of [or leader of] the people [or crowd],\u201d is best interpreted with Goldstein as \u201cin charge of the non-combatants.\u201d It is they whom Jonathan sends with the baggage for safekeeping across the Jordan. The Nabatean Arabs must have maintained some degree of freedom from the Seleucids and seemed like a reliable refuge.
\n36. sons of Jambri from Medeba On the way, John and his party are intercepted by the Jambrites, an Arab tribe from Medeba, and taken captive. From verses 38 and 42 we gather that John dies in the attack. We do not hear of the fate of the others. Medeba is some 12 miles east of the Dead Sea. There is some evidence that the Jambrites were a Nabatean tribe.
\n37. Nadabath Probably Nebo, somewhat north of Medeba. In this case \u201cone of the great nobles of Canaan\u201d must be taken as a literary embellishment. It is also possible to emend Canaan to Ma\u2019on, modern Ma\u2019in, some seven kilometers southwest of Medeba (Goldstein). If so, Nadabath would lie in that vicinity as well. These towns must have lain in the territory of the Jambrites.
\n42. the marshes of the Jordan After attacking the Jambrite wedding procession, Jonathan and his men take refuge in the swamps immediately north of the Dead Sea, on the east side of the Jordan.
\n43. on the Sabbath day to the banks of the Jordan Bacchides and his troops cross the Jordan on the Sabbath (see comment on v. 34). They position themselves to the north of Jonathan facing south, so that the Jews are hemmed in by the Jordan on one side and the swamps on the north end of the Dead Sea on the other side.
\n44. for today things are not as they were before An allusion to the life-threatening situation, which justifies fighting on the Sabbath (see comments on 2:34 and 2:41).
\n47. went to the rear Bacchides is pictured here as a coward who, after facing Jonathan, runs to take refuge in the rear.
\n50\u201353 Bacchides fortifies the citadel of Jerusalem (the Akra) and a string of towns in order to solidify his control of Judea. In all of them he builds fortifications and places garrisons, which may have consisted of Jews loyal to Alcimus.
\n50. Emmaus About 20 miles north of Jerusalem; see 3:40.
\nBeth-horon About 10 miles north of Jerusalem; see 3:16.
\nBethel About 12 miles north of Jerusalem. Archaeological remains from the Hellenistic period have been found there.
\nTimnath Probably modern Tibne, 12 miles northwest of Jerusalem.
\nPharathon Modern Ferata, six miles southwest of Nablus.
\nTephon Probably Tappuah, about three miles west of Hebron (cf. Josh. 15:53; 16:8).
\n52. Beth-zur See 4:29.
\nGazara Modern Gezer; see 4:15.
\nthe citadel Goldstein suggests that Seleucid troops were stationed in Beth-zur, Gazara, and the cit adel (the Akra), hence they were mentioned separately. The Akra was the base from which the Seleucids kept Alcimus\u2019s Hellenistic regime in power (cf. 1:29\u201340).
\n53. hostages In the Akra, Bacchides holds hostages from among the aristocratic families in order to prevent them from throwing their lot in with Jonathan, whose exploits must have provoked widespread admiration.
\n54. work of the prophets In May of 159 BCE Alcimus alters the structure of the Temple, in the author\u2019s view thus violating the commands of the prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, in whose time the Second Temple had been built. He attempts to tear down the barrier of the inner court. Most scholars see this as the wall that separated the Temple Mount from the Temple itself. Gentiles were permitted on the Temple Mount, but not in the Temple itself. If so, Alcimus is seeking to discard the prohibition against allowing Gentiles access to the Temple.
\n55. Alcimus was stricken Alcimus miraculously suffers a stroke and is unable to continue. Our author certainly sees this as divine intervention.
\n57. Bacchides \u2026 returned to the king Despite this verse, it is probable that Bacchides departed for Syria soon after completing the new fortifications, assuming Alcimus\u2019s control to have been established.
\nand the land of Judah had rest for two years The wording is influenced by the language of Judg. 3:11, 30; 5:31; and 8:28.
\n58. the lawless The Hellenized Jews summon Bacchides back to Judea to deal with Jonathan and his men.
\n62. Bethbasi Khirbet Beit Bassa, some two kilometers southeast of Bethlehem.
\n66. He struck down This verse has been variously interpreted. At face value, the text means that after leaving Simon in command at Bethbasi, Jonathan attacked two Arab tribes. Yet some manuscripts imply that he \u201cplaced in command\u201d (so Zeitlin\u2019s commentary) these two allies in his battle against Bacchides. Goldstein accordingly translates, \u201cHe went and \u2026 [commentary: \u2018summoned\u2019] Odomera and his brothers and the Phasironites in their encampment, so that they began to harass and attack Bacchides\u2019 troops\u201d (vv. 66\u201367). This view is supported also by Josephus, Ant. 13.1.5 (28).
\n69. the lawless men Upon defeat, Bacchides turns against the Hellenizers who had summoned him to Judea (see v. 58).
\n70 As soon as Jonathan learns of Bacchides\u2019s intention to leave Judea, he proposes an exchange of prisoners and a truce.
\n73. the sword ceased from Israel There now ensues a long period of tranquility for Judea, some seven years until the events described in 10:69.
\nJonathan dwelt in Michmash Present-day Mukhmas, eight miles northeast of Jerusalem. It was there that Saul and Jonathan of old defeated the Philistines (1 Sam. 13:2). Jonathan the Hasmonean is not secure enough to control Jerusalem. He still has no official position and is not high priest.
\nJonathan began to judge Although Judea remains a Seleucid dependency, Jonathan leads as a charismatic leader, much like the biblical \u201cjudges.\u201d
\n10:1. Alexander Ephiphanes, the son of Antiochus By 152 BCE the hostility of Rome and of a number of petty kingdoms against Demetrius I made the time ripe for the appearance of Alexander Epiphanes, known as Alexander Balas, as a pretender to the Seleucid throne. His claim to be the son of Antiochus IV Epiphanes was widely doubted in antiquity. His attempt to gain control of the empire was abetted by the fact that Demetrius had taken to drink and had secluded himself outside Antioch. By spring or summer of 152 BCE Alexander conquered Ptolemais, modern Akko on the Mediterranean seacoast.
\n3. Demetrius sent Jonathan a letter When Demetrius I begins his military offensive against Alexander, he seeks to make Jonathan his ally.
\n6. the hostages See 9:53.
\n7. Jonathan came to Jerusalem Jonathan\u2019s legal recognition allows him to take up residence in Jerusalem.
\nread the letter The actual text of the letter from Demetrius is not preserved. Although the men in the Akra are forced to accede to this letter, they still hold their position, indicating that Judea is still not independent of Seleucid rule.
\n11. build the walls The rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem is intended to enhance Jonathan\u2019s position, as well as to provide defense. This wall was torn down under Lysias in 6:62.
\n12. the foreigners who were in the strongholds The Seleucid soldiers; cf. 9:52.
\n14. who had forsaken the law and the commandments The Hellenized Jews remain in their refuge at Beth-zur.
\n16. our friend and ally Alexander feels constrained to better the offer of Demetrius, as he recognizes the danger that an alliance of Demetrius and Jonathan would pose. In proposing to make Jonathan not only a \u201cfriend\u201d (an honorary position) but also an ally, he intends to grant him some degree of autonomy.
\n20. high priest of your nation Alexander makes Jonathan high priest, an office bestowed by the Seleucids only from the time of Antiochus IV. Indeed, the high priesthood had been vacant since the death of Alcimus. Jonathan was not of the appropriate priestly family, so while the law of the Torah permitted him to occupy this office, his appointment was a departure from a tradition that extended from the time of Solomon up to his own day. Indeed, opposition to the Hasmonean takeover of the high priesthood is probably the reason for the founding of the Qumran sect.
\na purple robe and a golden crown The purple robe, always part of the garb of the \u201cfriends of the king,\u201d and the crown of gold, were normal parts of priestly attire in the Hellenistic world.
\n21. Jonathan put on the holy garments Jonathan assumes his position in 162 BCE when he puts on the Jewish high priestly garments and celebrates the rites of the festival of Sukkot. At the same time, he takes advantage of his new sovereignty to expand his army greatly.
\n24. promise them honor and gifts Demetrius realizes that he has been upstaged and seeks to redress the balance by granting even greater privileges. Since he is in fact the ruling sovereign, he is able to marshal a much more extensive list of concessions.
\n25. to the nation of the Jews The address of Demetrius\u2019s letter mentions neither Jonathan nor his high priesthood. Some have suggested that this is an attempt to woo the Jewish people away from Jonathan\u2019s leadership. Yet it is more likely that since he had not appointed Jonathan to his position, he prefers to make allusion simply to \u201cthe high priest\u201d (v. 32). Demetrius ignores the agreement Jonathan made with Alexander. Goldstein points out that this was standard practice in Greco-Roman rhetoric. The difficult syntax of this letter would result, if it is indeed genuine, from the fact that the author of 1 Maccabees translated it from Greek into Hebrew, from which it was later retranslated in the Greek text of 1 Maccabees.
\n29. tribute and salt tax and crown levies Tribute refers to annual payments required from communities. Bickerman suggests that the salt tax was originally a requirement that each citizen furnish the government a certain amount of salt. Later this tax was converted into an annual cash payment. Crown levies were originally actual crowns that had to be furnished. Later, they became fixed levies that the king would occasionally demand. These three taxes were to be abolished by Demetrius.
\n30. the third of the grain and the half of the fruit The high proportion of the taxes on the grain and fruit makes it likely that these levies were instituted to punish Judea for having revolted.
\nthe three districts The three districts were Aphairema, Lydda, and Rathamin (11:34). These three toparchies, orginally transferred to Judea from Samaria by Alexander the Great, had been taken away from Judea by Antiochus IV. In verse 38, Demetrius I proposes to again join them to Judea. Samaria and Galilee are mentioned together because they constituted a single province.
\n31. Jerusalem The granting of special status to Jerusalem means that henceforth it will not be liable to attack except as a result of aggression by its citizens. It is also to be freed from Seleucid customs duties.
\n32. the citadel Demetrius is even willing to surrender control of the citadel, the Akra, to the high priest. This would mean the end of Seleucid domination over the city, tantamount to de facto independence for the Jews and recognition of the high priest as their ruler. (On the omission of Jonathan, see comment on 10:25. Despite the rejection of Demetrius\u2019s proposals by the Jews [vv. 46\u201347], Jonathan later attacks the citadel [11:20]).
\n33. Jews taken captive Jewish captives must have been scattered throughout the Hellenistic world in the aftermath of the Maccabean wars. They are all to be set free.
\ntaxes on their cattle Jewish beasts of burden are to be exempt from the angareia, forced service to the crown.
\n34. days of immunity and release The days surrounding Jewish festivals and the festivals themselves are to be days of customs exemption for them. Jews will not be compelled at these times to discharge civic duties or to appear in court.
\n36\u201337 The right to serve as trusted members of the armed forces is to be restored to the Jews, who, led by Jewish officers, are to be allowed to observe the laws of the Torah, even while serving in the Seleucid army.
\n38. the three districts See comment on 10:30.
\n39. a gift to the sanctuary in Jerusalem The granting of Ptolemais and its revenues to the Temple is an empty gesture, since it is under the control of the pretender Alexander Balas. The grant may even be intended to punish the city for supporting Demetrius\u2019s rival.
\n41 This verse is ambiguous. Tedesche agrees with the RSV translation here. Goldstein translates, \u201cAnd if there should be any surplus which the officials in charge shall not have paid out, they shall apply it from now on, as in former years, to the needs of the temple.\u201d The disagreement concerns the identity of the officials. The RSV (following most scholars) assumes that these are Seleucid officials who from the time of Antiochus IV ceased paying various expenses of the Temple. Goldstein takes this as referring to the Jewish Temple officials. He conjectures that there had been a dispute regarding funds donated by the Seleucid rulers. Excess funds had been appropriated for building purposes, although the Seleucids expected them to be used for sacrifices. This formally permits the procedure of reassignment that had been used by Temple officials. Further, according to most, verse 42 applies to the cancellation of a levy against the Temple by the Seleucids. Goldstein takes it as abolishing a \u201cskimming\u201d of funds from sacrificial monies, which he alleges the priests had practiced. The problem with Goldstein\u2019s explanations of verses 41 and 42 is that they depend totally on unsupported conjecture.
\n43. whoever takes refuge at the temple in Jerusalem The right of asylum in the sanctuary does not exist in biblical tradition (see Exod. 21:14), let alone for debtors. Here it is extended based on Hellenistic practice.
\n44\u201345. cost of rebuilding In financing the rebuilding of the Temple and the city walls, Demetrius follows the pattern set by the Persian kings (Ezra 6:8; 7:20).
\n46\u201347 The support of Alexander by the Romans, long allies of the Hasmoneans (8:1\u201332), must have been a factor in the decision of the Jews to reject the privileges offered by Demetrius. They choose to remain loyal to Alexander, judging his alliance as more reliable. After the defeat of Alexander by Ptolemy VI Philopator and the establishment of Demetrius II as ruler of the Seleucid kingdom, these same privileges originally offered by his father Demetrius I are reconfirmed by Demetrius II and, this time, accepted by the Jews (11:20\u201337).
\n49. The two kings met in battle Manuscripts and interpreters are divided over the sequence of events. After the initial confrontation, either the army of Demetrius or that of Alexander flees, with the enemy in hot pursuit. If Alexander\u2019s army was in pursuit (RSV), we can easily understand how Demetrius was lost in battle. If it was Demetrius who gained the upper hand (Goldstein), then we must assume that Alexander rallied his men and turned the battle around, at which time Demetrius fell. For a thorough discussion, see Goldstein. In any case, with the death of Demetrius I in the summer of 150 BCE, Alexander emerges as undisputed king of the Seleucid Empire.
\n54. give me your daughter as my wife Alexander asks for the hand of Cleopatra III Thea (v. 57), daughter of Ptolemy VI Philometor (reigned 181\u2013146 BCE). (Alexander\u2019s letter of proposal is probably the composition of our author, not an authentic document.) Ptolemy VI had supported Alexander because of his hostility to Demetrius I, caused by the latter\u2019s attempt to take Cyprus from him in 156\u2013155 BCE. The wedding took place in the summer of 150 BCE, shortly after the defeat of Demetrius I.
\n60. many gifts Jonathan, invited to the wedding, takes the opportunity to ingratiate himself with Ptolemy VI and Alexander Balas by giving manifold gifts to them and their friends.
\n65. among his chief friends Jonathan is treated royally and elevated to the chief friends of the king (cf. 10:20, where he became a friend). He is officially designated general (strategos) and governor of the province (meriadarches). Jonathan\u2019s de facto control of the province of Judea has now become de Jure.
\n67. Demetrius the son of Demetrius Sometime after March of 147 BCE Demetrius II, son of Demetrius I, attempted to recapture his kingdom from Alexander Balas. The latter had been an incompetent and unpopular king. Demetrius II had been sent by his father with a sum of money to Knidos, from which he set out with the help of mercenaries from Crete.
\n68 Alexander returned to Antioch to cement his control of the Seleucid Empire.
\n69. Appolonius In the meantime Apollonius, governor of Coele-Syria (southern Syria) switched loyalties to Demetrius II, as he had originally been a supporter of Demetrius I. Camping at Jamnia (Yavneh on the Mediterranean coast) he challenges Jonathan to open combat. Jonathan, it seems, was the only local ruler to remain loyal to Alexander Balas.
\n75. Joppa Modern Jaffa, to the south of present-day Tel Aviv, a city on the coastal plain (cf. v. 71) but adjacent to Jonathan\u2019s territory.
\n77. Azotus Apollonius, together with his horsemen and infantry, marches south through Azotus (biblical Ashdod), exposing his large force in the plain.
\n86. Askalon After hearing of his exploits at Ashdod, the people of Askalon (Ashkelon) quickly open their city to Jonathan. This foray into the coastal plain was the beginning of a process throughout the Hasmonean period of extending Jewish sovereignty to this region. Control of the coastal plain was necessary to stabilize Hasmonean rule over Palestine as a whole as well as to make possible economic prosperity, which to a great extent depended on Mediterranean trade.
\n89. kinsmen of kings Jonathan\u2019s defeat of an ally of Demetrius II leads Alexander Balas to elevate Jonathan even further, from among the chief friends of the king (v. 65) to the status of kinsman. Since he already controls Ashdod and Ashkelon, Alexander cedes Ekron to him.
\n11:1. by trickery Josephus (Ant. 14.4.5\u20137 [103\u201310]) suggests that Ptolemy VI Philometor entered Palestine to help his son-in-law Alexander but soon discovered that Alexander plotted to kill him. As a result, he decided to switch his allegiance to Demetrius II. In any case, when he arrived, aided by Alexander\u2019s welcome mat, he quickly took control of the country.
\n6. they greeted on another Ptolemy keeps his intentions secret, pretending to befriend Jonathan.
\n7. the river called Eleutherus Present-day Nahr el-Kebir, north of Tripolis in Lebanon.
\n8\u201312 Ptolemy takes his daughter from Alexander and marries her to Demetrius II, justifying his actions with the claim that Alexander had plotted to kill him. Our author sees this as a false charge, simply a justification for adding Alexander\u2019s territory to the Ptolemaic holdings.
\n13. Ptolemy entered Antioch Ptolemy soon takes advantage of Alexander\u2019s absence in Cilicia (v. 14) and claims the throne of the Seleucid Empire for himself as well. Josephus (Ant. 13.4.7 [113]), however, claims that it was the people of Antioch who attempted to crown Ptolemy although Ptolemy insisted they be ruled by Demetrius II.
\n14\u201319 Alexander meets Ptolemy in battle on the banks of the Oenoparas River in the plain to the northeast of the city of Antioch (Strabo). Alexander flees to the east, where he meets his end at the hands of an Arab sheik. Ptolemy dies as a result of surgery (Livy) in July of 145 BCE. The native population immediately rises up and slaughters the garrisons that Ptolemy had posted in Seleucid territory (v. 3) to ensure that their cities would not be annexed by the Ptolemaic Empire. Demetrius II now ruled Syria from the summer of 145 BCE, after a five-year struggle to regain the empire of his father Demetrius I.
