� 5. The Times Of Judas Maccabaeus, B.C. 165-161

§ 5. THE TIMES OF JUDAS MACCABAEUS, B.C. 165-161
SOURCES
1 Macc. 5-9, 22; 2 Maccabees 12-15.
Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8-11. A summary of this is given in Zonaras, Annal. iv. 20-22.
Megillath Taanith, § 30, in Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 63.
The coins ascribed to Judas by de Saulcy, Recherches, p. 84 sq., belong rather in all probability to Aristobulus I.; see § 9.
LITERATURE
The works on Syrian history by Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe, Stark, etc.
The treatises and commentaries on the Books of Maccabees by Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, etc.
EWALD, History of Israel, vol. v. 306-323.
HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 272-296.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 395-421.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte des Juden, Bd. ii. 2, pp. 352-376.
CONDER, Judas Maccabaeus and the Jewish War of Independence. London 1879.
STANLEY, Jewish Church, 1877, vol. iii. pp. 285-343.
Articles, of Judas Maccabaeus, in Winer, RWB., and in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon.
During the next year and a half after the reconsecration of the temple down to the summer of B.C. 163, Judas remained master of Judea. The central government of Syria took no concern in the movements there, for its attention was wholly taken up elsewhere. Hence Judas was able unhindered to arrange for the strengthening of his position. The temple mount was furnished with stony fortifications. On the southern frontier of Judea, Beth-zur, which constituted the key to Judea, was strongly fortified and garrisoned with Jewish troops.[157] And also throughout all the border districts military raids were made, partly in order to protect the Jews dwelling there, partly for the establishment of their own dominion. The Edomites, the Bajanites (a tribe otherwise unknown), and the Ammonites, all of whom had shown themselves hostile, were sharply chastised one after another.[158]
[157] Macc. 4:60, 61. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 7. 7.—Beth-zur is in the subsequent history often referred to as an important post. See the passages quoted in note 54 under the previous section.
[158] Macc. 5:1-8. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 1.—The Edomite district Akrabattine, 1Ma_5:3, has its name from the high ridge Akrabbim, Numbers 34:4, Joshua 15:3, Judges 1:36, and is not to be confounded with this well-known toparchy of Akrabattene, lying in the north of Judea. See Div. ii. vol. i. p. 158.
Complaints soon came from Gilead, east of the Jordan, and from Galilee, of persecutions which the Jews dwelling there had been subjected to on the part of the heathens. It was resolved that help should be sent to both. Simon went to Galilee with three thousand men, Judas to Gilead with eight thousand men.[159] In neither case was there any idea of making a permanent conquest of the territory in question. But after Simon had won many battles against the heathen in Galilee, he gathered together the Jewish residents, with their women, children, and goods, and led them amid great rejoicing to Judea, where they would be kept secure.[160] Judas acted in a similar manner in Gilead. In a series of successful engagements, especially in the north of the country east of the Jordan, he subdued the native tribes, whose leader was one Timotheus, then gathered together all the Israelites in Gilead, great and small, women and children, with all their possessions, and led them carefully, after he had been compelled to fight a passage for himself by Ephron, a town of the east Jordan country otherwise unknown, through Bethsean or Scythopolis to Judea.[161]
[159] Macc. 5:9-20. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 1-2.
[160] Macc. 5:21-23. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 2. For an explanation of 1Ma_5:23, compare above, page 192.
[161] Macc. 5:24-54. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 3-5. Compare 2Ma_12:10-31. For the geography, compare also Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, ii. 2, pp. 453-459. Ephron is, as Grätz rightly remarks, certainly identical with the Γεφροῦς or Γεφροῦν conquered by Antiochus the Great (Polybius, v. 70. 12).
During the period when Simon and Judas were absent from Judea, the direction of affairs there had been assigned to certain men called Joseph and Asariah. These two, in direct opposition to the orders of Judas, undertook a military expedition against Jamnia, but were driven back with considerable loss by Gorgias, who since his defeat had remained at Emmaus in Philistine territory. The First Book of Maccabees does not fail, in recording this incident, to call attention to the fact that it was by the hand of the family of the Maccabees that salvation was to be wrought for Israel.[162]
[162] Macc. 5:18, 19, 55-62. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 6. On Jamnia, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 78 f.
