning of the revolt, in B.C. 167-166, in the Seleucid year 146 (1Ma_2:70), Mattathias died, after exhorting his sons to continue the work, and recommending Simon as a man of counsel, and Judas as best qualified to act as leader in battle. Amid great lamentations he was buried at Modein.[141]
[141] 1Ma_2:49-70. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 6. 3-4.
And thus now Judas came to the front as head of the movement. His surname, ὁ Μακκαβαῖος, from which the whole party has received the name of Maccabees, was probably intended to designate him as the vigorous, sharp-beating warrior, from מַקָּבָה, “the hammer.”[142] “In his acts he was like a lion, and like a lion’s whelp roaring for his prey.” Thus the First Book of Maccabees (3:4) characterizes him a hero of chivalry, bold and powerful, not waiting to ask about the possibility of success, but enthusiastically sacrificing his goods and his blood in a noble cause.[143] The triumphs which he achieved could indeed, in presence of such a terrible array of hostile forces, only be temporary. The cause which he represented must certainly have been lost if it had to depend only on the sword.
[142] On the various interpretations of the name, see Conrad Iken, De Juda Maccabaeo (in Symbolae literariae, t. i. pars 1, Bremae 1744, pp. 170-194); Winer, RWB. i. 631 f., art. “Judas;” Grimm, Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. ix. f. The derivation which prevailed in earlier times, especially during the seventeenth century, from the initial letters of the words בָּאֵלִם יְהוָה מִי כָמֹכָה (Exodus 15:11), would have deserved serious examination if the word had first of all been used as the secret watchword of the party, as ἰχθύς was among the early Christians. But it was in the first instance the surname of Judas (ὁ Μακκαβαῖος). In modern times it has been usually explained as meaning מַקָּבָה, “hammer.” Against this derivation Curtiss in his work, The Name Machabee, Leipzig 1876 (compare Theolog. Literaturzeitung, 1876, 436 f.; Herzog, Real-Encyclop. 2nd ed. i. 505 f.). He writes מַכְבִּי, and explains it, after Isaiah 43:17, as “the extinguisher,” that is, the exterminator of his enemies. This is, to say the least of it, extremely problematical. The conclusions drawn by Curtiss from the orthography are doubtful, since we no longer know the original Hebrew form. All the more modern texts, the rabbinical, which write sometimes מכבי, sometimes מקבי, as well as the Latin texts, are derived from the Greek text of the First Book of Maccabees, which gives ὁ Μακκαβαῖος. Also Jerome’s form of the word Machabaeus, does not prove that he had known a Hebrew form מכבי, since he undoubtedly adopted the Latin orthography then prevalent. But the Greek Μακκαβαῖος corresponds to the Hebrew מקבי, rather than to מכבי, although even the latter is not impossible. On the other hand, the conjecture of Curtiss is worthy of consideration, that מַקָּבָה in the Old Testament (1 Kings 6:7; Isaiah 44:12; Jeremiah 10:4; also Judges 4:21) does not mean the great battle-axe or smith’s hammer, which elsewhere is called מַפֵּץ or מֵפִיץ or פַּטִּישׁ, but the small workman’s hammer. But should this consideration be regarded as decisive?
[143] Compare generally the characteristics given in 1Ma_3:1-9.
In its earliest stage the movement had a course of singularly good fortune. In one battle after another Judas won brilliant victories, which resulted in the restoring of the Jewish worship on Zion. A Syrian battalion, under Apollonius, probably the same of whom mention has already been made at page 206, was cut down by Judas, and Apollonius himself was slain. The sword which he took from him as spoil was the one which Judas from this time forth always himself used in battle.[144] Also a second Syrian army, which Seron, “the prince of the army of Syria,” whom Judas went forth to meet, was completely routed by him at Beth-horon, north-west of Jerusalem.[145]
[144] 1Ma_3:10-12. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 1.
[145] 1Ma_3:13-26. Josephus, l.c.—Βαιθωρῶν, in the Old Testament בֵּית חֹרוֹן; according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 233, sixteen miles west-north-west of Jerusalem, and so identical with the present Beit-ur. See Robinson, Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 59-63. Raumer, Palästina, p. 180. Guérin, Description de la Palestine, Judée, i. 338-344. Henderson, Palestine, p. 137.
The king found it necessary to take vigorous measures in order to suppress the revolt in Judea. While he himself, in B.C. 166-165 (1Ma_3:37 gives the Seleucid year 147), went forth upon an expedition against the Parthians,[146] he sent Lysias back to Syria as imperial chancellor and guardian of the minor Antiochus V., and gave him orders to fit out a large army against Judea to quell the rebellion there.[147] Lysias sent three generals, Ptolemy, Nicanor, and Gorgias, with a large body of troops against Judea. The defeat of the Jews seemed so certain, that foreign merchants accompanied the Syrians in order to purchase as slaves the expected Jewish captives.[148]
[146] 1Ma_3:31. Tacitus, Historia, v. 8.