\n20. the citadel On the importance of control of the Akra, see comment on 10:32. Jonathan takes advantage of the instability in the Seleucid Empire to try to rid Jerusalem of the Seleucid garrison.
\n21\u201328 Hellenistic elements in Judea appeal to Demetrius so that Jonathan is forced to present himself at Ptolemais. There he demonstrates both his popular support and his wealth and declares his allegiance to Demetrius II. His tactics are successful, no doubt because the king is in need of such allies to consolidate his own power.
\n29. The king \u2026 wrote a letter to Jonathan The text of this letter is parallel in many details to that of Demetrius I, in 10:25\u201345, except that the mention of the Akra is conspicuously absent in the version of Demetrius II. From verse 41 we can gather that Jonathan had to agree at Ptolemais to lift his siege on the Akra, which he had left in place upon his departure (v. 23).
\n32. King Demetrius to Lasthenes his father The letter to Jonathan is in reality a copy of a letter that Demetrius II sent to Lasthenes, chief of the mercenaries he had hired in Crete (Josephus, Ant. 13.4.3 [86]). By now, he had probably become Demetrius\u2019s leading minister (Goldstein). \u201cFather\u201d was an honorific title.
\n34. three districts In response to Jonathan\u2019s request (v. 28), Demetrius cedes the three toparchies of Samaria to him (see comment on 10:30). Aphairema is Ephraim, and Rathamin is Ramathaim.
\nrelease from the royal taxes On the tax abatements, see 10:29\u201330 and comments. Just as in 10:29, the exemption is for the Jews, designated in 11:34 as \u201cthose who offer sacrifice in Jerusalem,\u201d excluding the Samaritans (cf. Goldstein).
\n37 Verses 32\u201336 are the text of Demetrius II\u2019s letter to Lasthenes. Verse 37 is an instruction from Demetrius to Jonathan to put a copy of his letter to Lasthenes prominently on display on the Temple Mount. The display of such decrees was common practice in the Hellenistic world.
\n38. he dismissed all his troops Demetrius makes the mistake of retiring his troops, thus creating a large group of discontented, unemployed soldiers. He retains only the mercenaries, who were probably hated by the population. This set the stage for Trypho\u2019s uprising.
\n39. Trypho Trypho, whose real name was Diodotus, was one of Alexander Balas\u2019s commanders at Antioch. He had been hostile to Demetrius I and II and had been involved in the attempt to crown Ptolemy VI Philometor in Antioch. By 144 BCE he had taken the designation Trypho, \u201cthe magnificent.\u201d
\n40. Imalkue the Arab Diodorus (33.4a) gives the name of the young Antiochus\u2019s guardian as Iamblichos, Semitic Yamliku. This must be the origin of our author\u2019s Imalkue.
\n41\u201353 Jonathan turns now to diplomatic means to end Seleucid control of the Akra. The implication of Demetrius II\u2019s answer is that he will do so in return for Jonathan\u2019s sending him troops to help quell the incipient revolt against him in Antioch. As the rebellion increases in proportion, the king calls on the Jewish soldiers (among other mercenaries), who through massive slaughter and destruction (the numbers in this passage all seem exaggerated) succeed, at least temporarily, in keeping Demetrius in power. See Goldstein, who supplies additional details from Ant. 13.5.3 (135\u201341) and Diodorus 33, 4.2\u20134. Verse 53 probably means that Demetrius did not turn the Akra over to Jonathan, despite his agreement (v. 42). The entire episode must have made the Jews unpopular in the Seleucid Empire, since they had helped to preserve the rule of a brutal despot in the face of mass opposition. This opposition is now to lead to widespread support for Trypho.
\n54. Antiochus Antiochus VI Epiphanes must have reigned, in name, from 145 to 142 BCE. Since he was the son of Alexander Balas and Cleopatra Thea (daughter of Ptolemy VI Philopator) he could not have been born before 149 BCE. Clearly, his rule was but a fiction to legitimize that of Trypho.
\n55. Demetrius \u2026 fled Demetrius II flees to Cilicia (Josephus) or to Seleucia (Livy), in either case continuing to hold parts of the kingdom. With the help of the disaffected veterans (see comment on v. 38), Trypho takes Antioch.
\n57. the young Antiochus wrote to Jonathan Over Antiochus VI\u2019s seal, Trypho confirms Jonathan\u2019s high priesthood, including its political powers, as well as naming him to be a friend of the king, with all the attendant privileges.
\n59. Simon his brother Simon\u2019s territory as strategos extended from Tyre (the Ladder of Tyre reached from Tyre to Haifa) to Wadi el-Arish. Trypho\u2019s alliance with so strong a supporter can only be explained in light of his need for Jonathan\u2019s wealth and military power. At the same time, Jonathan\u2019s survival among all these Seleucid pretenders could only be assured by such quick changes of allegiance.
\n60. beyond the river Into the area known in the Persian period as the province of Abar Nahara, \u201cthe Trans-Euphrates province\u201d (Goldstein). There Jonathan recruits allies. He then turns to establishing control of the Mediterranean coastline (see comment on 10:86).
\n61. the men of Gaza shut him out Gaza\u2019s resistance results from the close relations this city enjoyed with Demetrius II.
\n62. as far as Damascus Goldstein suggests that Jonathan was strategos of the province of Coele-Syria, but not of Phoenicia. This would explain his reaching as far as Damascus.
\n63\u201374 Supporters of Demetrius II continue their resistance, assembling a large force at Kadesh, some four miles northwest of Meron. Meanwhile Simon successfully takes the fortress of Beth-zur from the Hellenized Jews. Jonathan and his men camp at the Sea of Galilee. As the tide of battle turns, his men return and defeat the forces of Demetrius II decisively. After this narrow escape, Jonathan returns to Jerusalem.
\n70 The claim that all of Jonathan\u2019s men except two flee in the face of the ambush must be exaggerated, as realized already by Josephus (Ant. 13.5.7 [161]), who suggests that about fifty men remained.
\n71 Jonathan is here pictured as turning to prayer in the face of great danger.
\n12:1. time Gk. kairos, \u201ctime,\u201d appears here in the sense of fortune or luck.
\nhe chose men and sent them to Rome On the alliance with Rome, see chapter 8.
\n2. Spartans The Spartans had themselves demonstrated friendship to Rome.
\n3\u20134 The description that follows is consistent with the diplomatic usages of the period. These ambassadors were sent sometime between the start of the reign of Antiochus VI in 145 BCE and the death of Jonathan in 143 BCE. As was customary, all ambassadors were allowed to address the Senate. In addition, letters of safe conduct were normally granted.
\n6\u201318 The text of the letter from Jonathan to Sparta. Verse 2 above indicates that other such letters were sent, but our author did not include them. Goldstein argues at length for the authenticity of this letter.
\n6. the senate The RSV translation obscures the use of Gk. gerousia, \u201ccorrectly rendered \u2018the Council of Elders\u2019 \u201d (Goldstein). This is the first mention of the existence of such an institution in the Hasmonean era. Jonathan\u2019s government had been transformed from that of a rebel chieftain into an organized polity supported by a representative council.
\n7. a letter was sent to Onias Jonathan refers to a letter (found in vv. 19\u201323) sent either to Onias I, high priest from 320 to 290 BCE (Zeitlin), or to his grandson Onias II, second half of the 3rd century BCE (Goldstein) by Arius I, king of Sparta in 309\u2013265 BCE. He asks the Spartans to renew the terms of \u201calliance and friendship\u201d that the original correspondence had proffered. The letter accents the renewal of the Hasmonean alliance with Rome in view of Sparta\u2019s close relations with Rome.
\n16. Numenius the son of Antiochus and Antipater the son of Jason Antipater\u2019s father may be the Jason who made the first alliance with Rome in 8:17. Both men appear again in 14:22, 24, and may have been members of diplomatic families.
\n20\u201323 This purports to be a copy of the letter the Spartans sent to Onias I or II (see comment on v. 7). Most scholars see this letter as inauthentic, although some accept its veracity. The claim of verse 21 that the Jews and Spartans are both descended from Abraham must have come from some lost Hellenistic work. The letter intends that the envoys who bring it would expatiate on the nature of Sparta, its culture and its people.
\n24 The author returns to the narrative of chapter 11.
\n25. the region of Hamath Jonathan seeks to avoid meeting the army of Demetrius II in his own territory, so he marches to the region of Hamath (modern Hama in Syria), known as the Amathitis, in the Orontes Valley.
\n26. were being drawn up in formation to fall upon the Jews Goldstein\u2019s \u201cwere preparing to attack them\u201d ignores the technical, military sense of Gk. tassontai. Better is \u201cwere drawing up in formation to attack them [the Jews]\u201d (cf. RSV and Tedesche).
\n31. Zabadeans The tribe of the Zabadeans probably gave their name to Zebdani, northwest of Damascus. Jonathan had mastered an empire that in the east extended as far as that of the united monarchy.
\n33\u201334 At the same time, Simon is actively consolidating control of the coastal plain. Joppa (Jaffa) had apparently not been garrisoned by Jonathan after he took it in 10:76. The area was in danger of coming under the control of Demetrius II, whose stronghold was on the coastal plain of Phoenicia.
\n35. the elders Jonathan is constrained to consult the elders (Gk. presbyterous) before undertaking the various projects. These elders were probably the members of the gerousia, the council.
\n36. build the walls of Jerusalem still higher Jonathan\u2019s status in Antiochus VI\u2019s empire allows him to fortify Jerusalem. He attempts to cut off the citadel (Akra) still occupied by the forces of Demetrius II, in order to starve the occupants out.
\n37. the valley to the east The Kidron Valley.
\n38. Adida Heb. Hadid (Ezra 2:33; Neh. 7:37), located six kilometers east-northeast of Lydda, on a hill above the plains of Judea.
\n39. attempted Goldstein\u2019s \u201cplotted\u201d is to be preferred to RSV \u201cattempted,\u201d since the actual murder of Antiochus VI would not take place until after that of Jonathan. Trypho intends to remove the boy king and to assume the rule of the empire (\u201cAsia\u201d).
\n40\u201343 Jonathan has amassed so much power that he constitutes the main threat to Trypho\u2019s assumption of the Seleucid monarchy. Apparently Trypho thought he would easily lure Jonathan to Beth-shan, but he comes so heavily escorted that Trypho has to resort to a ruse.
\n45. Ptolemais Trypho offers to grant Jonathan Ptolemais (Heb. Akko). Although Demetrius I proposed to give it to the Jews (10:39), they rejected his entire offer. Its inhabitants remained hostile to the Hasmoneans.
\n53 This verse indicates that both Seleucid pretenders, Demetrius II and Trypho, are now enemies of the Jews (Zeitlin).
\n13:1\u20136 The death of Jonathan has left the people shocked. Simon has to rally them to stand firm against the onslaught of Trypho. It is doubtful if verses 3\u20136 actually preserve the words of Simon. Rather, this speech is probably from the pen of the author. Simon is pictured as presuming his brother Jonathan to be dead.
\n7. leader In response to his address, the people declare Simon to be hegoumenos, \u201cleader, chief.\u201d Jonathan was designated archonta kai hegoumenon, \u201cruler and leader,\u201d in 9:30.
\n10. to complete the walls of Jerusalem The walls of Jerusalem that Jonathan had started to rebuild (12:36\u201337).
\n11. He sent Jonathan son of Absalom to Joppa Simon fears that the inhabitants of Joppa (Jaffa) will defect to Trypho, opening up for him the southern coastal plain, so he sends Jonathan son of Absalom to occupy it. He may have been the brother of Mattathias son of Absalom (11:70).
\n13. Adida See comment on 12:38.
\n14\u201319 Again Trypho resorts to a ruse. The money he claims must have been either an unpaid fee of some kind or a tax that Jonathan had failed to collect (Goldstein). Although Simon sees through the promises of Trypho, he has little choice but to comply, fearing a loss of popular support if he does not.
\n20 Trypho is finally was ready to face Simon in the field. Adora is biblical Adoraim, about six miles southwest of Hebron. Trypho\u2019s army travels through the lowlands from the south, yet Simon blocks him at every point from entering the hill country to approach Jerusalem.
\n21. the men in the citadel The men of the Akra are short of provisions as a result of the steps Jonathan took in 12:36 (see comment). It is curious that the people of the Akra, supporters of Demetrius II, turn to Trypho. If this report is accurate, it would indicate that now that Trypho has broken with Jonathan, they see him as a potential ally.
\n23. Baskama This place cannot be identified.
\nhe killed Jonathan Probably out of frustration.
\n25. Modein, the city of his fathers According to verse 23, Jonathan had been buried in Baskama. Apparently, he was disinterred and reinterred in Modein, where, our text tells us, Mattathias (2:70), Judah (9:19), and, as we see in 13:28, Eleazar and John were buried.
\n27\u201330 The elaborate tomb and monument include motifs common in those commemorating victory in both land and sea battles in the Hellenistic period (Goldstein).
\n31. he killed him Trypho now feels powerful enough to have the young king Antiochus VI, probably seven years old at the time, murdered. Livy relates that Trypho arranged to have his surgeons kill him while supposedly operating to remove a stone.
\n32. crown of Asia In 143 or 142 BCE. Trypho crowns himself king of the Seleucid Empire (\u201cAsia\u201d). The chaos that ensues allows Simon to again intensify his efforts to fortify Judea.
\n34\u201340 Simon is now in an enviable diplomatic position. Trypho has violated his agreements with Simon, and his military and political position is deteriorating rapidly. Demetrius II is in need of support and seems about to emerge victorious. Simon therefore sends emissaries to Demetrius to ask for tax relief in return for his loyalty. Demetrius agrees, citing his earlier grant of privileges to the Jews (11:30\u201337), which he now reconfirms. In his letter, Demetrius alludes only subtly to the Hasmonean support of Trypho and Antiochus VI. Most significantly, he grants the tax exemptions.
\n41\u201342 To our author, this tax relief is tantamount to the culmination of the Hasmonean quest for freedom from foreign domination. Finally, from 142 BCE, tribute would no longer be paid to the Seleucids. Accordingly, documents would henceforth be dated according to the high priesthood, not according to the reigns of Seleucid rulers. Simon was apparently elected to the high priesthood after Jonathan\u2019s death. On the titles granted to Jonathan, see comments on 10:65 and 11:57.
\n43. Gazara Gazara (Gezer) and the Akra are the two remaining Hellenistic strongholds that Simon has to conquer. The reading \u201cGaza\u201d in the Greek text must be corrected with Josephus, Ant. 13.6.7 [215]; J.W. 1.2.2. [50].
\n47\u201348 After conquering Gazara, Simon sets about turning it into a traditional Jewish town, expelling the Hellenistic pagans and destroying their idols, and, it seems, driving out Hellenized Jews as well. He builds a palace there, intending to guarantee his continued control of the region.
\n49. famine By 141 BCE, Jonathan\u2019s walls (12:36), as intended, had led to a serious food shortage in the Akra.
\n51\u201352 As in the case of Gazara, upon entering the cleansed citadel Simon and his men sing hymns of praise, probably psalms. They carry palm branches as symbols of victory. Indeed, this day is decreed a holiday and is listed in the Megillat Ta\u2019anit. Only later were such minor feasts abolished in favor of Hanukkah and Purim. Although Josephus (J.W. 1.2.2 [50]; Ant. 13.6.7 [215\u201317]) claims that Simon razed the citadel, our account is to be accepted.
\n53. John his son Our author appends that by this time John Hyrcanus, Simon\u2019s son, is ready to assume a role of leadership. He is appointed as military commander (hegoumenon) and lives in Gazara, while Simon takes up residence in the recently conquered Akra in Jerusalem (v. 52).
\n14:1 Trypho is by now extremely weak. The rising Parthian Empire had by 142\u2013141 BCE already taken Babylonia from the Seleucids. Demetrius II marches off to oppose that threat. Our author interprets this as an attempt to increase the size of his army so as to finally defeat Trypho.
\n2. Arsaces Arsaces VI (Mithradates I), king of Parthia in 171\u2013138 BCE, is at this time in Hyrcania (near the Caspian Sea), so he dispatches his generals, who soon take Demetrius captive. Other sources indicate that after he was exhibited as an object lesson for Parthia\u2019s subjects, Demetrius is later married to Mithradates\u2019s sister.
\n4\u201315 It is difficult to understand why this poem in praise of Simon appears at this point in the text. We would have expected it either at the end of chapter 13 or at the end of chapter 14. This poem may originally have constituted the conclusion of the book, as Josephus ceases following 1 Maccabees in his account at this point. The poem praises Simon for his military exploits but, more importantly, for living in accordance with the Torah and for bringing peace and prosperity to his people. In verse 15 we learn that he donated vessels to the Temple, a matter not alluded to elsewhere.
\n16\u201317 It is clear that the rumors circulated separately, implying that Jonathan\u2019s death and Simon\u2019s accession were separated by some time period.
\n18. bronze tablets See comment on 8:22.
\n22. Numenius the son of Antiochus and Antipater the son of Jason The very same envoys were sent by Jonathan to Sparta and Rome in 12:16\u201317. Simon is relying on their previous experience and their personal contacts to ensure their success.
\nto renew their friendship with us In view of his still precarious position as high priest, an office in which the Seleucids have not yet confirmed him, Simon seeks to gain the recognition of the allies of the Hasmoneans.
\n24. Numenius Only Numenius proceeded on to Rome. Goldstein, to solve a variety of chronological and textual problems, places the letter Numenius brings back from Rome (15:15\u201324) between 14:24 and 25. In fact, the last part of 1 Maccabees (from the end of chapter 13 on) is poorly edited, and there is no reason to expect this letter to have appeared in its proper place.
\na thousand minas In 1853 Grimm estimated the value of 1000 minas as $14, 000!
\n27. bronze tablets Bronze tablets are erected to preserve the document that follows. The document is dated to 13 September 140 BCE (Goldstein).