But Judas carried his military expedition farther a-field. He went out again against the Edomites, besieged and destroyed Hebron; then passed through Marissa (for thus we are to read in place of Samaria in 1Ma_5:66) into the land of the Philistines, overthrew Ashdod, cast down the altars there and the idols, and returned back to Judea with rich spoil.[163] The object now quite evidently was no longer the protection of the Jewish faith, but the strengthening and extending of the Jewish power.
[163] Macc. 5:63-68. Instead of Σαμάρειαν, 1Ma_5:66, we have in Josephus, Antiq. xii. 8. 6, Μάρισσαν, as also in the Latin text of the codex Sangermanensis. Compare also 2Ma_12:35. Marissa, in the Old Testament מָרֵשָׁה, is a very well known town in the south of Judea, then under Edomite rule (Antiq. xiii. 9. 1), and lying, according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 279, in the neighbourhood of Eleutheropolis, that is, just between Hebron and Ashdod. The reading given by Josephus is thus undoubtedly the correct one, and it was early adopted, as e.g. by Grotius, Reland and Michaelis. Grimm, indeed, thinks that no motive can be found for mentioning a mere march through by Marissa. But, as Keil has correctly remarked, the march through is recorded for the reason that there a number of priests in a rash and ill-considered battle met their death (v. 67). On Ashdod, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 76 f.
Meanwhile a change had taken place in the affairs of Syria. Antiochus Epiphanes, in his undertakings in the eastern parts of the empire, had been no less unfortunate than his generals had been in Judea. He had advanced into the province of Elymais, but after making an unsuccessful attempt to appropriate the rich treasures of the temple of Artemis there, he had been compelled to retire back upon Babylon, and on the way, in the Persian town of Tabä, he died in B.C. 164, or, according to 1Ma_6:16, in the Seleucid year 149, that is, B.C. 164-163.[164] Before his end he appointed one of his generals, Philip, to be imperial chancellor, and tutor to his son Antiochus V. Eupator during his minority. But instead of him Lysias secured possession of the person of the young king, and obtained absolute sovereign power in the empire.[165]
[164] Macc. 6:1-16. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 1. Polybius, xxxi. 11. Porphyry in Jerome on Daniel 11:44-45 (Hieronym. Opp. ed. Vallarsi, v. 722).—Instead of Artemis, as given by Polybius, Appian. Syriaca, c. 66, names Aphrodite. Compare in regard to the chronology, above, p. 172.—The stories of the Second Book of Maccabees are purely legendary (1:13-16 and 9.). Grätz in the Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1883, pp. 241-254, makes a venturous attempt to drag in the statements of Daniel 11:45 in order to determine the place where Antiochus died.
[165] Macc. 6:14-17. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 2.
The revolted Jews might not perhaps have been interfered with for a long time had not pressing appeals been made to Antioch directly from Judea. Judas now laid siege in B.C. 163-162, the Seleucid year 150 (1Ma_6:20), to the Syrian garrison in the citadel of Jerusalem. Some of the garrison, notwithstanding the siege, escaped, and in company with representatives of the Greek party among the Jews, betook themselves to the king in order to urge upon him the necessity of his interfering. The representatives of the Greek party, in particular, complained of how much they had to suffer from their hostile fellow-countrymen, so that many of them had been slain and had their possessions taken from them.[166]
[166] 1Ma_6:18-27. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 3.
It was this that first again roused those in Antioch to take active measures. Lysias himself, in company with the youthful king, went forth at the head of a powerful army and marched against Judea. He once more made his attack from the south, and began with the siege of Beth-zur. Judas was obliged to raise the siege of the citadel of Jerusalem, and to go forth to meet the king. At Beth-Zachariah, between Jerusalem and Beth-zur, the armies met.[167] It soon appeared that over against the vigorous onslaught of the Syrian troops the Jews with all their valour could not secure any decisive or lasting victory. They went forth boldly to the conflict. Judas’s own brother Eleasar distinguished himself above all the rest. He thought that he had discovered the elephant on which the young king was seated; he crept forward, stabbed the elephant from below, and was crushed under the weight of the falling animal. His self-immolation and all the efforts of the Jews, however, were in vain. The Jewish army was beaten, and that so completely, that the king’s army soon appeared before the walls of Jerusalem, and laid siege to Zion, the temple mount.[168]
[167] Βαιθζαχαρία (1Ma_6:32), according to Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 4, seventy stadia north of Beth-zur, is in the present day called Beit-Sàkaria. See Robinson, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, pp. 276-277. Raumer, Palästina, p. 181; Guérin, Judée, iii. 316-319. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 35 sq., 108; and the great English Map, Sheet xvii. Ritter, in his Geography of Palestine and Sinai, wrongly identifies Beth-Zachariah with edh-Dhoheriyeh, in which case it would have lain to the south-west of Hebron.