[147] 1Ma_3:27-37. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 2.
[148] 1Ma_3:38-41. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 3. 2Ma_8:8-11. According to the Second Book of Maccabees, Ptolemy was the governor of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia, who transferred the military operations to Nicanor and Gorgias.
Meantime, however, Judas, and those adhering to him, had not been inactive. Now that Jerusalem had been wrested from the heathens, Judas collected his fighting men in Mizpah, the ancient stronghold of Israel in the times of the Judges, not far from Jerusalem.[149] It no longer consisted merely of a small group of enthusiasts, but was a regular Jewish army, which he had there organized according to military rules; he “ordained captains over the people, even captains over thousands, and over hundreds, and over fifties, and over tens.” By prayer and fasting he prepared himself for the unequal struggle. In the province of Emmaus, west of Jerusalem, at the entrance into the hill country, the armies encountered one another.[150]
[149] Μασσηφά, 1Ma_3:46, is the ancient מִצְפָּה, which in the times of the Judges was the religious and political capital of Israel (Judges 20, 21; 1 Samuel 7:5 ff; 1 Samuel 10:17 ff.). According to 1Ma_3:46, it lay κατέναντι Ιερουσαλήμ, therefore not far from Jerusalem. Its situation cannot with any certainty be more exactly determined. See generally, Robinson, Researches in Palestine, vol. ii. 143, 144 Raumer, Palästina, p. 213. Smend in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch des bibl. Alterthums, p. 1003 f. Guérin, Judée, i. 395-402.
[150] 1Ma_3:42-60. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 3.—Ἐμμαούμ (1Ma_3:40; 1Ma_3:57), in the Roman times the capital of a toparchy, exists down to the present day under the name of Amwâs. The New Testament Emmaus is probably a different place lying near Jerusalem. Compare generally, Div. ii. vol. i. p. 159, and the literature quoted in the note on that page.
While the main body of the Syrian army remained in camp at Emmaus, Gorgias endeavoured with a strong detachment to engage the Jewish army. When Judas heard of this he circumvented him, and got between him and the main body lying at Emmaus. His brave words of encouragement aroused such enthusiasm among the Jews, that the Syrian troops were completely overpowered. When the detachment under Gorgias returned, they found the camp already in flames, and the Jews quite prepared to join with them in battle. Without venturing on such a conflict, they at once fled into the Philistine territory. This victory of the Jews, in B.C. 166-165, was complete.[151]
[151] 1Ma_4:1-25. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 4; 2Ma_8:12 ff.—The chronology is made out by means of a combination of 1Ma_3:37, which gives the Seleucid year 147, with 1Ma_4:28, ἐν τῷ ἐχομένῳ ἐνιαυτῷ, or, what is the same, ἐν τῷ ἐρχομένῳ ἐνιαυτῷ, meaning “in the following year,” and chap. 4:52, which gives the Seleucid year 148. The incidents in question therefore occurred in the year of the Seleucid era 147, or B.C. 166-165; but whether in B.C. 166 or in B.C. 165 cannot be determined.—As the enemy’s general, the First Book of Maccabees names only Gorgias, the Second Book of Maccabees names only Nicanor. Both are probably correct, inasmuch as the former led the army in the field, and the latter was commander-in-chief of the whole army.
In the following year, B.C. 165-164, and indeed, as further details show, in autumn of B.C. 165, Lysias himself led a new and still more powerful army against Judea. He did not make his attack directly from the north, but came against Judea from the south by the way of Idumea (1Ma_4:29). He must therefore have fetched a compass round about Judea; it may have begun, as Hitzig conjectures, p. 393, on the east, round about the Dead Sea, or, what is more probable, on the west, since he had marched along the Philistine coast and round about the hilly region. At Bethzur, south of Jerusalem, on the road to Hebron,[152] the contending forces met. Although the Syrian army greatly exceeded in numbers, Judas this time again won so complete a victory that Lysias found himself obliged to return to Antioch in order to collect new forces.[153]
[152] Βαιθσούρα (ἡ and τά), 1Ma_4:29; 1Ma_4:61; 1Ma_6:7; 1Ma_6:26; 1Ma_6:31; 1Ma_6:49-50; 1Ma_9:52; 1Ma_10:14; 1Ma_11:65; 1Ma_14:7; 1Ma_14:33; in the בֵּית צוּר frequently referred to in the Old Testament; according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 235 sq., 20 miles south of Jerusalem in the direction of Hebron (καὶ ἔτι νῦν κώμη Βηθσωρὼ καλεῖται ἐλθόντων ἀπὸ Αἰλίας εἰς Χεβρὼν ἐν εἴκοσι σημείοις), which is confirmed by the situation of the Beit-Sur of the present day, in the neighbourhood of Hulhul (the distance is really somewhat less). See Robinson, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, 430-462. Raumer, Palästina, p. 181 f. Guérin, Judée, iii. 288-295; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 311 eq., 324 sq.; also Sheet xxi. of the great English Chart.