\n28. in Asaramel RSV takes Gk. en asaramel as meaning in a place named either hasar am el, \u201cthe courtyard of the people of God,\u201d or sar am el, \u201cthe prince of the people of God.\u201d Goldstein and Zeitlin prefer to assume a corruption and to translate \u201cand prince of God\u2019s People\u201d (Goldstein), taking this as a title given to Simon alongside that of high priest.
\nin the great assembly The document is proclaimed in a great assembly (epi synagoges megales). While some scholars wish to see this as indicating the existence of an ongoing Sanhedrin, this should be taken instead as an ad hoc gathering that occurred only on such major occasions as the official installation of a new high priest.
\n29\u201334 This section recounts the glorious deeds of Simon and is in many ways a prose parallel to the poem in 14:4\u201315. We learn here of Simon\u2019s financial commitments to the liberation of his people. Note the stress on his efforts to bring the entire country under Jewish control.
\n34. Gazara Gazara (Gezer) was indeed on the borders of the province of Azotus (Ashdod).
\n35. leader and high priest The text states that Simon became leader and high priest before capturing the Akra (so chaps. 13\u201314). Indeed, this document shows that the \u201cgreat assembly\u201d that issued it was convened only to confirm the high priesthood and temporal rule of Simon; Simon\u2019s status had already been recognized by Demetrius II (13:36) and by the people (13:42).
\n40. For he had heard Our text claims that Simon\u2019s alliance with Rome led Demetrius II to recognize him. Yet the order of events in 1 Maccabees would place the Roman exchange after Demetrius II\u2019s letter. It is possible that Simon had dispatched his ambassadors to Rome immediately after the death of Jonathan and that he had secured a response before Demetrius II\u2019s letter. It is also possible that our author was confused about the chronology and drew this incorrect conclusion from the information before him.
\n41\u201345 This clause is the resolution that follows the series of various conditions above in the document. These, therefore, are the new conditions bestowed by the assembly. (For the linguistic difficulties surrounding kai hoi in v. 41, see Goldstein.) Simon\u2019s high priesthood is to be hereditary. Recognizing that he is not of the Zadokite line, the document provides that this is to continue \u201cuntil a trustworthy prophet should arise.\u201d In addition, the document spells out his power over the Temple and the privileges to be extended to him by his people.
\n45. Whoever acts contrary to these decisions The document concludes with a clause indicating the consequence of its violation. Goldstein suggests that \u201cshall be liable to punishment\u201d refers to the death penalty.
\n46\u201349 The text records that both the people and Simon officially accept these conditions. Therefore, in accordance with normal legal usage of the Hellenistic period, copies of the agreement are to be provided for both sides. The copy of the document for the people is to be set up in public (in the Temple? cf. v. 27), while that for the Hasmoneans is to be deposited in the Temple archives (so Zeitlin).
\n15:1. Antiochus Antiochus VII Euergetes (reigned 138\u2013129 BCE) was known as Sidetes, since he grew up at Side in Pamphylia, in southern Asia Minor. He was the son of Demetrius I and younger brother of Demetrius II. After his brother was captured, he threw his hat into the ring in an attempt to gain control of the Seleucid kingdom. His main obstacle is Trypho, who is still in control of much of Syria, so he naturally turns to Simon to enlist him as an ally.
\nislands of the sea Probably a reference to Rhodes, where he received news of his brother\u2019s capture, according to Appian (Syr. 68).
\n2\u20139 Antiochus VII confirms all the privileges accorded to Simon by his brother and the other Seleucid pretenders. The granting of rights of coinage is new (v. 6) and meant that bronze coins could be produced. This clearly represents a further step in the direction of independence. These promises, however, are seemingly abrogated in verses 28\u201331.
\n10 In 138 BCE Antiochus VII arrived in the Seleucid territory. He was unable at first to make any headway until the advisors of Cleopatra Thea, originally the wife of Alexander Balas, then of Demetrius II (11:9), advised her to throw her lot in with Antiochus VII and marry him. This resulted in the mass desertion described in verse 10 (Goldstein, based on Ant. 12.7.1 [221\u2013222]).
\n11. Dor Trypho takes refuge in Dor, nine miles north of Caesarea. This ancient Phoenician port remained faithful to him.
\n13\u201314 Antiochus VII had substantial forces, although the numbers here are probably exaggerated. Excavations at Dor have revealed evidence of this battle. The account of this siege is continued below in verse 25.
\n15\u201324 Goldstein places this section between 14:24 and 25 (see comment on 14:24), and indeed, in its present place it interrupts the description of the siege and capture of Dor. Further, the addressing of a letter to Demetrius II (v. 22) can only be possible before the Romans learned of his capture by the Parthians.
\n16. Lucius, consul of the Romans Lucius Caecilius Metellus was consul in 142 BCE Goldstein identifies him as the Lucius of our document, since he sees this letter as chronologically earlier than its place in the book. Zeitlin identifies him as Lucius Calpurnius Piso, 140\u2013139 BCE, assuming the text to be in order. In any case, this consul wrote letters to numerous kings and countries, and a copy of one such letter was delivered to Simon.
\n20. to accept the shield The acceptance of the gold shield (see 14:24) indicates Roman willingness to renew their ties with the Hasmoneans.
\n21. hand them over to Simon New to this document is the granting of the right of extradition to Simon.
\n22\u201323 For the identification of the kings and localities, see Goldstein and Zeitlin.
\n25 The text returns us to the siege of Dor, after the interruption of verses 15\u201324.
\nanew The Gk. here, en te deutera (literally \u201cin the second\u201d) is exceedingly difficult. RSV translates \u201canew,\u201d noting a more literal sense as \u201con the second day.\u201d Yet it seems best to take it in the sense of \u201cthereafter,\u201d meaning after the siege that he laid in verse 14.
\n26\u201331 Simon, believing that he has entered into an alliance with Antiochus VII, attempts to come to his aid. By this time, after his marriage to Cleopatra II Thea and the attendant alliances, Antiochus no longer feels that he needs Simon, so he takes a harder line. His envoy demands the return of the Seleucid strongholds that Simon had taken, seeing them as falling outside the privileges granted by Demetrius II. Further, he demands the contraction of the Hasmonean realm to the original province of Judea, long outgrown by the exploits of Jonathan and Simon. His true colors are shown when he demands payment of tribute in lieu of the return of all these territories.
\n32. Athenobius The king\u2019s envoy, who delivers this message to Simon in person.
\ngold and silver plate See 10:60, where Antiochus VI granted Jonathan the right to use such vessels.
\nmagnificence Goldstein translates parastasin \u201cretinue,\u201d as servants, citing the use of this word to translate Heb. s-b-\u2019.
\n35\u201336 Simon\u2019s offer to pay only one-fifth of the tribute demanded leaves Athenobius and Antiochus VII offended.
\n37 Trypho succeeds in running the naval blockade (v. 14), escaping through Ptolemais (Akko) to Orthosia, a few miles north of Tripolis. He then moves on to Apameia where he meets his end, perhaps by suicide, after being besieged by Antiochus VII (Goldstein).
\n38. Cendebeus Kendebaios.
\n39. Kedron Biblical Gederoth (Josh. 15:41), modern Katra southeast of Ekron.
\nbut the king This must be corrected to \u201cwhile the king.\u201d
\n40\u201341 Moving down the coast, Cendebeus first comes to Jamnia (Yavneh), where he attacks the Jewish population. From there he proceeds to fortify Kedron, using it as a guerrilla post from which to menace Judea.
\n16:1\u20133 John Hyrcanus, Simon\u2019s son, had been appointed commander of the army and was headquartered at Gazara (Gezer). He must have seen firsthand the havoc wreaked by Cendebeus. Perhaps he realizes that Simon\u2019s age is hindering him from taking decisive action. Simon is pictured here as realizing his failing and passing this responsibility on to his sons Judas and John.
\n3. my brother\u2019s Tedesche and Goldstein emend to the plural, \u201cof my brothers\u201d (Goldstein).
\n4. chose out of the country The subject of the sentence \u201che selected from the country\u201d (Tedesche) and for the entire rest of this section is not stated. For some reason, the translators have felt free to select a subject. RSV chose John, and Goldstein picked Simon, apparently following Ant. 13.7.3 (226\u201327). The selection of Simon raises problems, since he just withdrew from command in verse 3. John, on the other hand, is difficult, since verse 9 might be expected to read \u201cJudas, his brother,\u201d where the text has \u201cJudas the brother of John.\u201d On balance, though, John is a more likely subject.
\nModein Most likely, the battle takes place near the brook of Ayyalon, a short distance from Modein (Goldstein).
\n7. horsemen The use of cavalry is not mentioned earlier in 1 Maccabees. Placing the cavalry in the middle of his formation is certainly not a usual tactic.
\n11. Ptolemy the son of Abubus Simon\u2019s son-in-law, who was strategos of the region of Jericho.
\n14. in the one hundred and seventy-seventh year In 134 BCE.
\n15. Dok Probably Jebel ed-Duq, near the spring Ain Duq, some three to four miles northwest of Jericho.
\n16\u201317 The Dead Sea sect believed that the fate of Simon was a punishment for his having violated the curse against rebuilding the city of Jericho.
\n18\u201322 Ptolemy asks Antiochus VII to support him, offering to reduce the country to its status before Jonathan and Simon\u2019s military and diplomatic successes. His attempt to have John Hyrcanus assassinated is foiled, however, apparently bringing to an end the ignominious career of Ptolemy son of Abubus.
\n23. The rest of the acts The author concludes in the style of the book of Kings.
\n24. chronicles of his high priesthood John ruled and served as high priest from 134 to 104 BCE. No such chronicles of the high priesthood are known to have existed, yet much historical material on the reign of John Hyrcanus is preserved in the writings of Josephus (Ant. 13.8\u201310 [230\u2013300]; J.W. 2:3\u20138 [54\u201369).<\/p>\n
2 Maccabees<\/p>\n
Daniel R. Schwartz<\/p>\n
The book of 2 Maccabees, which was originally composed in Greek, is not a continuation of 1 Maccabees, which was originally written in Hebrew. It tells the story of events from part of the same period, but from a different point of view. 2 Maccabees was preserved as part of the Septuagint (LXX), and is in the Catholic canon; however, even some of the church fathers were ambiguous about its canonical status, primarily because it is an original Greek composition not found in the Hebrew Bible. During the Reformation, the Protestants\u2014as part of their preference for Hebrew for the Old Testament and Greek for the New, and also due to some doctrinal issues\u2014relegated it to the Apocrypha. It has no status in Jewish tradition, which did not preserve Hellenistic Jewish literature. Apart from the ancient author of 4 Maccabees and the 10th-century author of the Hebrew work Josippon, who used it extensively, there is little trace of Jews reading 2 Maccabees prior to the modern period.
\n2 Maccabees is devoted to an eventful decade and a half (ca. 175\u2013161 BCE) in the relations between the Jews and the Seleucid kingdom. After a series of wars with their Ptolemaic rivals during the 3rd century, the Seleucids, at the beginning of the 2nd century, annexed Palestine.
\nThe first two chapters of the book are letters from the Jews of Jerusalem, inviting the Jews of Egypt to celebrate Hanukkah in memory of the rededication of the Temple. There is also a preface by someone who introduces himself as the \u201cepitomator\u201d (abridger) and who states that he created the present work by condensing a longer one by one Jason of Cyrene (Lybia), who is otherwise unknown.
\nThe story, which opens at 2 Macc. 3:1, divides easily into two parts. The first details the problem: After an idyllic opening with peace in Jerusalem and the city and Temple enjoying the respect of kings, we read that, with the encouragement of King Antiochus IV Epiphanes, Jerusalem was institutionally Hellenized (chap. 4); Antiochus attacks Jerusalem and robs the Temple (chap. 5); and he issues decrees against Judaism (chap. 6), which engender some famous scenes of martyrdom (chaps. 6\u20137).
\nThe second half of the book recounts the solution: Judah (Judas) Maccabee\u2019s first victories are followed by Antiochus\u2019s death; by the Jewish reconquest of Jerusalem and rededication of the Temple; by further Jewish victories and the revocation of the decrees against Judaism; and by yet more Jewish victories, culminating in the defeat of the Seleucid general Nicanor and the institution of an annual holiday commemorating it. That concludes the book, for, as the author puts it, it is because the Jews took over Jerusalem and retained rule there that he may end his story. Thus, the story has a clear structure, moving from an idyllic \u201conce upon a time\u201d to an idyllic \u201chappily ever after.\u201d<\/p>\n
SIGNIFICANT CHARACTERISTICS AND THEMES<\/p>\n
First and foremost, 2 Maccabees is a Hellenistic work. It is not a general history of the Jews\u2019 relations with the Seleucids in the period concerned, nor is it\u2014in contrast to 1 Maccabees\u2014a history of the Hasmonean dynasty. Rather, it focuses on Jerusalem, as is shown by the opening and closing brackets of the story: it opens with \u201cthe holy city\u201d and closes with \u201cthe city.\u201d The Hellenistic Jewish author indicates to his readers that the Jews are civilized and respectable people organized around a polis (city), the center of Greek culture. Correspondingly, the book terms Jews \u201ccitizens,\u201d complains that a villain changed Jerusalem\u2019s constitution, summarizes persecutions as prohibitions to live as citizens according to the laws of God, and contrasts the urbane Jews to their barbarian enemies. That is, good Jews are good Greeks.
\nThe author makes this point in many other ways: through his emphasis on his heroes\u2019 virtue, nobility, and manliness; his interest in Hellenistic geography; his application of standard Greek motifs (e.g., on barbarian cruelty and royal arrogance, see comments on 4:47 and 5:21); and his sovereign play with the Greek language. The book is a good example of contemporary Hellenistic prose; its language is comparable to that of the historian Polybius (ca. 200\u2013118 BCE), although its \u201cpathetic\u201d style, aimed at exciting readers and making them share the feelings of the story\u2019s characters (e.g., see comment on 3:14), was the kind Polybius liked to scorn.
\nSecond, 2 Maccabees is a Diaspora work. Apart from the explicit attribution of the original work to Jason of Cyrene (2:23), four factors in particular point to the book\u2019s origins in the Diaspora: its attitudes toward Gentiles, the Temple, and martyrdom, and its cyclical and religious view of history. In all four cases, the work clearly contrasts with its Palestinian counterpart, 1 Maccabees.<\/p>\n
BENEVOLENT VIEW OF GENTILES<\/p>\n
1 Maccabees assumes that Gentile kings are in general wicked: The first 150 years of Hellenistic monarchies are appropriately summarized by \u201cand they did much evil in the world.\u201d Accordingly, there is no need to explain Antiochus\u2019s attack on Jerusalem, for that is the type of thing Gentile kings do. 2 Maccabees, in contrast, assumes that Gentile kings usually are good and respect the Jews, who are their obedient subjects. The only time someone could kill a Jewish hero in Antioch was when the king was out of town; the king was of course outraged about the murder and executed the culprit fittingly. Similarly, where 1 Maccabees assumes that \u201cthe Gentiles roundabout\u201d are naturally and inveterately hostile to the Jews, 2 Maccabees assumes that the Jews\u2019 neighbors, including the Greeks, by and large respect them. 2 Maccabees\u2019 position\u2014that kings and neighbors are generally benevolent toward the Jews\u2014is that Jews can live quite well under Gentile rule and alongside Gentile neighbors, since after all, we are all \u201cmen\u201d; this attitude reflects a typical way of dealing with the facts of life in the Diaspora. The opposite opinion\u2014that life under Gentiles is intolerable\u2014was held by the author of 1 Maccabees as well as by the Judean author (s) of the Judean letters prefixed to our book.<\/p>\n
A LESS PROMINENT TEMPLE<\/p>\n
Although Antiochus\u2019s persecutions involved the desecration of the Temple cult, 2 Maccabees clearly explains that God\u2019s choice of the Temple is secondary to his choice of the people; so when the people of Israel sins, the Temple also suffers (5:19). This statement has a strong Diaspora flavor, for the People of Israel is all over the world, and the Temple is only in Jerusalem. This Diaspora orientation is also apparent in Heliodorus\u2019s emphasis that although God takes special care of the Temple, he resides in heaven. Again, 4\u201348 characterizes those who complained about the theft of vessels from the Temple as \u201cthose who had spoken for the city and the villages and the holy vessels,\u201d mentioning the city first and the vessels last, and 5:16 refers summarily to stolen items merely as \u201choly vessels.\u201d This brief reference contrasts starkly not only with the detailed list in 1 Macc. 1:21\u201323. It also contrasts with the more elaborate way the author of 2 Maccabees relates that Antiochus stole items donated by foreign kings\u2014proving again that Antiochus was an exception to the generally benign and respectful foreign rule, which assessment typified Jews of the Diaspora, who had no other option. Similarly, it is to be expected that Diaspora Jews have little interest in the sacrificial cult, because they could only rarely participate in it.<\/p>\n
GLORIFICATION OF MARTYRDOM<\/p>\n
The story\u2019s turning point comes after the long and detailed martyrdoms in chapters 6\u20137. This is not happenstance. Rather, in the beginning of chapter 8 Judah Maccabee and his men pray to God to heed the suffering and hearken to the blood calling out to him from the ground\u2014and God does: already 8:5 reports that Judah could not be withstood because God\u2019s wrath had turned to mercy. Similarly, the final victory in chapter 15 is preceded by another long martyrdom scene. Martyrdom\u2014the willingness to die rather than violate one\u2019s religion\u2014is a phenomenon characteristic of the Diaspora. In contrast, the heroes in 1 Maccabees are willing not so much to die as to fight, and they do so, successfully. In 1 Maccabees martyrs are mentioned only briefly, as foils for the Hasmoneans.<\/p>\n
CYCLICAL AND RELIGIOUS VIEW OF HISTORY<\/p>\n
2 Maccabees does not really end up the way it began, for in the \u201conce upon a time\u201d the city was ruled by the Seleucids, while in the \u201chappily ever after\u201d it was ruled by the Hebrews. But the ending restores the opening idyll: everything is fine again in Jerusalem. Threats have been averted and enemies have been overcome. This is reminiscent of such Diaspora books as Esther, 3 Maccabees, and On the Embassy to Gaius by Philo: everything is fine at the beginning and at the end, and the story provides some interesting ups and downs in between. But it is in stark contrast to 1 Maccabees, which begins with foreign rule and ends with a long popular decree establishing Hasmonean rule by Simon and his progeny in its stead.