[168] 1Ma_6:28-48. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 3-5; Wars of the Jews, i. 1. 5. 2Ma_13:1-17. The defeat is only very shyly hinted at in the First Book of Maccabees 6:47; while in the Second Book of Maccabees it is actually transformed into a victory! See with reference to this, Grimm, Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 103, zu 2 Makk. p. 191 f.
Beth-zur also was obliged to yield and to receive a Syrian garrison. Those besieged in Zion, however, soon began to suffer from want of the means of life, since owing to the Sabbatical year no provision had been made beforehand.[169] The utter discomfiture of the Jews now seemed imminent, when suddenly Lysias, on account of events occurring in Syria, found himself compelled to treat with the Jews for peace under favourable conditions. That same Philip whom Antiochus Epiphanes had nominated as imperial chancellor and tutor of his son Antiochus V. during his minority, had marched against Antioch in the hope of securing the power to himself. In order to have a free hand against him, Lysias granted to the Jews that which had hitherto been the occasion of the war, the liberty freely to celebrate their own religious ceremonies. It was henceforth to be permitted them to “observe their own institutions as formerly.” On this condition those besieged in Zion capitulated; its strongholds were reduced, contrary to the promise sworn to by the king. The subjugation of the Jews was accomplished, but only after that had been granted to them on account of which the Syrian government had declared war against them five years before.[170]
[169] 1Ma_6:49-54. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 5. 2Ma_13:18-22. The mentioning of the Sabbatical year (1Ma_6:49 : ὅτι σάββατον ἦν τῇ γῇ; 6:53: διὰ τὸ ἕβδομον ἔτος εἶναι) shows us that the events occurred in B.C. 163. For the Seleucid year 150 (in which they are placed by 1Ma_6:20 compared with 7:1) runs, according to the mode of reckoning followed in the First Book of Maccabees, from spring of B.C. 163 to spring of B.C. 162. The Sabbatical year, however, always begins in autumn (Mishna, Rosh hashana i. 1). Since, then, they were already in want of victuals, they must have been in the second half of the Sabbatical year, after the fields during winter and spring had been left unsown. This, therefore, brings us to the summer of B.C. 163.
[170] 1Ma_6:55-62. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 6-7. 2Ma_13:23-26.
The understanding with the Jews at which Lysias and Antiochus V. in their own interests had arrived, was not interfered with by any of the following kings. None of them resorted again to the foolish attempt of Antiochus Epiphanes forcibly to introduce pagan culture and ceremonies among the Jews. The Jewish worship, which had been restored by Judas Maccabaeus amid all the changeful circumstances of the age, continued to be observed in essentially the same way. This deserves to be specially noted in order that a correct estimate may be formed of the conflicts which followed. The end aimed at in the struggle was now different from that previously before them. It had to do no longer with the preservation of religion, but, just as we have already seen in the preliminary history of the Maccabean revolt, with the question whether the friends of the Greeks or the national party within the Jewish nation itself should have the supremacy. It was essentially a Jewish internecine war, in which the Syrian superiors took part only in so far as they supported and put at the head of the provincial government sometimes the one, sometimes the other, of these two Jewish parties. To a certain extent, indeed, religious interests did come into consideration. For the Greek party were inclined to go farther in the way of favouring Greek institutions, while their nationalist opponents seemed more attached to the religion of Israel. But the fundamental points were no longer in dispute.[171]
[171] Compare Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 84: “The year 162 marks the proper end of the religious war of the Jews. Thereafter the occasion of the conflict was not religion, but government.”