[153] 1Ma_4:26-35. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 5. 2Ma_11:1-15. On the agreement of the statement in First and Second Maccabees, see Grimm on both passages.
After these two brilliant and decisive successes, Judas again took possession of Jerusalem, and directed his attention to the restoration of the services of divine worship. The citadel of Jerusalem was indeed still held by Syrian troops, but Judas kept them continually in check by his people, so that the works of the temple could not be destroyed by them. Thus protected, the work was proceeded with. Everything impure was carried out from the temple. The altar of burnt-offering, which had been polluted by heathen sacrifices, was wholly taken down and a new one built in its place.[154] The sacred garments and furniture were replaced by new ones; and when everything was ready, the temple was consecrated anew by the celebration of a great feast. This took place, according to 1Ma_4:52, on 25th Chisleu, in the Seleucid year 148, or December B.C. 165, or precisely the same day on which three years before, for the first time, the altar had been desecrated by the offering up of heathen sacrifices.[155] The festivities lasted for eight days, and it was resolved that every year the memory of those events should be revived by the repetition of the festival observance.[156]
[154] The stones of the heathen altar of sacrifice, or rather of several such altars, were carried out to “an unclean place,” therefore completely outside of the temple precincts (1Ma_4:43). The stones of the earlier Jewish altar of burnt-offerings, on the other hand, were laid on the temple mount, on a suitable place, “until there should come a prophet to show what should be done with them” (1Ma_4:46). According to Mishna, Middoth i. 6, the stones of the Jewish altar were laid down in a chamber within the bounds of the inner court, but no longer on “holy” ground. With 1Ma_4:43; 1Ma_4:46, Derenbourg, pp. 60, 61, combined two obscure passages in Megillath Taanith (§ 17 and 20), according to which the stones of the Jewish altar were removed on 23rd Marcheschwan, that is, November, those of the heathen altar somewhat later, on the 3rd Chisleu, or December. The exposition of the two passages, however, is still very uncertain.
[155] The date 25th Chisleu as the day of the consecration of the temple is obtained from Megillath Taanith, § 23. Compare Derenbourg, p. 62.
[156] Compare generally: 1Ma_4:36-59. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 6-7. 2Ma_10:1-8.—To this date belongs the Feast of the Dedication of the Temple, τὰ έγκαίνια of John 10:22. Compare Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 7: καὶ ἐξ ἐκείνου μέχοι δεῦρο τὴν ἑορτὴν ἄγομεν καλοῦντες αὐτὴν φῶτα, because during this festival it was the custom to burn lights (compare Baba kamma vi. 6, and Maimonides). According to 2Ma_10:6, it was celebrated after the manner of the Feast of Tabernacles, and is therefore actually called in 2Ma_1:9, “The Feast of Tabernacles of the month Chisleu.” The Egyptian Jews were invited to take part in its celebration by two letters preserved in the beginning of the Second Book of Maccabees. For the literature with reference to this see Div. ii. vol. iii. p. 215. It was called in Hebrew הְנֻכָּה, Megillath Taanith, § 23, and was observed for a period of eight days; Bikkurim i. 6; Rosh Hashana i. 3; Taanith ii. 10; Megilla iii. 4, 6; Moed katan iii. 9; Baba kamma vi. 6. A complete description of the festival in post-Talmudie times is given by Maimonides, Hilchoth Megilla wa-Chanukha, c. iii.-iv., in the third volume of his great work, Jad-ha-chasaka or Mischne Tora, St. Petersburg 1850-1852, Bd. ii. pp. 532-542; also in Schulchan-Arukh, § 670-685. Bodenschatz, Kirchliche Verfassung der heutigen Juden, ii. 248-251. Schröder, Satzungen und Gebräuche des talmudisch-rabbinischen Judenthums, 1851, pp. 159-163.—At the synagogue services at the Chanuka festival, Numbers 7. was read (Megilla iii. 6); the festival psalm was Psalms 30. (Tract Soferim xviii. 2; Müller, Masechet Soferim 251). Hence the superscription of Psalms 30. is שיר־הנכת הבית.—Compare generally the article “Kirchweihfest” in Winer, RWB.; Schenkel’s Bibellex. by Dillmann; Riehm’s Handwörterbuch; also Oehler, article “Feste der Juden” in Herzog’s Encyclopaedia, and the commentaries on 1Ma_4:59 (Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace) and on John 10:22 (Lightfoot, Horae Hebr.; Wetstein, Nov. Test.; Wolf, Curas phil. etc.).
The reconsecration of the temple forms the first era in the history of the Maccabean revolt. Hitherto the struggles of the heroes of the faith had been invariably crowned with success. Judas had led his followers on from one victory to another. The future must now prove whether their power was elastic enough, and their enthusiasm enduring enough, to keep permanent possession of what had thus in so rapid a course been won.