\nIf the point of 1 Maccabees is to show the reader how much the Hasmoneans changed things, from wicked Seleucid rule to beneficent Hasmonean rule, the point of 2 Maccabees is to show the reader how\u2014after the Jews\u2019 sins moved God to turn away his face and thus allow the Seleucids to persecute them\u2014the Jews\u2019 atonement, expressed especially by their suffering, moved God to \u201creconciliation\u201d with the Jews and so to allow Judah Maccabee to restore their former idyllic status. Indeed, one might say that reconciliation is our book\u2019s leitmotif, that is, the restoration of the proper relationship with God\u2014who is, of course, unchanging. In developing this motif, the author makes much use of Deut. 32 (of which v. 36 is the only biblical verse quoted formally in 2 Maccabees), which is also quite cyclical.
\nHere too, as with armies versus martyrs, 2 Maccabees seems to reflect the distinction between people who, as Jews, have the power to change their own lives, and those who do not. In contrast, 1 Maccabees is a Judean work about a dynasty that took Jewish history into its own hands, and God has a very limited role; he is hardly mentioned after the first chapters. 2 Maccabees is full of prayers, miracles, angels, apparitions, and divinely steered poetic justice; its story is very much a story of God\u2019s providential involvement.<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
The history of 2 Maccabees is complex. The book is presented as the abbreviation of a longer work\u2014ascribed by 2:23 to one Jason of Cyrene, who is otherwise unknown. This may be confirmed both by a stylistic peculiarity (its frequent use of phrases in the genitive absolute, e.g., \u201carriving, he proclaimed\u201d) and by the fact that a few times new characters are mentioned as if they are known to the reader. However, given that we have no access to Jason\u2019s original work, and that the same first-person voice used by the \u201cepitomator\u201d in the preface in chapter 2 and in 15:37\u201339 is used by the author of the formative theological views expressed in 5:17\u201320 and 6:12\u201317, we must read it as an independent work\u2014and so we refer to the epitomator as its author.
\nIn addition, the book seems to have been revised to suit its present use as the underpinning of an invitation, in the opening letters, to celebrate Hanukkah. Two complementary observations support this idea. On the one hand, 2 Maccabees ends with the establishment of Nicanor\u2019s Day, and normally we should take such an ending to mean that, as with Esther and 3 Maccabees, the book was written to explain this holiday. Similarly, Nicanor\u2019s prominence in the book is plainly seen in his role as the adversary in the only two campaigns described in any detail (in chaps. 8 and 15): the journey uphill begins with a rout of Nicanor and ends with his final defeat and decapitation. On the other hand, the passage that explains Hanukkah (10:1\u20138) is almost certainly a secondary insertion, for it separates the end of chapter 9 from 10:9. Similarly, note the way 10:1 mentions the Temple before the city, although certainly the city was taken prior to the Temple; here we have a Palestinian point of view, precisely the opposite of the Diaspora view expressed at 4:48, where the city is mentioned first. To summarize, it seems that Judeans who wanted to invite their Egyptian \u201cbrethren\u201d to celebrate Hanukkah adopted a Hellenistic Jewish work dedicated to explaining the origin of Nicanor\u2019s Day, and inserted in it an explanation of Hanukkah.<\/p>\n
DATING 2 MACCABEES<\/p>\n
We know nothing about Jason of Cyrene. One important clue to the date of his work, however, is the original focus on the victory over Nicanor. Given that Judah Maccabee was himself killed a year later (160 BCE) and that the Hasmonean movement was then forced underground, Jason probably wrote not much later than the defeat of Nicanor; the more time that went by, the less significant that victory\u2014and the festival commemorating it\u2014would have seemed. And then there is the book\u2019s focus on the high priest Onias, who functions as a hero in chapter 3, as a martyr in chapter 4, and as a heavenly protector in chapter 15. Given that Onias IV founded a Jewish temple in Egypt, a move that certainly would have aroused hostility among partisans of the Temple of Jerusalem (including our author), it seems likely that the book was put together before the establishment of Onias\u2019s temple\u2014which Josephus dates to sometime after the death of Demetrius I in 150 BCE (Ant. 13.61\u201373).
\nDating the original book and its abridgement as well to sometime between 161 and the early 140s BCE accords nicely with the date given in the cover letter in 2 Macc. 1:7; namely, 169 SE (Seleucid Era). It is certainly no coincidence that this date overlaps with the date in 1 Maccabees for the birth of Hasmonean independence. We probably should view 2 Maccabees as reflecting the decision of the Hasmonean authorities, when celebrating their independence in 143 or 142 BCE, to focus on the restitution of the Temple as their most lasting and legitimizing accomplishment. When their search for literature to send out in support of their Hanukkah celebration turned up a book that dealt with the Hasmoneans\u2019 formative period but focused on the victory over Nicanor, they turned it to their purpose by adding opening letters about the Temple and its rededication. Thus, the book was available, more or less in its present form, by 143 or 142\u2014somewhat earlier than 1 Maccabees, which was completed no earlier than 135 or 134 BCE.<\/p>\n
TEXT AND TRANSLATION<\/p>\n
The main evidence for the text of 2 Maccabees is supplied by the Alexandrinus and Venetus manuscripts of the LXX, of the 5th and 8th centuries respectively. Apart from those 2 uncials (manuscripts written in capital letters), there are also more than 30 manuscripts in miniscule (small letters); and there are also translations, of which the most important is the Old Latin version edited by De Bruyne. The standard Greek edition of the book is by Robert Hanhart.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Bar-Kochva, B. Judas Maccabaeus: The Jewish Struggle Against the Seleucids. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989.
\nDoran, R. Temple Propaganda: The Purpose and Character of 2 Maccabees. Catholic Biblical Quarterly\u2013Monograph Series 12. Washington DC: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1981.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2 Maccabees: A Critical Commentary. (Hermeneia). Minneapolis: Fortress, 2012.
\nGeiger, J. \u201cForm and Content in Jewish-Hellenistic Historiography.\u201d Studia Classica Israelica 8\u20139 (1985\/88): 120\u201329.
\nHenten, J. W. van. The Maccabean Martyrs as Saviours of the Jewish People: A Study of 2 and 4 Maccabees. Journal for the Study of Judaism Supplement Series 57. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
\nHimmelfarb, M. \u201cJudaism and Hellenism in 2 Maccabees.\u201d Poetics Today 19 (1998): 19\u201340.
\nMomigliano, A. \u201cThe Second Book of Maccabees.\u201d Classical Philology 70 (1975): 81\u201388.
\nCoogan, M. D., ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible with the Apocrypha: New Revised Standard Version. New York: Oxford University, 2011.
\nNickelsburg, G. W. E. \u201c1 and 2 Maccabees\u2014Same Story, Different Meaning.\u201d Concordia Theological Monthly 42 (1971): 515\u201326.
\nSchwartz, D. R. \u201cFrom the Maccabees to Masada: On Diasporan Historiography of the Second Temple Period.\u201d In J\u00fcdische Geschichte in hellenistisch-r\u00f6mischer Zeit. Wege der Forschung: Vom alten zum neuen Sch\u00fcrer, ed. A. Oppenheimer, 29\u201340. M\u00fcnchen: Oldenbourg, 1999.
\n\u2014\u2014\u2014. 2 Maccabees. Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 2008. Stern, Menahem, ed. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism. 3 vols. Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1974\u20131984.
\nTcherikover, V. A. Hellenistic Civilization and the Jews. Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1959.
\nWilliams, D. S. \u201cRecent Research in 2 Maccabees.\u201d Currents in Biblical Research 2 (2003\u20132004): 69\u201383.
\nYoung, R. D. \u201cThe \u2018Woman with the Soul of Abraham\u2019: Traditions about the Mother of the Maccabean Martyrs.\u201d In \u201cWomen Like This\u201d: New Perspectives on Jewish Women in the Greco-Roman World, edited by A.-J. Levine, 67\u201381. Society of Biblical Literature: Early Judaism and Its Literature 1. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
1:7. In the reign of Demetrius The Seleucid king Demetrius II ruled 145\u2013139 (and again 129\u2013125) BCE. The year 169 SE, calculated the Jewish way from the spring (Nisan) of 311 BCE, began in the spring of 143 BCE; see note 11.
\nJason \u2026 and the kingdom Jason was a hellenizing high priest; see 2 Macc. 4. \u201cThe kingdom\u201d is probably the Kingdom of God.
\n8. We besought the LORD and we were heard, and we offered An allusion to the rededication of the Temple, as recounted in 10:3.
\nlighted the lamps \u2026 set out the loaves The candelabrum and the \u201cbread of the Presence,\u201d on which see, in that order, Lev. 24:2\u20134 and 5\u20139.
\n9. feast of booths in the month of Chislev The feast of booths (Sukkot) normally comes in Tishrei (Lev. 23:33), that is, September\u2013October; Kislev comes two months later. Here, as at 2 Macc. 2:12, it is assumed that the reader knows Hanukkah was to be celebrated for eight days, just as was Sukkot\u2014perhaps because, as 10:6\u20137 explain, Hanukkah was somehow considered to be compensation for the Sukkot that the refugees had been unable to celebrate.
\n10. and the senate and Judas The senate, or council of elders (gerousia), is mentioned here and there in the sources, but our knowledge of it is almost nil. As for \u201cJudas,\u201d we must assume that the author means Judah Maccabee, but it is unclear whether this letter is authentically his, or even grew out of some authentic core.
\n10. Aristobulus \u2026 teacher of Ptolemy the king It is noteworthy that the Palestinian author gives the king no byname; what does he care if the reference is to Ptolemy Philadelphus, Ptolemy Philopator, or Ptolemy Philometor? So too \u201cDemetrius\u201d (above, v. 7). In the Hellenistic body of our book, in contrast, we hear of \u201cPhilometor\u201d (4:21) and \u201cPtolemy Philometor\u201d (9:29).
\n13\u201317. For when the leader reached Persia Here we have a version of Antiochus IV\u2019s death that links it to a failed attack in Persia, as does 2 Macc. 9, but nonetheless differs from that account significantly. Perhaps someone with a variant tradition about the king\u2019s death added it into the letter; traditions about the death of persecutors are too much fun to omit.
\n13. Nanea A Babylonian goddess identified by the Greeks with Artemis.
\n18. the feast of booths and the feast of the fire Here the author begins his transition to the long discussion of the history of the fire on the altar of the Second Temple, beginning with Nehemiah (here said to have built the Second Temple [a common mistake]) and moving backward via Jeremiah, at the time of the destruction of the First Temple, to Solomon and Moses, in whose days fire descended from heaven. The point of the discussion is to prove the legitimacy of the Jerusalem altar by proving that its altar\u2019s fire is the same that originally came down from heaven.
\n19. For when our fathers were being led captive to Persia That is, to Babylonia, at the time of the destruction of the First Temple. Here as elsewhere, our Hellenistic author had no interest in the niceties of eastern geography.
\n27. set free those who are slaves among the Gentiles Here we have a clear expression of how a Judean would view the nature of Jewish life in the Diaspora.
\n29. as Moses said Referring to Exod. 15:17. The image of implantation for secure habitation is widespread in ancient Hebrew literature; see for example 2 Sam. 7:10 and Jer. 32:41.
\n31. the liquid that was left should be poured upon large stones For storage until needed again; see comment on 2 Macc. 10:3.
\n36. \u201cnephthar,\u201d which means purification The precise intention here is unclear. In Gk. (as in Eng.), naphtha refers to various flammable liquid mixtures refined from petroleum.
\n2:1. as has been told Namely, in the preceding part of this epistle (1:19); now we are told that it was Jeremiah who ordered the priests to do what they did.
\n4. It was also in the writing Various extrabiblical traditions similarly discuss the fate of the First Temple\u2019s sacred objects and ascribe Jeremiah a role in hiding them.
\n8. as they were shown in the case of Moses Exod. 25:8.
\n10. Just as Moses prayed \u2026 so also Solomon prayed Lev. 9:23\u201324 and 2 Chron. 6 and 7:1.
\n11. And Moses said This verse is an infamous crux. There is probably some relationship to Lev. 10:16\u201317, but it remains obscure.
\n12. Likewise Solomon also kept the eight days 1 Kings 8:66\/\/2 Chron. 7:9\u201310. Although yet unsaid (cf. 2 Macc. 10:6), our author takes it for granted that Hanukkah is an eight-day festival. Moreover, Solomon\u2019s dedication of the Temple was celebrated on Sukkot\u20141 Kings 8:2, 65; 2 Chron. 5:3; 7:8\u201310. But note that the eight-day celebration of Temple dedications had its own history, even without relation to Sukkot; see Lev. 9:1 and 2 Chron. 29:17.
\n13\u201314. he founded a library \u2026 all the books Here the author documents his ability to cite these precedents; in the next verse, he essentially dares his readers to check his statements, if they have any doubts.
\n17. all his people \u2026 to all The repeated and emphatic all is meant to urge the Jews of Egypt to recognize that the Hasmoneans\u2019 victory is one of import for the entire Jewish people.
\n19\u201323. The story of Judas Maccabeus This long and pretentious sentence opens the book\u2019s preface with a summary of the work\u2019s contents.
\n19. and his brothers There is, in fact, next to nothing in this book about Judah\u2019s brothers (see only 2 Macc. 8:22; 10:19\u201320; and 14:17). Perhaps there was more in Jason\u2019s original work.
\n20. Antiochus Epiphanes and his son Eupator Who reigned, respectively, 175\u2013164 and 164\u2013162 BCE; their deaths are reported in our book in chapters 9 and 14:2.
\n21. appearances which came from heaven A favorite motif in this book. Note that the Gk. term used here, epiphaneiai, constitutes a response of sorts to the Seleucid king: he was Antiochus Epiphanes, but we Jews were defended by divine \u201cepiphanies.\u201d For similarly competitive language, see comment on 15:4\u20135.
\npursued the barbarian hordes Here we have a good example of the way our author identifies his Jewish heroes as good Greeks and their enemies, accordingly, as \u201cbarbarians.\u201d There is some irony here, since the latter were in fact Greeks.
\n22. the laws that were about to be abolished Our author loves turnabouts just in the nick of time, whether for the better (3:28; 8:5; 9:8; 13:11, etc.) or for the worse (4:45 and 6:29). See also comment on 3:28, this man
\n24. the flood of numbers Apparently, what is meant is that the original work included many numerical data.
\n27. a banquet Literally, \u201ca symposium.\u201d At the end of the work as well (15:39) our author will compare his labors to those of a caterer\u2014but the use of \u201csymposium\u201d here implies that this is a respectable affair, meant to nourish the mind and the spirit, not only the body.
\n29. master builder \u2026 the one who undertakes its painting and decoration Here, our author distinguishes modestly between his own labors, comparable to those of a decorator, and those of the original writer, Jason of Cyrene, which are comparable to those of a builder.
\n3:1\u20133. While the holy city \u2026 service of the sacrifices As at 2:19\u201323, our pretentious author announces a new unit with the use of a long sentence\u2014in this case, one that sets the idyllic scene and prepares us for the next word: \u201cBut.\u201d By sliding from the city to the Temple, and from the Temple to royal financing of sacrifices, this introduction prepares us for the malicious accusation that is soon to be reported.
\n1. Onias Apparently Onias III is meant\u2014identified by Josephus (Ant. 12.225, 237, 388) as the son of Simon II (who is mentioned in Sir. 50:1) and father of Onias IV who would eventually flee to Egypt and found a Jewish temple there (see introductory comments).
\nhatred of wickedness An important universal virtue, characterizing good Jews (here), good Gentiles (2 Macc. 4:36, 49), and God (8:4).
\n2. honored the place and glorified the temple The somewhat ambiguous term \u201cplace\u201d (topos) can\u2014just as the Heb. makom\u2014refer both simply to a location and specifically to a cultic site; note, especially, the comparison of 1 Chron. 16:27 to Ps. 96:6. Cf. the comment on 2 Macc. 14:23.
\n3. Seleucus, the king of Asia Seleucus IV. For \u201cAsia\u201d as a term for the Seleucid kingdom, see for example Appian, Syr. 1\u20132; OGIS 54, l.8; and especially Ant. 13.78.
\n4. of the tribe of Benjamin So the Greek text; the Latin reads \u201cBalgea,\u201d referring to Bilgah, one of the priestly clans (1 Chron. 24:14), a reading some (such as Tcherikover, Hellenistic Civilization, 403\u2013404) prefer; indeed, one might assume a senior administrator of the Temple was a priest, and 2 Macc. 4:23\u201324 also reports that Simon\u2019s brother Menelaus became a high priest. However, such considerations could have led the Latin translator to correct the received text; Bilgah was not a \u201ctribe;\u201d and the fact that 1 Macc. 7:14 underlines that Menelaus\u2019s successor was a true Aaronite may imply his predecessor was not.
\nthe administration of the city market The agoranomos, who supervised weights, measures, and prices, was a standard official of a Hellenistic polis. The reference to this official here assures the reader that Jerusalem is an organized and respectable place.
\ncaptain of the temple Apparently the temple\u2019s chief administrative official, who is also mentioned in Acts of the Apostles (4:1 and 5:24) and by Josephus.
\n5. Apollonius of Tarsus Probably read \u201cApollonius, son of Thraseas\u201d\u2014the member of a well-documented contemporary family of high Hellenistic officials.
\nCoelesyria Coele-Syria (\u201cHollow Syria\u201d) was a standard ancient name for Palestine, traditionally understood to refer to the long rift valley that separates the Lebanon and Anti-Lebanon mountain ranges and continues down as far as the Gulf of Aqabah.