In consequence of the events of the previous year, the party in Judea friendly to the Greeks were driven out of the government, and were indeed for the most part persecuted. Judas stood practically at the head of the Jewish people.[172] It may be readily supposed that the opposition party did not quietly submit to this arrangement, but made vigorous efforts on their part to obtain again the governing power. But they succeeded in their efforts only after a change had occurred in the occupancy of the throne. Antiochus V. and Lysias had, indeed, after a short struggle overcome that Philip who had contended with them for the supremacy.[173] But they themselves were soon driven out by a new pretender to the crown. Demetrius I., afterwards distinguished by the cognomen Soter, the son of Seleucus IV. Philopator, therefore nephew of Antiochus Epiphanes and cousin of Antiochus Eupator, who had previously lived as a hostage at Rome, and had vainly entreated from the Roman senate permission to return home, succeeded in secretly making his escape, and landed at Tripolis on the Phoenician coast.[174] He was able soon to gather around him a considerable number of followers;[175] indeed the very bodyguard of King Antiochus deserted him and his guardian Lysias, and joined Demetrius. By the orders of Demetrius both were murdered, and he himself proclaimed king in B.C. 162.[176] The Roman senate was at first in consternation over the flight of Demetrius, but by and by Demetrius managed on his part to induce the Romans to recognise him as king.[177]
[172] We get no information from the First Book of Maccabees as to the person who administered the office of the high priest after the restoration of the Jewish worship. Nominally Menelaus was still high priest. He is said to have been put to death by Antiochus V. Eupator when he made definite concessions to the Jews, and the reason assigned for that was that Menelaus by his evil counsels was indirectly responsible for the rebellion of the Jews (Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 7; compare 2Ma_13:3-8). But Menelaus was naturally unable in presence of Judas, who was in possession of the actual power, to exercise the functions of the high priest’s office. Perhaps, indeed, Onias IV., son of Onias III., may have officiated. But, according to Josephus, Antiq. xii. 5. 1, he was not of age at the time of his father’s death, and went immediately down into Egypt, and so after the execution of Menelaus the office was given, not to him, but to Alcimus (Antiq. xii. 9. 7).
[173] 1Ma_6:63. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 7.
[174] Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 254 (=Syncell. ed. Dindorf, i. 550 sq.). 2Ma_14:1.
[175] Justin, xxxiv. 3: Delatus in Syriam secundo favore omnium excipitur.
[176] 1Ma_7:1-4. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 1. 2Ma_14:1-2, Livy, Epit. xlvi. Appian, Syriaca, c. 47. In regard to the chronology, see above, p. 174.
[177] Polybius, xxxi. 23, xxxii. 4.
Soon after Demetrius had entered upon the government, the leaders of the Hellenistic party, with a certain Alcimus at their head, or as his Hebrew name properly reads, Jakim,[178] made representations to the king with reference to their oppression under the party of Judas. Judas and his brothers had meanwhile slain the adherents of the king, or expelled them from the country. Demetrius was naturally readily impressed by such a statement. Alcimus was appointed high priest, and at the same time a Syrian army under the command of Bacchides was sent to Judea, in order to instate Alcimus by force, if need be, in his office.[179]
[178] Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 7: Ἄλκιμος ὁ καὶ Ἰάκειμος κληθείς. In the sketch given by Josephus in Antiq. xx. 10, he names him simply Ἰάκιμος. Also in the text of the First Book of Maccabees, 7:5, 12, 20, 21, 23, 25, and 9:54-57, as well as 2Ma_14:3, various manuscripts have the addition ὁ καὶ Ἰάκιμος.
[179] 1Ma_7:5-9. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 1-2. 2Ma_14:3-10.—According to Josephus, Antiq. xii. 9. 7, Alcimus had been already nominated as high priest by Antiochus V. Eupator. According to 2Ma_14:3 ff., he had once even earlier than this filled the office of high priest.
The further development of affairs is highly characteristic of the struggles of the Maccabees. The opposition to Alcimus on the side of the strict Jewish party was by no means engaged in by all its adherents. In consequence of quieting assurances which he gave, he was immediately acknowledged by the representatives of the strictest section of the scribes and the “pious” (Ἀσιδαῖοι, 1Ma_7:13), as the legitimate high priest of the family of Aaron. Only Judas and his adherents persevered in their opposition. They did not trust the promises of Alcimus, and considered that their religious interests could only be secured if they got the government into their own hands.[180]
[180] 1Ma_7:10-15. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 2. The Second Book of Maccabees, 14:6, falsely identifies the Asidaeans with the party of Judas. See regarding this, Wellhausen, Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 79 ff.
Results showed that they were not wrong. One of the first acts of Alcimus was to order the execution of sixty men belonging to the party of the Asidaeans. This struck fear and trembling into the hearts of the people, but had also the effect of arousing more determined opposition. Bacchides now thought that his presence in Judea was no longer necessary. Leaving behind a military force in Judea for the protection of Alcimus, he himself returned to Syria. Then Alcimus and Judas had practically an opportunity of measuring their strength and testing their own resources against one another. The open war between the two parties which now began seemed to tend more and more in favour of the Maccabees, so that Alcimus found it necessary to go to the king and to entreat of him further support.[181]
[181] 1Ma_7:16-25. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 2-3.
Demetrius sent now against Judea another general, Nicanor, with a great army. Nicanor sought first of all through stratagem to obtain possession of the person of Judas. But Judas got information of this plot, and so the scheme miscarried. An engagement thus took place at Capharsalama,[182] which resulted in the defeat of Nicanor. He then advanced upon Jerusalem, and wreaked his vengeance on the innocent priests. While they greeted him respectfully, he treated them with scorn and ridicule, and threatened that if they did not deliver up to him Judas and his army, he would on his victorious return set their temple on fire.[183]
[182] The position of this place is unknown. Expositors of the First Book of Maccabees (Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, etc., on 1Ma_7:31) set it south of Jerusalem, “since Nicanor after losing the battle withdrew to Jerusalem and then to Beth-Horon” (Keil). But this argument is not convincing. Nicanor did not sustain an actual defeat at Capharsalama, since his loss consisted only of 500 men (so 1Ma_7:32 is to be read, instead of 5000). We may therefore represent the state of matters thus to ourselves, that Nicanor, after he had failed to gain any decisive advantage over Judas at Capharsalama, wished to make himself sure of the protection of Jerusalem, where he had the garrison of the citadel to back up his efforts. Under these circumstances nothing stands in the way of our setting Capharsalama to the north-west of Jerusalem, and identifying it with the Carvasalim near Ramleh, not far from Lydda, of which mention is made in the eleventh century (so Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 46-59; Ewald, History of Israel, v. 321). A כפר שלם is spoken of in the Talmud (Reland, Palest. p. 690; Neubauer, Géographie du Talmud, p. 173), and by the Arabic geographer Mukaddasi, translated by Gildemeister, Zeitschrift des DPV. vii. 170.
[183] 1Ma_7:26-38. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 4-5.
Therefore he returned to the district of Beth-Horon, north-west of Jerusalem, where he waited for reinforcements from Syria. Judas lay encamped over against him in Adasa.[184] On 13th Adar, B.C. 161, a decisive conflict was engaged in which resulted in the utter defeat of the Syrians. Nicanor himself fell in the tumult. When his people saw this, they threw their weapons away, and betook themselves to hasty flight. The Jews pursued them, surrounded them, and cut them down to the last man; so, at least, the First Book of Maccabees affirms. The victory must certainly have been overpowering and complete. For from this time the 13th Adar, corresponding roughly to our March, was annually observed as a festival under the name of “Nicanor’s Day.”[185]
[184] Ἀδασά, 1Ma_7:40; 1Ma_7:45, according to Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 5, thirty stades from Beth-Horon, is identical with the Ἀδασά in the neighbourhood of Gophna which was known to Eusebius (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 220: καὶ ἔστι νῦν κώμη ἐγγὺς Γουφνῶν). It lay therefore north-east of Beth-Horon. Quite distinct from it is the similarly named חֲדָשָׁה belonging to the tribe of Judah (Joshua 15:37; Mishna, Erubin v. 6), which, since it was in the district of Judah, cannot have been in the neighbourhood of Gophna, as Eusebius erroneously assumes (see on the contrary, Jerome, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 93). Compare the articles “Adasa” and “Hadasa” in the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm.—Many are now inclined to identify our Adasa with the ruins of Khirbet Adasa on the great road north of Jerusalem (Guérin, Judée, iii. 5-6; The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 30, 105 f.; also the great English Map, Sheet xvii.). The identification seems to me doubtful, since Khirbet Adasa is about sixty stades from Beth-Horon, and not toward Gophna, but in southerly direction.