\n6. the treasury in Jerusalem Of the Temple, mentioned also at 2 Macc. 4:42 and 5:18, as well as 1 Macc. 14:49; John 8:20, etc. It was common for ancient temples both to have their own treasures and to hold deposits of others who wished to enjoy the place\u2019s inviolability and special divine protection (as expressed here in 2 Macc. 3:12, 15).
\nthat they did not belong to the account of the sacrifices The intention seems to be that Simon claimed, falsely of course, that the Jews, led by Onias, had been accumulating the royal subsidies mentioned in 3:3 instead of spending them for sacrifices. Accordingly, Simon urged the royal government to come and retrieve the misappropriated funds.
\n7. Heliodorus, who was in charge of his affairs This Seleucid \u201cprime minister\u201d is known from other evidence as well, such as OGIS 247 and Appian, Syr. 45.
\n9. kindly welcomed by the high priest of the city See also the similar reception at 2 Macc. 4:22. The identification of Onias as the high priest \u201cof the city\u201d (not just of the Temple) is noteworthy, fits other evidence about the high priest\u2019s broad role in this period (see esp. Sir. 50:1\u20134), and corresponds to the book\u2019s basic orientation; see introductory comments. Contrast the Seleucid point of view indicated at 2 Macc. 14:13.
\n11. Hyrcanus, son of Tobias A Jewish aristocrat resident in Transjordan, well known to us from Josephus\u2019s long account of the Tobiads; see especially Ant. 12.228\u201336, which indeed places the height of his career in the days of Seleucus IV.
\n14. no little distress This double negative, or litotes, is a standard Greek way of saying \u201cthere was great distress.\u201d The following scene (until v. 21) is a standard piece of Hellenistic \u201cpathetic\u201d historiography designed to make the reader share the feelings of the dramatis personae. For a similar scene, see 15:19.
\n19. Women \u2026 breasts \u2026 maidens Use of women and their breasts (as also in 6:10) to arouse the reader\u2019s feelings is standard in this genre; cf. for example, the account by Diodorus Siculus (1st century BCE) of the suffering of captive Persian women (Library of History 17.35\u201336) along with Polybius\u2019s complaints at History 2.56.7.
\n20. holding up their hands to heaven A standard gesture of prayer, recurring in 2 Macc. 14:34 and 15:12.
\n22\u201323. While they were calling \u2026 Heliodorus went on The Gk. particles men \u2026 de (\u201con the one hand \u2026 on the other\u201d) create a very heavy contrast here between the two parties, underlining that what is coming is a polar confrontation. For similar moves see 2 Macc. 10:28 and 15:24\u201326; also the comment on 15:4\u20135.
\n25. For there appeared to them This is a rationalistic way of reporting an apparition\u2014the author does not commit himself as to what really happened.
\na magnificently caparisoned horse As one would expect from God\u2019s stable; cf. 2 Macc. 10:29 and 11:8.
\n28. this man who had just entered That is, \u201cwho had just now entered.\u201d As in 3:30 and often else where, our author loves to celebrate sudden turns of fortune, whether those downward for his villains (5:7\u201310; 8:36; 9:8\u201310) or upward for his heroes; cf. comment on 2:22.
\nrecognized clearly the sovereign power of God A capital point for our author, who underscores time and again that erstwhile adversaries are made to see the truth and the power of the Jewish God.
\n39. For he who has his dwelling in heaven Perhaps an echo of Deut. 26:15. It is important for the Diaspora author to underline that God lives in heaven, despite what might seem to be implied by the usual biblical term for the Temple: \u201cHouse of God.\u201d See also 2 Macc. 3:15, 20; and 14:34\u201335.
\n4:1. incited Better: \u201cstormed.\u201d Polybius (History 31.12) and inscriptions testify to this family\u2019s ties with the Seleucids.
\n4. Apollonius, the son of Menestheus The apparent successor of the Apollonius mentioned at 3:5.
\n5. not accusing his fellow citizens Our author takes pains to ward off the obvious Jewish resentment about Jews who complain about their fellow Jews to the ruling powers; contrast the hypocritical Alcimus at 2 Macc. 14:8, and cf. Paul\u2019s attempt to allay the doubts of Roman Jews in Acts 28:19.
\n6. attention \u2026 folly There is wonderful wordplay here, contrasting the king\u2019s pronoia with Simon\u2019s anoia.
\npublic affairs could not again reach a peaceful settlement Better: \u201cit would be impossible for the government again to find peace,\u201d as in 2 Macc. 14:10; see the comment there.
\n7. When Seleucus died and Antiochus \u2026 Epiphanes succeeded In 175 BCE, Antiochus, who had until recently been hostage in Rome (according to the terms of the Seleucid capitulation to Rome in the Treaty of Apamaea of 187 BCE\u2014see comment on 8:10), was Seleucus IV\u2019s brother. He was replaced in Rome by Seleucus\u2019s young son, Demetrius I, and ruled in the latter\u2019s stead until his own death in 164 (chap. 9), whereupon a struggle for the throne developed between Demetrius and Antiochus\u2019s own son, Antiochus V; see 14:1\u20132.
\n9. to enroll the men of Jerusalem as citizens of Antioch As recently published epigraphic evidence confirms, this much-debated verse seems to mean that Antiochus allowed Jason to organize Jerusalem as a polis in his honor, probably named \u201cAntioch-in-Jerusalem\u201d so as to distinguish it from numerous other Antiochs around the Seleucid kingdom.
\n10. the Greek way of life So too 6:9 and 11:24. The author consistently contrasts loyalty to the Jewish laws with an excess of \u201cHellenization\u201d (v. 13).
\n11. royal concessions to the Jews, secured through John the father of Eupolemus John, who had secured royal concessions from the Seleucids (at the outset of their rule of Palestine in the early 2nd century BCE; see the documents preserved by Josephus, Ant. 12.138\u2013146), is identified as the father of his apparently more famous son, Eupolemus, who was to be Judah Maccabee\u2019s ambassador to Rome in 161 BCE (1 Macc. 8:17). Our author complains that while Antiochus III\u2019s edict had guaranteed the Jews the right to live according to their ancestral laws (Ant. 12.142) and protected the sanctity of Jerusalem (Ant. 12.145\u2013146), the establishment of Antioch-in-Jerusalem \u201cset that aside.\u201d Evidently, the earlier edict was not officially nullified. Rather, the establishment of a more prestigious option (taking part in Greek gymnasium competition) undercut the traditional way of life\u2014as illustrated by verses 14\u201315.
\nlawful ways of living Literally, \u201cregular civic usages\u201d\u2014bespeaking the author\u2019s usual attempt to portray Judaism to the laws of the Jewish city.
\n12. citadel Gk.: acropolis. The resentment that the gymnasium\u2014that seat of Hellenism\u2014was set up \u201cright under the citadel\u201d seems to indicate that the Temple Mount itself is meant. But see also below, comment on 4:28.
\ninduced \u2026 to wear the Greek hat The broad-brimmed petasos was not very practical for sports. Accordingly, it seems the author was more interested in the alliterative word play of the Gk. here: hypotass\u014dn hypo petason.
\n14. discus A gong used to summon athletes.
\n16\u201317. For this reason This is the first of the three digressions in which the author makes sure his readers understand who really makes things happen, and why God does so within the terms of his covenant with the Jews; for the other two, see 5:17\u201320 and 6:12\u201317.
\n16. those \u2026 punished them Our author loves to underline poetic justice, punishments fitting the crime, which indicate that the world is ruled providentially.
\n19. Hercules Herakles, who was identified with the Phoenician god Melkart.
\n20. was intended \u2026 was applied The claim that the envoys deviated from Jason\u2019s purpose is part of the author\u2019s attempt both to isolate Jason (see comment on 14:3, now a certain Alcimus) and to claim that Jews can, while remaining faithful to their own laws, participate in Hellenistic culture; it is only an excess of Hellenization (v. 13), when it comes at the expense of Judaism, that is reprehensible.
\n20. triremes That is, ships with three tiers of rowers; the Phoenicians were famous sailors.
\n21. coronation of Philometor as king The reference is apparently to some coming-of-age ceremony; Ptolemy was probably born around 184 or 183 BCE, so this brings us down to the late 170s; see the next comment.
\n23. a period of three years It is not clear when this period began, but given Jason\u2019s appointment after Antiochus\u2019s accession to the throne in 175, this clue also brings us to the late 170s.
\nessential business As often, the author gives us the impression that he knows the details but that, in abridging the work, he has left them out, as he promised in his preface (2:19\u201332).
\n25. possessing no qualification for the high priesthood It is not clear what our author expects from true high priests. Traditionally, pedigree seems to have been everything. It may be that our hellenized author, especially under the influence of the Gk. term for \u201cpriest,\u201d hiereus, which derives from hieros (\u201choly\u201d), expected special moral or religious qualities too.
\n26. supplanting \u2026 was supplanted See comment above on 2 Macc. 4:16.
\nland of Ammon In Transjordan, whence he will return in chapter 5. Note that Ammonitis was the stronghold of the Tobiads, who traditionally had ties with the Seleucids\u2019 competitors in Ptolemaic Egypt (Ant. 12.160\u2013236), and that when Jason flees again, Ammonitis will be only a stop on his way to Egypt (2 Macc. 5:7\u20138). Thus, a larger political background should perhaps be suspected here; but our author has no interest in it.
\n27. did not pay regularly In context the reference is to the money mentioned in verse 24, which the author portrays as a villain\u2019s bribe. However, it could be that in fact the money was understood as regular taxation; for a similar case, slightly earlier, see Ant. 12.158\u201359.
\n28. the citadel Here, in contrast to 4:12, it seems likely that not the Temple but rather the \u201cAkra,\u201d namely, the Hellenistic fortress of Jerusalem, is meant. It remained the stronghold of foreign power in the city (see 15:31) until Simon finally conquered it. The Akra was somewhere in the vicinity of the Temple Mount, \u201cin the City of David\u201d (1 Macc. 14:36), but scholars still debate its precise location.
\n29. Cyprian troops There were many ethnic units of mercenaries in the Seleucid army; see also \u201ccaptain of the Mysians\u201d at 5:24 and the note on \u201cNicanor\u201d at 12:2.
\n30. of Tarsus and of Mallus Cities in Cilicia, a region of southeastern Asia Minor under Seleucid rule.
\n33. Onias Who was still in Antioch (4:5\u20136). Apparently, the appointment of Jason in his stead left him nothing to return to in Jerusalem.
\nsanctuary at Daphne near Antioch Our author discreetly ignores the fact that this well-known sanctuary was in fact a temple of Apollo\u2014not the most natural refuge for an exemplary Jewish high priest, even if he was in mortal danger. The move bespeaks the position that all good men share the same values and are entitled to protection; so too verses 35\u201336.
\n34. gave him his right hand As today, a gesture that promises trustworthiness.
\nput him out of the way One of our author\u2019s numerous synonyms for \u201ckill.\u201d
\n35. of the man A heavy formulation; it is the fact that Onias was a man, and not merely a Jew, that explains the cross-ethnic outrage at the murder. See also Acts 10:1: the very fact that Cornelius was a \u201cman\u201d explains why he could be accepted into the Church.
\n36. hatred of the crime Here and in 2 Macc. 4:49, it is better to read \u201chatred of wickedness\u201d in general, as in 3:1; the particular instances are assumed to flow from general virtues.
\n38. the very place The king\u2019s demonstrative punishment of Andronicus serves the author\u2019s general case that Greek kings are, as a rule, benevolent and just, also is a case of poetic justice; see below, on verse 42.
\n38. purple robe A symbol of Andronicus\u2019s high rank (see 4:31).
\nthat very place More tit for tat; see comment above on 4:16.
\n42. treasury That is, of the Temple (see comment on 3:6). As Andronicus (4:38), so too Auranus was punished at the most appropriate place, thereby proving that the events of this world are not a matter of chance.
\n47. Menelaus, the cause of all the evil As at 13:4, where Menelaus finally gets his well-deserved punishment.
\nScythians A people of southern Russia that functioned in Greek literature as a standard type for barbarity and cruelty, comparable to our \u201cCossacks\u201d; see also comments on 7:4 and 15:39. On the author\u2019s use of such Greek motifs, see introductory comments.
\n48. city and the villages and the holy vessels Perhaps read \u201ccity and the populace and the holy vessels,\u201d which makes more sense. On the fact that the holy vessels are mentioned here only after the city, although the issue at hand pertained to them, see the introductory comments.
\n49. their hatred of the crime See comment on 4:36.
\n5:1. second invasion Antiochus invaded Egypt twice\u2014in 169 BCE and again in the spring of 168. During the latter he completed his conquest of Egypt, only to be expelled by a famous Roman ultimatum that same summer (Polybius, History 29.27; Dan. 11:30).
\n4. prove to have been a good omen That is, a military apparition clearly betided something for the city, but they couldn\u2019t know whether it was for good or for bad. Ambiguous oracles and portents are a widespread motif in Greek literature; the most famous was the Delphic oracle\u2019s prediction that if Croesus attacked the Persians he would destroy a great empire (Herodotus [5th century BCE], Hist. 1.91)\u2014which turned out to be his own.
\n5. a false rumor arose that Antiochus was dead The humiliation mentioned in our comment on 2 Macc. 5:1 could well have generated such a rumor.
\n6. imagining that he was setting up trophies of victory Common Greek practice, mentioned also in 15:6. The present passage is reminiscent of Jocasta\u2019s words in Euripides\u2019s Phoenician Maidens, lines 568\u201377: in attempting to dissuade her son from attacking his native city, she ironically asks him what type of trophy he would like to erect and what inscription he would display upon it.
\n7. He did not gain control of the government \u2026 disgrace \u2026 fled Since according to 2 Macc. 5:5, Menelaus had fled to the citadel (see comment on 4:28), it is not clear who overcame Jason. This puzzle is the linchpin of Tcherikover\u2019s hypothesis (Hellenistic Civilization, 186\u201396) that our Diaspora author has ignored a nationalist rebellion, preferring to claim that only two villains (Jason and Menelaus) fought one another and that Antiochus was wrong in inferring (2 Macc. 5:11) that the Jews in general had rebelled.
\n8. Aretas the ruler of the Arabs Apparently the first of that name, king of the Nabataeans. This was once the earliest evidence for a Nabataean king, but now there is earlier epigraphic evidence. One of his successors is mentioned at 2 Cor. 11:32.
\n9. Lacedaemonians \u2026 kinship The notion that the Jews and the Spartans are cousins appears several times in Jewish literature of our period, especially in 1 Macc. 12:2\u201323. Perhaps it stems from the Jews\u2019 pride in their strict discipline, which they asserted was comparable to that of the Spartans. Here, however, it functions in a satire: after Jason killed so many of his fellow Jews at home, he tried to save himself by seeking some trumped-up kinship abroad!
\n10. cast out many to lie unburied The proper burial of the dead and the horrendous nature of being left unburied figure frequently in our book. See 2 Macc. 4:49 and 12:39, on the one hand, and 9:15 and 15:33, on the other. As for Jason\u2019s tit-for-tat punishment, see comment on 4:16.
\n11. he took it to mean Wrongly, according to our author; for the same Gk. root, cf. \u201cget the notion\u201d in 3:32. However implausible that is, for the Jews certainly could have clarified the situation to him, such a claim was essential for the Diaspora author, who needed to portray Jews as law-abiding subjects of their kings.
\n12\u201313. to cut down relentlessly \u2026 young and old \u2026 boys, women, and children \u2026 virgins and infants These verses, including the exceptionally poetic verse 13, apparently echo Deut. 32:25. For use of that chapter in general, see the Introduction.
\n16. votive offerings which other kings had made Emphasized here as in 2 Macc. 3:2\u20133. The extent of our author\u2019s attention to them, as opposed to the laconic reference here to \u201choly vessels\u201d (contrast the detailed list in 1 Macc. 1:21\u201323), is characteristic of the differential interests of Diaspora Jews.
\n17. elated Literally, \u201craised to a height;\u201d cf. 2 Macc. 9:10.
\ndid not perceive Echoes Deut. 32:27. From here to verse 20 is the second of the author\u2019s digressions; see comment on 4:16\u201317.
\nthe LORD was angered for a little while \u2026 and was disregarding See Deut. 32:20: \u201cI will hide My countenance,\u201d and Isa. 54:7\u20138, \u201cFor a little while \u2026 I hid My face\u201d; see also Ant. 4.128.
\n18. Heliodorus See 2 Macc. 3 above.
\n19.the LORD did not choose the nation for the sake of the holy place See the Introduction, section on \u201cA Less Prominent Temple.\u201d
\n21. sail on the land and walk on the sea Also said of Xerxes (Herodotus 7.22\u201324, 33\u201336), a standard model of arrogance (as Isocrates remarks in Paneg. 89); reechoed below at 2 Macc. 9:8.
\n24. Mysians Mysia was a region in northwestern Asia Minor; see comment on 4:29.
\n25. the holy Sabbath day As at 8:26, the parallel in 1 Macc. 1:30\u201331 makes no mention of the Sabbath; see the introductory comments. See also comment on 15:1.
\n27. Judas Maccabeus Here mentioned for the first time, so as to promise readers some hope during the depths of suffering narrated in the next two chapters. His story opens in chapter 8, but this verse implies that he begins working during the persecutions of 2 Macc. 6\u20137; see comment on 8:1.
\nlive on what grew wild That is, for reasons of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws), they adhered to a vegetarian diet; for similar cases, see Dan. 1:12 and Josephus, Life 14.
\n6:1. Athenian senator The translation is uncertain; perhaps \u201cGeron the Athenian.\u201d Antiochus had a special fondness for Athens and special ties to it; see 9:15 below and OGIS 248.
\ncease to live by Gk. politeuesthai means, literally, \u201ccease to live as citizens by,\u201d which compares the laws of Judaism to those of a Greek city and thus endows them with respect in Greek eyes; see introductory comments.
\n2. the one in Gerizim Of the Samaritans. As at 5:22\u201323, our author views Jews and Samaritans as two parts of the same people, betraying no knowledge of the hostile relationships reflected elsewhere in Second Temple literature.
\nas did the people who dwelt in that place If the people of the place already called their Temple by that name, dedicating it to Zeus, what was Antiochus\u2019s innovation? Or does the text mean that the people of the place were friendly to strangers? Perhaps it is likeliest that they asked Antiochus to rename their temple in honor of Zeus\u2014which would contradict the sense of our passage, that what Antiochus did was coercive, but would well conform to the apparently forged or at least doctored document recorded by Josephus in Ant. 12.257\u2013264, and so perhaps indicates this text too has been tampered with.
\n4\u20136. the temple was filled For other ancient accounts of Antiochus\u2019s defilement of the Temple and decrees against Judaism, see 10:2; 1 Macc. 1:41\u201364; Dan. 11:30\u201335; As. Mos. 8; J.W. 1.34\u201335 and Ant. 12.251\u201356.
\n6. confess himself to be a Jew There is not much pre-Christian evidence for persecutions focusing on whether one verbally confesses to adhere to a given religion, but see, apparently in connection with the present persecution, As. Mos. 8:1\u20132 (which speaks of admitting to being circumcised, but since circumcision is not the type of thing verified by confession, it might mean, as in later Christian usage, \u201cbeing Jewish\u201d) and Pseudo-Hecataeus, cited in Ag. Ap. 1.191.
\n7. monthly celebration of the king\u2019s birthday \u2026 feast of Dionysus There is other Hellenistic evidence for monthly celebration of kings\u2019 birthdays, but apparently none from the Seleucid kingdom. This, together with the fact that Dionysus worship was common in Egypt but (apart from here and at 14:33) hardly in evidence for the Seleucids, hints that this account of the persecution has been enriched to meet expectations of Egyptian Jews; see especially 3 Macc. 2:29.
\n8. Ptolemy Apparently the reference is to Ptolemy Dorymenes, introduced earlier at 4:45 as a high Seleucid official hostile to the Jews.
\n10. two women \u2026 circumcised their children This probably means only that their children had been circumcised, not necessarily that the mothers had performed the operation; cf. the parallel in 1 Macc. 1:60\u201361, which speaks separately of those who did the circumcision. As for the fact that the text in 1 Macc. speaks of the mothers\u2019 necks, not their breasts, see comment on 3:19.
\n11. Others who had assembled \u2026 to observe the seventh day secretly A similar story is told in 1 Macc. 2:29\u201338, but there the refugees happen to be attacked on the Sabbath, whereas here the whole purpose of their flight is to observe the Sabbath; see introductory comments.
\n12\u201317. Now I urge The last of the authorial digressions; see comment on 4:16\u201317. The argument offered, that it is gracious of God to punish the Jews as needed rather than let them accumulate a large guilt and then suffer unbearable punishment, is a standard one; see especially Ps. 94:12\u201313 and Wis. 12.
\n23. a high resolve Literally, \u201can urbane resolve,\u201d one worthy of a citizen rather than a bumpkin; see introductory comments.
\n24. Such pretense That is, pretending to obey the edict (6:21). Eleazar\u2019s speech here (vv. 24\u201328), posing him as an old man who must set a model of manliness and virtue for youth by refusing subterfuges offered to him and dying a noble death, is obviously meant to remind readers of Socrates; cf. Plato\u2019s Crito.
\n30. in my body \u2026 but in my soul A very Greek distinction.
\n31. a memorial of courage Better: \u201cof virtue.\u201d The basic meaning of aret\u0113, which \u201cwas the central ideal of all of Greek culture,\u201d began with manliness and courage, a sense preserved below at 10:28 and 15:17, but over time turned more generally into a term used to summarize good qualities: \u201cvirtue.\u201d For Socrates on aret\u0113, see Plato\u2019s Meno.
\nnot only to the young To whom he gave special attention in his speech just above (vv. 24\u201328) and to whom the author will now turn.
\n7:4. that they scalp him Literally, \u201cthat they Scythian him about\u201d\u2014another allusion to the notorious cruelty of the Scythians; see comment on 4:47 and especially Herodotus 4.64.
\n6. his song which bore witness See Deut. 31:26, 28.
\n\u201cAnd he will have compassion on his servants.\u201d Deut. 32:36 LXX. A similar phrase appears below in 7:33 (in the mouth of the seventh son, thus bracketing this chapter) and also in 8:29, but in both of those verses\u2014the only other ones in 2 Maccabees that call the Jews God\u2019s \u201cservants\u201d\u2014the verb used is katallass\u014d, \u201cbecome reconciled.\u201d Perhaps here too the author had that verb in mind (reading \u201cAnd he will become reconciled with his servants\u201d) although he\u2014or some later scribe\u2014felt obliged to use the Septuagint version of the verse, which instead offers \u201chave compassion.\u201d On \u201creconciliation\u201d and the fundamental importance of Deut. 32 for our book\u2019s theology, see introductory comments.
\n8. the language of his fathers As elsewhere, this probably means Hebrew as opposed to Aramaic; see comment on 7:27. Refusal to respond to Antiochus in his own language is, of course, meant to intensify the spurning of his demand.
\n9. an everlasting renewal of life For our book\u2019s firm belief in resurrection (first clearly testified in Jewish sources in this period; see esp. Dan. 12:2).
\n16. But do not think that God has forsaken our people Which 6:16 says cannot happen. Note the national point of view taken by the last three sons.
\n19. fight against God The motif of the villain as theomachos (\u201cfighter against the gods\/God \u201c) is common in Greek literature, such as in Euripides\u2019s Bacchae; see also Acts 5:39 and J.W. 5.378.
\n22\u201323. gave you life and breath \u2026 will in his mercy give life and breath Measure for measure. Note that literally the text refers both times to \u201cspirit and life,\u201d which is an apt dualism when the topic is resurrection; so too (although in reversed order) in 14:46.
\n24. suspicious of her reproachful tone Antiochus cannot understand her words, as they are in Hebrew (7:21, 27), and he suspects, correctly, that she is not encouraging her son to do his bidding.
\nhis friend That is, he would entrust him with a rank in the royal court; for the king\u2019s \u201cfriends\u201d see, for example, 1:14; 8:9; 10:13; 14:11.
\n25. to save himself There seems to be some irony here, for what \u201csaving himself\u201d means depends entirely on one\u2019s point of view.
\n27. their native tongue Literally, \u201cin the language of their fathers,\u201d that is, Hebrew, as in 7:8, 21. Whereas \u201cnative\u201d sounds like a default, \u201cof their fathers\u201d points to a choice; cf. the comment on 15:36, the Syrian language.
\nnursed you for three years For the Rabbis\u2019 assumption that nursing usually lasted two years, see M. Git. 7:6; T. Nid. 2:2\u20134.
\n30. the king\u2019s command \u2026 the command of the law Here, as appropriate for the pinnacle of the chapter, we have a full statement of the antithetical options, just as the following verses give a full statement of the theology of the matter.
\n31. Hebrews This term for the Jews appears only twice elsewhere in our book: 11:13 and 15:37, just as in general it is rare in literature and inscriptions of the Second Temple period. It has an archaic sound, hinting that the Jews are faithful adherents of the traditions of their ancestors.
\n33. for a little while See comment on 5:17, the LORD was angry for a little while \u2026 and was disregarding.
\n37. make you confess that he alone is God Which happens in chapter 9.
\n42. the eating of sacrifices and the extreme tortures Given that only the Eleazar story in chapter 6 refers to the former, it is clear that our author is now rounding out an entire section of his book, constituting both stories, and directing us to expect a new beginning. Cf. the final verse of 1 Macc. 1, which summarizes its account of the suffering by noting that \u201cthere was a very great wrath upon Israel\u201d; there too, the next chapter introduces the Hasmonean solution. The difference is that our book considers the suffering and martyrdom to have been the basis for the solution, not just the demonstration of the problem. See introductory comments.
\n8:1\u20132. secretly entered the villages \u2026 They besought the LORD It is better to render the imperfect tense more literally: \u201csecretly had been entering \u2026 They had been beseeching.\u201d That is, while the suffering had been going on in Jerusalem, Judah (last seen taking refuge in the mountains with a handful of comrades, at 5:27) had not been wasting time, but, rather, had been building his force up and also praying to God.
\nthe Jewish faith The term Judaism(os) appears for the first time in Greek literature in our book (2:21, here, and 14:38), and may be our author\u2019s invention, used to contrast with \u201cHellenism\u201d (4:13; cf. v. 10\u2014\u201cGreek way of life,\u201d and v. 6:9\u2014\u201cGreek customs\u201d).
\n3. the blood that cried out to him Of the martyrs of the two preceding chapters. For the image, cf. Gen. 4:10, echoed also in Philo\u2019s Worse 48, 70; and M. San. 4:5.
\n4. innocent babies See 6:10.
\nblasphemies committed against his name It is not clear whether this refers to specific blasphemies (as, e.g., at 10:34) or rather, more generally, to the defamation of God\u2019s name (hillul ha-Shem) engendered by the successful persecution of his covenantal partners.
\nhatred of evil Translated elsewhere \u201chatred of wickedness;\u201d see comment on 3:1.
\n5. wrath of the LORD had turned to mercy This is the turning point of the book.
\n8. Philip The Seleucid governor of Jerusalem; see 5:22.
\nPtolemy Apparently Ptolemy Macron; see comment on 10:12.
\nfor aid to the king\u2019s government That is, to restore Seleucid control of the region.
\n9. Nicanor It is not clear whether he is really the same as any of the other Nicanors mentioned in this book, such as at 12:2 and 14:12; but given the use of \u201cthrice-accursed\u201d in 8:34 and 15:3, it is clear that our author identifies him with the arch-villain finally overcome in chapter 15.
\ntwenty thousand A standard round number in this book; see note 46.
\nHe associated with him Gorgias But according to the parallel in 1 Macc. 3\u20134, Gorgias was the main figure and Nicanor merely associated with him, mentioned only at the very outset (1 Macc. 3:38). The present focus upon Nicanor conforms to our book\u2019s basic purpose; see introductory comments.
\n10. tribute due to the Romans A huge war indemnity imposed by the Treaty of Apamaea; see comment on 4:7. It should have been paid off within 12 years, but it would not be surprising if the Seleucids were in arrears; see also Livy, History of Rome 42.6.7.
\n11. cities on the seacoast Hellenistic cities inhabited by Gentiles, such as Joppa, Jamnia, and Akko (Ptolema\u00efs). Their hostility to the Jews is also evident elsewhere in our book (12:3\u20139; 13:25).
\nninety slaves for a talent At 6, 000 drachmas per talent, this works out to 67 drachmas per slave\u2014half or less than the usual prices, according to contemporary evidence. That is, Nicanor planned to glut the market with Jewish slaves.
\n13. those who were cowardly and distrustful of God\u2019s justice ran off The parallel at 1 Macc. 3:56 portrays this as part of a standard religious ceremony mandated by Deut. 20:5\u20139, but our author prefers to dramatize the event and emphasize the courage of those who remained.
\n15. called them by his holy and glorious name Cf. comment on 8:4, blasphemies.
\n19. the time of Sennacherib, when one hundred and eighty-five thousand perished See Isa. 37:36; 2 Kings 19:35. This miracle is frequently cited in our literature, including below at 15:22.
\n20. battle with the Galatians The reference is obscure and often debated. There was a famous Galatian invasion of Asia Minor in the 270s BCE, but we don\u2019t know of any Macedonian (i.e., Seleucid?) clash with the Galatians in Babylonia.
\neight thousand Apparently Jews\u2014Jewish soldiers in the \u201cMacedonian\u201d army\u2014are meant. For Jews in the Seleucid army, see especially Ant. 12.147\u201353. But we have no knowledge of their involvement in any clash with the Galatians.
\ntook much booty An element that will claim much attention soon below; see verses 25\u201331.
\n22. his brothers also Despite 2:19, this is one of the few references in our book to Judah\u2019s brothers. For the names of Judah\u2019s four brothers we depend upon the dynastic history\u20141 Macc. 2:2\u20135 (which was reproduced by Josephus too, see Ant. 12.266). There they are listed as John, Simon, Eleazar, and Jonathan. Thus the Joseph mentioned here, if not a scribal error for \u201cJohn,\u201d was not one of Judah\u2019s brothers; perhaps this officer in Judah\u2019s army is to be identified with the Joseph son of Zechariah mentioned at 1 Macc. 5:56.
\n23. \u201cGod\u2019s help\u201d For the use of such mottoes, see 13:15 and columns 3\u20134 of the Qumran War Scroll (note esp. \u201cGod\u2019s War,\u201d \u201cGod\u2019s Vengeance,\u201d \u201cGod\u2019s Struggle,\u201d \u201cGod\u2019s Requite,\u201d etc.\u20144:13). There is also much Hellenistic evidence for the practice.
\n26. For it was the day before the Sabbath As usual, the parallel in 1 Macc. 4:15 gives no such reason, implying that the Jews broke off pursuit of their fleeing enemies simply because they were approaching their coastal strongholds; see introductory comments.
\n27. beginning of mercy As promised in 8:5.
\n29. wholly reconciled with his servants That is, to complete the process that has now begun (as noted in the preceding comment), thus fulfilling the promise of the speeches bracketing chapter 7; see comment on 7:6, \u201cAnd he will have compassion.\u201d
\n30\u201333. In encounters with the forces of Timothy These verses seem to be out of place, for they presume that Jerusalem has already been taken, which does not happen until chapter 10. Rather, it seems they are here to give further documentation of the proper distribution of spoils.
\n33. the proper recompense Tit for tat; see comment on 4:16.
\n35. having been humbled Our author loves to revel in such turnabouts; see comment on 3:28, this man.
\n36. proclaimed that the Jews had a Defender Like Heliodorus before him, and other prominent Seleucids after him, especially Lysias (11:13); see comment on 3:28, recognized clearly.
\n9:1. Antiochus had retreated \u2026 from the region of Persia As we learn from 1 Macc. 3:31, Antiochus Epiphanes had gone off on his eastern campaign (in 165 BCE) before the events described in chap. 8, leaving behind his young son Antiochus Eupator (born ca. 173) and guardian, Lysias. Our author simplifies matters by first mentioning that pair only after recounting Antiochus\u2019s demise; see 10:10\u201311.
\n2. For he had entered the city called Persepolis Another version of the story told in (the inlay in?) 1:13\u201317; see our first comment on the latter verses.
\n3. Ecbatana The capital of Media, found to the north of Elymais; present-day Hamadan. According to Polybius, History 31.9, however, death overtook Antiochus at \u201cTabae which is in Persis,\u201d hundreds of kilometers southeast of Ecbatana.
\nwhat had happened to Nicanor and the forces of Timothy The defeats recorded in chap. 8. But the parallel in 1 Macc. 6:5\u20136 makes no reference to Timothy; see comment on 8:30\u201333.
\n4. But the judgment of heaven rode with him! Wonderful irony; Antiochus, who thinks he is master of his chariot and gives orders to its driver, is not aware of what was in fact coming along with him.
\n5. a pain in his bowels Intestinal pain (with worms\u2014as in 9:9) is a favorite way ancient legend dealt with tyrants and persecutors, such as Sulla (Sull. 36), Herod the Great (J.W. 1.656; Ant. 17.169), and \u201cHerod\u201d (i.e., Agrippa I, Acts 12:23).
\n6. for he had tortured the bowels of others By making them eat forbidden foods (chaps. 6\u20137). For our author\u2019s usual gloating and pedantic emphasis upon poetic justice, see comment on 4:16.
\n8. command the waves of the sea Like Xerxes; see comment on 5:21.
\nweigh the high mountains in a balance Which is what only God can do, according to Isa. 40:12. The combination of this biblical motif with the Greek one, in portraying Antiochus\u2019s arrogance, is characteristic of Jewish Hellenism.
\n9. worms See comment on 9:5. It is perhaps especially apposite that Isa. 14:11 promises the arrogant King of Babylon a wormy fate (although postmortem); see also the next two comments.
\nstench That accompanied his disease; so too Herod\u2019s (Ant. 17.169). See also Joel 2:20, where God promises that the stench of \u201cthe northerner\u201d\u2014whom one could easily identify as the Seleucid \u201cking of the north\u201d (Dan. 11)\u2014will \u201crise\u201d (spread out).
\n10. touch the stars of heaven For Antiochus\u2019s soaring up to heaven, see comment on 5:17. On touching the stars, see Isa. 14:13, of the arrogant king of Babylon, who could easily be compared with the Syrian monarch: \u201cOnce you thought in your heart, \u2018I will climb to the sky; Higher than the stars of God I will set my throne.\u2019 \u201d
\n14. free From taxation; perhaps also from royal jurisdiction (\u201casylum\u201d status).
\n15. had not considered worth burying Like the wicked Jason; see 5:10.
\ncitizens of Athens See comment on 6:1, Athenian senator.
\n16. the expenses incurred \u2026 he would provide That is, he would restore the idyllic situation of his brother\u2019s days (3:3).
\n17. would become a Jew Our author, who is enjoying himself in light of what is coming, lays it on very thick.
\nwould visit every inhabited place to proclaim the power of God Like Heliodorus and Nicanor; see comment on 3:28, recognized clearly.
\n19\u201327. To his worthy Jewish citizens Better: \u201cJewish fellow citizens,\u201d building on the king\u2019s conversion (9:17). In this spoof of sweet diplomatic nothings, the author has Antiochus ignore all the hostilities and ask the Jews to remain as well-disposed toward his son as they were to him. Apart from various formal bloopers, such as the king\u2019s titles in this verse and the way it gives his name only after naming the epistles\u2019 recipients (contrast 11:16, 22, 27, 34), the totally satiric nature of the letter is evident in the fact that there is no hint of any possible Jewish response; cf., for a similar procedure, Demetrius I\u2019s long letter in 1 Macc. 10:25\u201345, immediately and completely rejected in the next verse.
\n22. for I have good hope of recovering from my illness A plain lie, according to verse 18.
\n24. if anything unexpected happened or any unwelcome news came Diplomatic understatement.