[185] 1Ma_7:39-50. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 5. 2Ma_15:1-36. Megillath Taanith, § 30 (in Derenbourg, p. 63).—The year in which Nicanor’s defeat occurred is not directly stated in the First Book of Maccabees, but by a comparison of 1Ma_7:1 with 9:3, it must be set down as the Seleucid year 151, or B.C. 162-161. But the month Adar of the Seleucid year 151 is equivalent to March B.C. 161. The consideration which in the first edition of this work was regarded as telling against this date, that it made the time since the accession of Demetrius too short for the occurrence of such events, I can no longer regard as offering any serious difficulty.
Judas was thus once more master of the situation. Josephus assigns to this period the death of Alcimus, and from this time reckons the priesthood of Judas. But the death of Alcimus, according to the First Book of Maccabees, occurred considerably later; and that Judas exercised generally the functions of the high priest, is extremely improbable.[186]
[186] On the death of Alcimus, see 1Ma_9:54-56. On the high-priesthood of Judas, Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 6, 11. 2. In itself it would not be inconceivable that Judas should also have usurped the functions of the high priest. But the First Book of Maccabees says nothing about such a proceeding. There was also a legitimate claimant present in the person of Onias IV., who would certainly be respected as such by Judas. Josephus himself in another place expressly says that after the death of Alcimus the office of the high priest remained unoccupied for seven years (Antiq. xx. 10: διεδέξατο δὲ οὐδεὶς αὐτόν, ἀλλὰ διετέλεσεν ἡ πόλις ἐνιαυτοὺς ἑπτὰ χωρὶς ἀρχιερέως οὖσα). This statement is supported by the investigations of Wieseler (Studien und Kritiken, 1877, pp. 293-298) and Grätz (Geschichte der Juden, ii. 2, p. 365 ff.; Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1883, pp. 1-6).
There is, however, this element of truth in the statement of Josephus, that Judas now actually stood at the head of the Jewish commonwealth. And it was his determined plan to maintain himself, or at least his party, in that position. But the events which had occurred taught him that this was possible only after they had completely freed themselves from the Syrian yoke. The king of Syria had indeed showed his inclination to secure the supremacy in Judea to the opposition party by force of arms. The resolve was therefore made to shake off once and for all every sort of subordination to the Syrians. In order to accomplish this purpose, Judas applied to the Romans for help. The rulers of the Western empire, ever since their conflicts with Antiochus the Great, between B.C. 192 and B.C. 189, had taken the liveliest interest in matters that affected the Syrian empire, and looked closely into everything that occurred with watchful eyes. They repeatedly interposed their authority to decide upon the affairs of Syria.[187] All centrifugal movements in that quarter might therefore count upon their support. It was thus very natural that Judas should make the attempt with the help of the Romans to secure permanently that freedom which had been temporarily wrung from their enemy. In grand pictorial style the First Book of Maccabees describes how Judas had heard of the deeds and might of the Romans, and how this led him to endeavour to obtain their aid. Even the inaccuracies which are mixed up in this story serve to set before us very strikingly the measure of the knowledge of the Romans, which was then current in Judea. Judas therefore sent two men of his party as ambassadors to Rome, Eupolemus son of John, and Jason son of Eleasar, the former perhaps identical with that Eupolemus who is known to us as a Hellenistic writer, see Div. ii. vol. iii. pp. 203-206. The end which he had in view in so doing was avowedly the throwing off of the Syrian yoke (1Ma_8:18 : τοῦ ἆραι τὸν ζυγὸν ἀπʼ αὐτῶν). The Roman senate readily granted an audience to the Jewish embassy, and a treaty of friendship was made of which the principal provisions were that the Jews should give help to the Romans and the Romans to the Jews in times of war (συμμαχία), but not on precisely equal terms, and in every case just as circumstances required (1Ma_8:25; 1Ma_8:27 : ὡς ἂν ὁ καιρὸς ὑπογραφῇ). It therefore practically depended on the pleasure of the Romans how far they should consider themselves bound by the agreement.[188]
[187] Thus Antiochus Epiphanes was obliged to abandon Egypt by Popilius Laenas. After the death of Antiochus Epiphanes, the Roman senate forced from Antiochus Eupator and his regent-guardian Lysias a considerable reduction of the standing army of Syria (Polybius, xxxi. 12; Appian. Syriaca, c. 46).