\n25. what is written here Literally, \u201cwhat is written below.\u201d Satirical officialese, as if this letter is followed by an attachment; for authentic examples of this standard Hellenistic practice, see 11:17 and 1 Macc. 12:7, 19\u201323. If this spoof had an attachment, it was not preserved.
\n29. took his body home There is cuneiform evidence both for news of Antiochus\u2019s death reaching Babylon in November or December of 164 BCE and of those accompanying his corpse passing through Babylon about a month later.
\nfearing the son of Antiochus Given Antiochus Eupator\u2019s youth, what this means is that this Philip, who evidently had been close to Antiochus IV, and had been\u2014according to 1 Macc. 6:55\u2014cho-sen to be Antiochus Eupator\u2019s new guardian, feared (quite naturally) that he would be considered a threat by Lsyias, the young king\u2019s incumbent guardian, who would not like to be supplanted. See also 13:23.
\n10:3. striking fire out of flint Literally, \u201cigniting rocks and taking fire from them.\u201d Readers are supposed to recognize this as referring back to the way Nehemiah stored the holy fire in rocks, according to 1:31. Now it was used, thus guaranteeing that the restored Temple was just as legitimate as Solomon\u2019s.
\nafter a lapse of two years This is an error, for other evidence indicates a three-year suspension of the Temple service; see 1 Macc. 1:54 and 4:52, followed by Ant. 12.248, 319\u201322. Perhaps the error derives from the basic one explained in the comment on 11:21, which led our author, or rather the Jerusalemite editors (see introductory comments,), to believe that Antiochus Epiphanes was dead by the spring of 148 CE. Since they placed his death after the rededication of the Temple, as shown both by the location of the present account of that prior to 10:9 and by the order of events in the Jerusalemite version of these events (1 Macc. 4 has the Temple dedication, 1 Macc. 6 has Antiochus\u2019s death), which corresponded to their desire to claim that not the persecutor\u2019s death, but rather the Jews\u2019 valor, returned Jerusalem to the Jews, the Kislev of the rededication is forced back to that of 147 se, which was only two years after the Temple was defiled, according to 1 Macc. 1:54.
\n3. lighted lamps \u2026 set out the bread of the Presence As recalled in the first letter accompanying our book (1:8).
\n5. It happened that on the same day So too 1 Macc. 1:59; 4:52\u201354. Of course, our author didn\u2019t think this just \u201chappened.\u201d Rather, such coincidences are a type of poetic justice demonstrating divine providence; see also the comment on 4:16. For comparable material, note for example that Josephus frames his entire narrative of the fall of Jerusalem within such notices, thereby showing it was supervised by divine providence; see J.W. 2.457 and 6.268.
\n6. in the manner of the feast of booths See comment on 1:9.
\n7. ivy-wreathed wands and beautiful branches and also fronds of palm Reminiscent of the way Sukkot is celebrated; see Lev. 23:40. For such celebrations at other times, see 1 Macc. 13:51, and John 12:13.
\n8\u20139. They decreed by public ordinance and vote \u2026 Such then was the end of Antiochus The language is like that of 15:36\u201337a, thus giving the book, in its present form, the appearance of one meant to proclaim two parallel festivals. However, 10:9 plainly indicates that the preceding eight verses are a secondary addition to our book; see introductory comments.
\n10. Antiochus Eupator, who was the son of that ungodly man A joke, for \u201cEupator\u201d means \u201cwho had a good father.\u201d
\nwill give a brief summary As promised in the author\u2019s preface (2:19\u201332).
\n11. one Lysias As if this were a new appointment. Indeed, Lysias has not yet been mentioned in our book; but see comment on 9:1.
\n12. Ptolemy, who was called Macron, took the lead Read: \u201cFor Ptolemy \u2026 had taken the lead.\u201d That is, the author is explaining why the new appointment, of Lysias, was necessary: his predecessor had committed suicide. The identification of Lysias as \u201cchief governor of Coelesyria and Phoenicia\u201d implies that Ptolemy Macron had held that position, which in turn leads us to identify him as the Ptolemy mentioned at 8:8.
\n13. because he had abandoned Cyprus There is, in fact, other evidence for a Ptolemaic governor of Cyprus, named Ptolemy (son of Ptolemy? with \u201cMacron\u201d being a byname), going over to Antiochus Epiphanes around 168 BCE; see OGIS 117 and Polybius, History 27.13.1.
\n14. governor of the region Of Idumea (south of Judea), according to 12:32; our author claims that the Idumeans\u2019 hostility, described beginning with the next verse, was due to Gorgias\u2019s incitement. See comment on 12:2, But some of the governors.
\n15. Idumeans A people residing mostly to the south of Judea, converted to Judaism under John Hyrcanus (Ant. 13.257\u2013258); Herod was of Idumaean descent. For Mnaseas\u2019s reference (early 2nd century BCE?) to the \u201clong war\u201d between the Judeans and the Idumeans, see Ag. Ap. 2.112\u201314 (in Stern, GLA 1 no. 28). On the present clashes with them, see also 1 Macc. 5:3, 65.
\nthose who were banished from Jerusalem Jews or non-Jews who were not tolerated by Judah\u2019s men.
\n17. no fewer than twenty thousand A favorite round number in this book.
\n19. Simon and Joseph, and also Zacchaeus For the first two, see comment on 8:22. Zacchaeus is unknown, but since it is probably short for Zechariah it may be that the reference to him here grew out of Joseph\u2019s patronymic; see the end of that comment.
\n21. brethren Here meant broadly\u2014fellow Jews.
\n24. Timothy, who had been defeated by the Jews before As 9:3, this verse too assumes that the story at 8:30\u201333 is in its proper chronological place; see comment on 8:30\u201333.
\nintending to take Judea by storm The reference is probably only to a local campaign in Transjordan; see comment on 10:32.
\n25. sprinkled dust upon their heads Echoed at 14:15. For this gesture in times of stress, see also Josh. 7:6; 1 Macc. 11:71; Embassy 228.
\n26. as the law declares In Exod. 23:22, where the next verse promises \u201cwhen My angel goes before you\u201d\u2014as we shall see in 10:29 and at 11:8.
\n28. the one \u2026 the other See comment on 3:22\u201323.
\n29. there appeared to the enemy See first comment on 3:25, For there appeared to them.
\nhorses with golden bridles One expects no less from God\u2019s stable, as from Persian nobles; see Herodotus 9.20, and Cyropaedia 1.3.3. Sudden heavenly intervention and miracles are standard fare for our author; see 2:21; 3:25 and 11:8.
\n32. a stronghold called Gazara Gazara (Gezer) is located in central Judea, and reference to it here corresponds to our author\u2019s claim that Timothy had invaded Judea (10:24). However, 12:2 and the parallel in 1 Macc. 5 indicate that Timothy was a local commander in Transjordan, and 1 Macc. 5:8 focuses upon Jazer (a city in that region [Num. 32:1\u20133], apparently near Amman)\u2014which could easily be confused with Gazara.
\nChaereas Otherwise unknown; termed Timothy\u2019s \u201cbrother\u201d in verse 37.
\n36. wheeled around The Gk. (perispasmos) refers to a diversion: the soldiers of this verse exploit the diversion created by those depicted in verse 35.
\nburned the blasphemers alive As in 8:33. But while there the punishment fits the crime, here there is no such special explanation. The biblical and Rabbinic punishment for blasphemy was stoning; see Lev. 24:13\u201316; M. Sanh. 7:4.
\n11:1. Lysias, the king\u2019s guardian and kinsman, who was in charge of the government \u201cGuardian\u201d as in 1 Macc. 3:33; \u201cin charge of the government\u201d as above (10:11) and 1 Macc. 3:32; \u201ckinsman\u201d (as in 11:35) is a court title, like \u201cfriend,\u201d and no more is implied by \u201cbrother\u201d (11:22).
\n2\u20134. intended \u2026 took no account By use of the same root the Gk. verbs artfully contrast what Lysias \u201cconsidered\u201d doing and what he failed to \u201csuper-consider,\u201d that is, to consider above his own human considerations.
\n3. and to put up the high priesthood for sale every year Which in Jewish eyes would terribly degrade the position; the high priesthood traditionally passed from father to son, and our author also thought it was supposed to reflect special personal qualities (see comment on 4:25), not wealth. For Rabbinic reflection of complaints about the frequent switching of high priests in the Herodian and Roman period and the suspicion that bribes were involved, see B. Yoma 8b\u20139a.
\n5. five leagues from Jerusalem South of Jerusalem, near the Jerusalem-Hebron road. If we assume (with Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.24, p. 804) that the Gk. schoinos (\u201cleague\u201d) was equivalent to 30 stadia, and (as is usual) that each stadium was about 623 feet, the distance stated works out to around 18 miles, which is quite accurate.
\n6. to send a good angel See comment on 10:26. The specification that the angel should be a \u201cgood\u201d one, here and at 15:23, is remarkable, as if without it the Jews feared God might instead send a bad angel. Perhaps that was indeed the fear, for after all, God is autonomous and has his own considerations; cf. 5:4. Moreover, cf. Judg. 20:18, 23, 27, which shows that those making requests of God should be precise; so too the Greek tradition.
\n8. a horseman \u2026 weapons of gold As usual; see comment on 10:29.
\n12. stripped Of their weapons; cf. 8:27 and Polybius, History 3.81.2.
\n13. realized that the Hebrews were invincible because the mighty God fought on their side The formulation is close to that concerning Nicanor at 8:36.
\n15. having regard for the common good This sounds like an apology, as if there were those who opposed entering into an agreement with the Seleucids; so too 12:12 and perhaps 14:20. Perhaps it was a theological issue, as if those who had God as their ally should not enlist the friendship of flesh and blood.
\n17. John and Absalom Otherwise unknown.
\n18. and he has agreed to what was possible It is probably better to read \u201cand I have agreed,\u201d on the basis of some textual witnesses here and all in 11:35. That is, Lysias distinguishes between the simple things he can concede himself and the weightier questions he must refer to the king\u2014who must be Antiochus Epiphanes, in the East, for otherwise there would be no need for delay.
\n19. maintain your good will toward the government Diplomatic phrasing, as in 9:26; but here it is not a parody.
\n21. The one hundred and forty-eighth year, Dioscorinthius twenty-fourth The month name is unknown, perhaps corrupt. In any case, note that Antiochus Epiphanes was alive during all of 148 SE, which began (according to the Seleucid reckoning) in the autumn of 165 BCE\u2014but it is to that year that all three of the dated documents in this chapter belong (see vv. 33, 38). Our author, who has placed these letters (widely accepted as authentic) after Epiphanes\u2019s death, and included with them one that, although undated, is clearly from that period (see 11:23), has skewed the story, whether intentionally (so as to deny that villainous Epiphanes all merit) or unintentionally. See also the comment on 10:3, after a lapse of two years.
\n22. brother See comment on 11:1.
\n23. our father has gone on to the gods Here clearly Antiochus Eupator is the writer. For the expression, see also OGIS 56.55; 308.2\u20134; and 339.16.
\n25. our decision is that their temple be restored to them Diplomatically ignoring the fact that this was already a fait accompli achieved by Jewish arms.
\n29. Menelaus has informed us This attribution of a positive role to Menelaus, who is our book\u2019s arch-villain, is an impressive indication of the letter\u2019s authenticity.
\n31. to enjoy their own food and laws The special reference to food corresponds to the focus on it in the martyrdoms of chaps. 6\u20137; so too 1 Macc. 1:62\u201363.
\n33. The one hundred and forty-eighth year, Xanthicus fifteenth Xanthicus corresponds to the Hebrew spring month of Nisan, of which the 15th is the first day of Passover, the festival of liberation. Thus, this message, that allowed amnesty to all Jews who gave up their rebellion within a two-week period, may have been meant as a special festival gesture to the Jews.
\n34. The Romans Hitherto uninvolved in our story, mentioned only indirectly in 8:10, 36 and in a parenthetical allusion to a future event in 4:11. Here it is simply taken for granted that they are part of the diplomatic world of the eastern Mediterranean, and that they could exercise influence upon the Seleucids\u2014assumptions that are well-founded, although the particular delegates named here are otherwise unknown.
\n35\u201336. what Lysias the kinsman of the king has granted you \u2026 the matters which he decided are to be referred to the king The distinction made by Lysias himself; see comment on 11:18.
\n38. The one hundred and forty-eighth year, Xanthicus fifteenth The same date as in 11:33, which is suspicious.
\n12:1. and the Jews went about their farming A pastoral image of returning \u201cto their own affairs\u201d (11:23, 26, 29). The story could end here, were it not for the following \u201cBut.\u201d
\n2. But some of the governors \u2026 would not let them live quietly As at 6:8; 8:11, and 10:14\u201315, our Diaspora author emphasizes that when the Jews\u2019 neighbors are hostile it is due to outside incitement, for usually relations are respectful and neighborly; see introductory comments.
\nTimothy Whose death was reported at 10:37. This might be another person, but then we would have expected some clarifying comment or patronymic (cf. 3:5 vs. 4:4). Rather, it seems that this failure to clarify the relationship of the present narrative to that in chapter 10, a later and more serious failure to coordinate between chapter 13 and chapter 11 (see comment on 13:19), the use of stadia in this chapter as opposed to schoinoi in chapter 11 (see comment on 12:9, thirty miles), and the basic mistake about the dating of the documents in chapter 11 (see comment on 11:21), all reflect the use, in chapters 10\u201311, of material from a separate source.
\nNicanor the governor of Cyprus Read: \u201cNicanor, the commander of the Cypriot troops\u201d as in 4:29; cf. \u201ccaptain of the Mysians\u201d (5:24).
\n3. Joppa As noted by Diodorus (Library 1.31.2), there was no important port between that of Joppa and Alexandria\u2014which explains the importance the Hasmoneans would later attach to the conquest of Joppa in the days of Simon (1 Macc. 13:11; 14:5, 34). But there seems to be no further evidence for Jews in the city at this early date.
\nthey invited the Jews who lived among them to embark This is a mysterious story; perhaps what really happened is that the Joppites decided to expel the Jews of the city, which would correspond to the general picture of Gentile hostility told in 1 Macc. 5 but not to what our Diaspora author likes to report.
\n8. Jamnia Jabneh, another coastal town; see also 1 Macc. 5:58\u201362. There is presumably some link between the Jewish attack on the port of Jabneh and an inscription from summer 163 BCE in which the locals recall assistance they had given to the Seleucid government and, apparently, ask its assistance.
\n9. the glow of the light was seen in Jerusalem It is possible to see the coastal region from high spots in Jerusalem even without the aid of a massive fire.
\nthirty miles Literally, \u201c240 stadia.\u201d A stadium\u2014the measure used here and in 12:10, 16, 17, and 29\u2014was around 190 meters or 0.12 miles; 240 stadia equates to about 46 kilometers or 29 miles, so the figure is nearly right, as the crow and light fly. The fact that this chapter uses stadia while chapter 11 used schoinoi is an important indication of the use of separate sources; see comment on 12:2, Timothy.
\n10\u201316. When they had gone more than a mile from there Given Timothy\u2019s location in northern Transjordan (see comment on 10:32), it seems that this section of text has exchanged places with the next one (12:17\u201319), in which case the distance mentioned in 12:17 would correspond to the distance from Jamnia to Transjordan. Similarly, note that 1 Macc. 5:24\u201325 puts the encounter with the Arabs, recorded here in 2 Macc. 12:10\u201312, after crossing the Jordan and a further three-day march; that could indeed have taken the army north to the vicinity of Caspin (12:13).
\n10. five thousand Arabs The same term appeared in 5:8, referring to Nabataeans, just as 1 Macc. 5:25 reports that Judah encountered Nabataeans in the course of his expedition to the Gilead. But there they enjoy friendly relations from the outset, whereas here a battle comes first, and peace is made only after proper consideration (2 Macc. 12:12)\u2014probably reflecting the doubts suggested in the comment on 11:15.
\n12. departed to their tents Another idyllic phrase, like \u201cfarming\u201d in 12:1.
\n13. all sorts of Gentiles This sounds pejorative, \u00e0 la \u201cmongrel.\u201d
\nCaspin Hispin, in the Golan.
\n15. who without battering-rams or engines of war overthrew Jericho Another famous biblical example of God\u2019s power (Josh. 6), like that cited in 8:19.
\n16. the adjoining lake Probably some local swamp is meant; the Sea of Galilee is farther away and much larger.
\n17. When they had gone ninety-five miles from there See comment on 12:10\u201316.
\nto Charax, to the Jews who are called Toubiani Better: \u201cto the fortified camp, to the Jews called Toubians.\u201d The latter were evidently connected in some way to the military colony in Transjordan (southwest of Amman, well south of the Golan; see comment on 12:10\u201316), which was once headed by Joseph ben Tobias and his son Hyrcanus (see comment on 3:11).
\n19. Dositheus and Sosipater, who were captains under Maccabeus Their Hellenistic names are remarkable. Apparently, many Jews who came from families that had followed hellenizing tendencies when no dramatic choices needed be made chose to fight on the Hasmoneans\u2019 side when matters became polarized.
\n21. the women and the children and also the baggage Literally, \u201cthe women and the children and the other baggage\u201d\u2014a typical ancient attitude.
\na place called Carnaim A well-known cultic center some 35 kilometers east of the Sea of Galilee, known in Gen. 14:5 as Ashteroth-karnaim; see also below, on verse 26.
\n22. the manifestation to them of him who sees all things That God sees all (a particularly useful point for Jews of the Diaspora, comparable to terming God the God of heaven\u2014see comment on 3:39), and that God intervenes with saving apparitions, are common themes in our book. For the former, see 7:35; 9:5; 15:2; for the latter, see the first comment on 2:21, appearances which came from heaven.
\ninjured by their own men A common motif in battle accounts.
\n24. no consideration would be shown them A euphemism of the \u201ctoo bad if anything happened to them\u201d type.
\n26. Atargatis Atergatis, a latter-day version of Astarte, was a venerated goddess in Syria. See Lucian, The Goddess of Syria.
\n27. Ephron East of Beth-Shean (to which the Jews will continue in verse 29), around 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) southwest of Irbid; see Polybius, History 5.70.12.