[188] 1 Maccabees 8. Josephus, Antiq. iii. 10. 6.—A similar treaty of friendship between Rome and Astypalaea, of date B.C. 105, is known from an inscription, Corp. Inscr. Graec. n. 2485 (also in Hicks, Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford 1882, pp. 347-349).—For an explanation and criticism of 1 Maccabees 8, besides the commentaries of Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, compare: Grimm, Zeitschrift für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1874, pp. 231-238, with communications from Mommsen and Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta societatis philologae Lipsiensis, t. v. 1875, pp. 91-100.
About the same time as this treaty was concluded the Romans issued a missive to Demetrius, wherein they ordered him to desist from every sort of hostile proceeding against the Jews, who were the allies of the Romans.[189] Their interposition of authority came too late. Demetrius proceeded so rashly and energetically, that the overthrow of Judea had been already completed before there was any possibility of interference on the part of the Romans.[190] Immediately after he had received news of the death and defeat of Nicanor, he sent a great army under Bacchides to Judea, which appeared in the neighbourhood of Jerusalem as early as the first month of the Seleucid year 152, that is, in April B.C. 161 (1Ma_9:3), only about two months after the fall of Nicanor.[191] Bacchides encamped beside Berea, Judas beside Elasa (written also Eleasa and Alasa).[192] The superiority of the Syrians was so evident, that even in the ranks of Judas there no longer remained any hope of victory. His followers deserted in large numbers. With a few faithful men Judas ventured with the wild courage of despair on the hopeless conflict. The result was just what had been clearly foreseen: the troops of Judas were hewn down, and he himself fell in the battle. To his brothers Jonathan and Simon were granted the sad privilege of burying him in the grave of his father at Modein.[193]
[189] 1Ma_8:31-32.
[190] From the general drift of the First Book of Maccabees, it may be assumed that Judas had first arranged the embassy after the victory over Nicanor. On this supposition he cannot have lived to see the return of his ambassadors, for his death occurred only two months after Nicanor’s defeat. Compare Grimm, Exeget. Handbuch zu 1 Makk. p. 131.
[191] As to the reckoning of the date, compare above, page 39.—Since Nicanor fell on the 13th Adar, the last month of the Jewish year (1Ma_7:43; 1Ma_7:49), while Bacchides appeared before Jerusalem “in the first month” of the Seleucid year 152 (1Ma_9:3), a period of one and a half months, which is quite enough, is allowed for the equipment of the Syrian army. “But yet even should forty-five days seem to any one too little, I could even then come to his help with other thirty or thirty-one days. The year must have been an intercalary year, that is, it must have had the month Veadar intercalated” (Michaelis, Anm. zu 1 Makk. 9:3).
[192] Both places are unknown. Also the remark in 1Ma_9:15 : ἕως Ἀζώτου ὄρους, scarcely gives sufficient ground for determining its locality, since the statement is very suspicious, and is owing perhaps to a translator’s mistake. (Michaelis guesses that in Hebrew it stood אשדות ההר, “down at the foot of the mountain;” Josephus reads μέχρις Ἀζᾶ ὄρους.)
[193] 1Ma_9:1-21. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 11. 1-2.
With the overthrow of Judas it was finally and definitely proved that it was a vain endeavour on the part of the Jewish nationalists to measure swords with the mighty forces of Syria. Brilliant as the earlier achievements of Judas had been, he was largely indebted to the recklessness and self-confidence of his opponents. Continuous military success was not to be thought of if only the Syrian authorities seriously roused themselves to the conflict. The following age cannot show even one conspicuous victory of the kind by which Judas had won renown. What the Maccabean party finally reached, it won through voluntary concessions of claimants of the Syrian throne contending with one another, and generally in consequence of internal dissensions in the Syrian empire.