\nwhere Lysias dwelt These words, without basis in the best Greek witnesses to our book, should probably be omitted; they may refer in fact to Lysanias (as some witnesses read), a figure of interest for Christian copyists due to Luke 3:1.
\n29. Scythopolis Beth-Shean; a major Hellenistic center. The distance is fairly accurate.
\n31\u201332. the feast of weeks \u2026 the feast called Pentecost The firstfruits festival 50 days after Passover; see Lev. 23:15. The variation of terminology is typical for our preening author; cf. \u201cArabs \u2026 nomads\u201d in 12:10\u201311 and the use of two separate Greek verbs for \u201clet him go\u201d in 12:24\u201325.
\n35. one of Bacenor\u2019s men Probably read (with other witnesses) \u201cone of the Toubians,\u201d on whom see comment on 12:17. For a papyrus of 259 BCE mentioning a cavalryman from the Tobiad territory, see CPJ 1, no. 1.
\nMarisa The main city of Idumea, in which Gorgias was responsible for Seleucid rule; see verse 32 and comment on 10:14.
\n36. Esdris Hitherto unmentioned.
\n38. the city of Adullam Around 15 kilometers (9.3 miles) northeast of Marissa. As often in this chapter, \u201ccity\u201d is an overstatement.
\nthey purified themselves according to the custom Were this a reference to postbattle purification, a whole week would have been expected, but that level of purification probably would be unnecessary as long as the returning soldiers were not planning to come into contact with the Temple or holy things; see Num. 31:19 and Jdt. 16:18. Therefore it seems likelier that the reference is simply to customary washing before the Sabbath.
\n39. to lie with their kinsmen For the importance of proper burial, see 4:49 and 9:15.
\n40. sacred tokens of the idols of Jamnia Which, we must assume, these soldiers had taken as booty. According to Deut. 7:25\u201326, such items should have been burnt, and so it was sinful, and deserving of punishment, for the soldiers to retain them.
\nthis was why these men had fallen According to our author\u2019s firm belief in divine providence, even the death of \u201ca few Jews\u201d (12:34) requires an explanation from the realm of sin and punishment.
\n43. In doing this he acted very well and honorably Here we have authorial comment (similar to those in 9:6 and 13:8), pedantically applauding Judah\u2019s act and explaining what it implies: the belief in resurrection (on which see the comment on 7:9).
\n13:1. In the one hundred and forty-ninth year Of the Seleucid Era, which began, according to the Seleucid reckoning, in the autumn of 164 BCE. But 1 Macc. 6:20 places Lysias\u2019s second campaign\u2014if that is what is described here (see below, comment on verse 19)\u2014in 150 SE
\n2. chariots armed with scythes Which were especially terrifying; see, for example, Diodorus, Library 17.53.1 and Appian, Mith. 18.
\n4. this man was to blame for all the trouble As the readers of this book and the good citizens of the reign long knew; see 4:47, 50.
\nBeroea Aleppo, in northern Syria.
\n5. fifty cubits high It is probably no mere coincidence that the height of this contraption is identical with the height of the gallows Haman prepared for Mordecai, and upon which he himself was executed; see Esther 5:14; 7:10. Cf. the comment below on verse 12.
\n7. without even burial in the earth See comment on 12:39.
\n8. And this was eminently just See the comment on 12:43.
\nmany sins against the altar whose fire and ashes were holy This explanation of his punishment seems to be working very hard to justify the usual principle of the punishment fitting the crime; the closest the narrative has come to justifying it is in reporting the theft of sacred vessels and other unspecified sacrilege (4:32, 39).
\n9. The king with barbarous arrogance This renewal of hostilities totally ignores the king\u2019s realization, in verse 4, that Menelaus was the cause of all the troubles, and his decision to execute Menelaus for that reason. So it seems likely that 13:3\u20138 are from a separate tradition\u2014reflected also in Ant. 12.384\u201385, although Josephus evidently did not know our book.
\n11. the people who had just begun to revive Which would make renewed troubles all the worse. For similar rhetoric, see 14:36.
\n12. fasting and lying prostrate for three days without ceasing Cf. Esther 4:16 and our comment on verse 5.
\n13. the elders See comment on 1:10.
\n14. the laws, temple, city, country, and commonwealth This is the first appearance of the puzzling staccato that recurs frequently in this chapter (13:19, 21\u201323, 26). The rhetoric here is not at all admirable (\u00e0 la \u201cveni, vidi, vici,\u201d which bespeaks sovereign power); rather, it is simply clumsy and intolerable. For a possible explanation (unreworked notes?), see comment on 13:19.
\nModein The Hasmoneans\u2019 hometown (1 Macc. 2:1; 9:19; 13:25), located near the northern border of Judea.
\n15. the watchword Cf. 8:23.
\nthe king\u2019s pavilion That is, the king\u2019s tent; see also 3 Macc. 1:2\u20133, Diodorus, Library 17.35.1.
\nat night Cf. 8:7; 12:6, 9.
\nHe stabbed the leading elephant and its rider Perhaps there is some relationship between this and the heroic story of Eleazar at Beth-Zechariah told in 1 Macc. 6:43\u201346; see below, comment on 13:19. For our book, Judah is the only Hasmonean hero.
\n17. protected him See end of preceding comment.
\n18. tried strategy Better: \u201cused devious routes,\u201d which explains why, having invaded from the north, he is now about to try to get to Jerusalem via the south.
\n19. Beth-zur, a strong fortress of the Jews Here is clear evidence that 2 Macc. contains material from different, sometimes contradictory sources, for the present narrative introduces Beth-Zur in a way quite different from its previous mention (cf. 11:5), which it ignores here. Evidently our au-thor\u2014who makes no effort to coordinate between the narratives, not even by using his favorite \u201caforementioned\u201d or the like (e.g., 10:24)\u2014is following a source that is unaware of that earlier account; see comment on 12:2, Timothy. This means that the present account could be either another one of Lysias\u2019s first campaign (1 Macc. 4:28\u201335) or one of the second (1 Macc. 6:18\u201363). Perhaps our author\u2019s confusion about this issue led him to leave his notes for this chapter half-baked, as indicated by the intolerably staccato style so prominent in the latter half of this chapter; see above, comment on 13:14, the laws.
\n21. from the ranks of the Jews Better: \u201cof the Jewish unit.\u201d Due to the author\u2019s severe brevity, we cannot tell whether Rhodocus served in a Jewish unit in the Seleucid army (cf. comment on 8:20, eight thousand)\u2014in which case it was his treachery that had been allowing the Jews of Beth-Zur to go on receiving supplies; or, rather, in Judah\u2019s force\u2014in which case his treachery would have cut off the supplies and made for the surrender of the besieged (1 Macc. 6:49\u201350)\u2014which our author doesn\u2019t mention.
\n22. attacked Judas and his men In Jerusalem, as in 1 Macc. 6:48. See the preceding comment.
\n23. Philip, who had been left in charge of the government By Antiochus Epiphanes; see comment on 9:29.
\noffered sacrifice, honored the sanctuary and showed generosity to the holy place Typically for 1 Maccabees (see introductory comments), its account (6:60\u201362) adds that after the king made peace with the Jews and visited the Temple Mount, he broke his oath and ordered the destruction of its walls. There\u2019s nothing of all that here.
\n24. left Hegemonides as governor from Ptolemais to Gerar That is, of the coastal region. Hegemonides is mentioned in two inscriptions from the Achaean city of Dyme (his hometown), one of which (OGIS 252) records a dedication of his to Antiochus Epiphanes.
\n25. Ptolemais Akko, on the northern coast of Palestine; a major Hellenistic city. For its hostile relations with Jews, see also 1 Macc. 5:15, 22; J.W. 2.459, 477.
\n26. This is how the king\u2019s attack and withdrawal turned out The tone here is somehow derisive, \u00e0 la \u201cThat\u2019s all that came of,\u201d in contrast to the massive opening (2 Macc. 13:1\u20132).
\n14:1. Three years later Defined more precisely in 2 Macc. 14:4 as 151 SE\u2014that is, the third year after 149 SE (13:1), counting inclusively. 151 SE began in the autumn of 162 BCE; indeed, it was in the late summer of 162 that Demetrius I fled Rome in order raise an army, invade Syria, and take his father\u2019s throne back from his uncle\u2019s son; see comment on 4:7.
\n2. having made away One of the usual euphemisms for killing; see comment on 4:34, along with the plain statement in 1 Macc. 7:3\u20134.
\n3. Now a certain Alcimus Note that the parallel at 1 Macc. 7:5 has Alcimus leading a delegation of \u201call the lawless and impious men of Israel.\u201d Our author prefers to ignore as best he can the fact that there were factions among the Jews, preferring to leave his villains isolated\u2014\u201ca certain Simon\u201d (2 Macc. 3:4), \u201ca certain Auranus\u201d (4:40); see also the comment on verse 19.
\nwho had formerly been high priest We do not have any direct evidence as to when that was, but evidently it was prior to Judah\u2019s takeover of Jerusalem\u2014which suggests he had somehow supplanted Menelaus.
\nin the times of separation In Egyptian papyri, amixia refers to civil unrest and insurrection. Here, however, it apparently refers specifically to the religious persecution\u2014which, according to our author, led to the insurrection. In any case, Alcimus is the opposite of Razis, the hero whose narrative will conclude this chapter; see verse 38.
\n4. a crown of gold and a palm So too Simeon would send a palm frond together with a gold crown to Demetrius II; see 1 Macc. 13:37.
\ncustomary olive branches According to Polybius in History 3.52.3, \u201cmost barbarians consider this [presenting olive-branches and wreaths] a sign of friendship.\u201d
\n5. a meeting of the council The royal council, composed of the king\u2019s \u201cfriends\u201d (v. 11).
\n6. Hasideans, whose leader is Judas Maccabeus While there is some evidence for a group of Jews called by this name (which means \u201cPious\u201d) in this period (1 Macc. 7:13, perhaps also 2:32 but the reading there is doubtful), there is no other evidence for Judah\u2019s followers using this name. It looks as if Alcimus, who wishes to present himself as an expert on Jewish affairs, is trying to impress his audience with some jargon, while the reader is expected to see here evidence of Alcimus\u2019s wickedness. Similarly, the verse goes on to have him blame our book\u2019s hero for all the troubles.
\n8. I am genuinely concerned for the interests of the king \u2026 I have regard also for my fellow citizens Given Alcimus\u2019s true motivations, which concerned himself alone (v. 3), readers are supposed to recognize his hypocrisy.
\n10. it is impossible for the government to find peace The same formulation as 4:6. This underlines, for readers, the contrast between Onias\u2019s sincerity in complaining about Simon, and Alcimus\u2019s hypocrisy in complaining about Judah.
\n12. Nicanor Whom our author assumes to be the same as the villain of chapter 8; see comment on 8:9.
\n13. high priest of the greatest temple Here we see a Seleucid point of view, which endows the high priest with religious functions alone; contrast the Jewish point of view in 3:9.
\n15. Nicanor\u2019s coming and the gathering of the Gentiles Neatly summarizing the two separate threats reported in the preceding verses.
\n16. leader Note that Judah has no special title. So too below, verse 20. See also 1 Macc. 14:41, where even when the Jews formally decide to bestow certain titles upon Simon, they use only \u201cleader\u201d for what corresponds to civil authority. This apparently reflects the awareness that \u201cking\u201d is what was expected along with reluctance to use such a lofty title (cf. 1 Macc. 1:9 and 8:14); that would happen only in the days of one of Simon\u2019s grandsons (see Ant. 13.301 and Strabo, Geogr. 16.2.40, p. 762 [in Stern, GLA 1 no. 115]).
\nDessau If this is the place called Adasa in 1 Macc. 7:40 (and in Josh. 15:37 LXX), then some more telescoping is occurring here, as in fact the battle at Adasa, at which Nicanor was killed, came only later and is narrated in 2 Macc. 15.
\n18. Nevertheless Nicanor \u2026 shrank This interlude is absent from the parallel in 1 Macc 7:33; there, Nicanor immediately follows his first defeat at the hands of Judah with the threat recorded below, in verses 31\u201333. Our author achieves two ends: he has Nicanor recognize Judas\u2019s valor, and he sets up the story in such a way that only a Jewish villain, not the crown, is responsible for the renewed deterioration of the situation.
\n19. Posidonius and Theodotus and Mattathias Given their names, it is clear that the third was Jewish and likely that the second was as well. But our author makes no comment on this; apart from exceptional villains like Jason, Menelaus, and Alcimus, he does not like to discuss Jews who supported the Seleucids against their fellow Jews. See also comment on 14:3, Now a certain Alcimus.
\n23. did nothing out of the way Literally, \u201cnothing out of place,\u201d a nice play on words with regard to someone who behaved properly in Jerusalem; see comment on 3:2.
\n25. he married, settled down, and shared the common life A new idyll, ready to be ruined by the following \u201cBut\u201d; see also 3:4 and 12:2.
\n26. to be his successor Apparently, to be Alcimus\u2019s successor as high priest, instead of restoring Alcimus to the position as ordered (14:13).
\n30. But Maccabeus, noticing Remarkably, our author makes no effort to imitate the obvious biblical parallel at Gen. 31:2. Taken together with the play on Greek words noted immediately below, concerning 14:29 and 14:31, this is a strong indication of our author\u2019s desire\u2014and ability\u2014to write a Greek book, not a biblicizing one. See also introductory comments.
\n31. he had been cleverly outwitted Literally, \u201chad been nobly out-strategemed\u201d\u2014trumping Nicanor\u2019s own efforts in 14:29.
\n33. a splendid temple to Dionysus But see our comment on 6:7.
\n34\u201335. the priests stretched forth their hands toward heaven \u2026 O LORD of all, who hast need of nothing Even when the Temple was direly threatened, our Diaspora author makes sure we do not imagine it is really the House of God; see also especially 3:39. Likewise, saying that God is \u201cin need of nothing\u201d is a standard Hellenistic Jewish theme.
\n36. so recently purified See comment on 13:11.
\n37. Razis Otherwise unknown, and his name is of uncertain origin.
\none of the elders of Jerusalem See comment on 1:10.
\na man who loved his fellow citizens Contrast the pre-Hellenistic usage at Esther 10:3, which speaks of Mordecai in relation to his \u201cbrethren \u2026 people \u2026 kindred.\u201d See also introductory comments.
\nfather of the Jews Such honorific usage has Greek and Roman parallels (cf. parens plebis Romanae in Livy, History of Rome 6.14.5), based on the image of the ruler being his subjects\u2019 \u201cfather.\u201d
\n38. in former times, when there was no mingling with the Gentiles Better: \u201cFor in the earlier times of separation,\u201d as in v. 3; see comment there.
\nJudaism See second comment on 8:1, the Jewish faith.
\n42. preferring to die nobly rather than \u2026 suffer outrages unworthy of his noble birth Considerations similar to Eleazar\u2019s (6:24\u201325), although he lets others kill him, in contrast to Razis, who kills himself. Both types of death were considered noble in the classical world.
\n43. He bravely Literally, \u201cnobly,\u201d as in verse 42. The piling up of this root, which is nearly impossible to render into Hebrew, is characteristic of our book\u2019s Hellenistic orientation; so too \u201cmanfully\u201d in the next clause.
\n46. the LORD of life and spirit A particularly apt way of invoking God when praying for resurrection; see comment on 7:22\u201323.
\n15:1. in the region of Samaria That is, north of Judea. 1 Macc. 7:40, 45 places the battle described in this chapter at Adasa, which, according to Josephus (Ant. 12.408), was 30 stadia (see comment on 2 Macc. 12:9, thirty miles), about 6 kilometers (ca. 3.7 miles) away from Beth Horon, northwest of Jerusalem.
\nto attack them with complete safety on the day of rest As at 5:25, this comes close to claiming that the Jews would not fight, even in self-defense, on the Sabbath. See introductory comments.
\n3. the thrice-accursed wretch See comment on 8:9, Nicanor.
\n4\u20135. the Sovereign in heaven \u2026 And I am a sovereign also, on earth As at 3:22\u201323 and 7:30, the lines are drawn up in total antithesis.
\n6\u20137. Nicanor in his utter boastfulness \u2026 Maccabeus did not cease to trust with all confidence For \u201chis utter\u201d read \u201call,\u201d as in the second clause; here too, as in the preceding two verses, the author uses identical wording to contrast the antagonists.
\n6. to erect a public monument of victory over Judas and his men See comment on 5:6.
\n12. Onias The hero of the story\u2019s opening (chap. 3) returns for the finale.
\na noble and good man The Gk. kalos k\u2019agathos basically means \u201ctrue gentleman,\u201d as is detailed in the next clauses.
\npraying with outstretched hands On the gesture, see comment on 3:20. But note that here, since the reference is to a priest praying for Jews, we should perhaps think of the priestly blessing (Num. 6:22\u201327). This is traditionally recited by priests holding their hands out toward the congregation (see Sir. 50:20 and the use of Lev. 9:22 in M. Sot. 7:6\/\/M. Tam. 7.2)\u2014which might be reflected by the opening preposition of the composite verb here, kateuchetai, hinting that he was \u201cpraying blessings down\u201d upon the Jews.
\n14. Jeremiah For Jeremiah as one who prays for his people, see Jer. 7:16; 11:14; 14:11. From the point of view of 2 Macc. in its present form, it is important to note that just as Jeremiah saw to the continued sanctity of the Second Temple, according to the first verses of 2 Macc. 2, so too here he lends his heavenly support to Judah Maccabee himself.
\n15. his right hand and gave to Judas a golden sword Similar scenes are known from East and West. For Jewish Hellenistic literature, see especially Ezekiel the Tragedian, Exagoge 68\u201382, where Moses receives from heaven a scepter and a crown.
\n17. not to carry on a campaign Probably read: \u201cnot to tarry,\u201d which makes much better sense.
\nthe city and the sanctuary and the temple As usual the city comes first; see introductory comments.
\n19. those who had to remain in the city were in no little distress As if in a play, the author describes\u2014and attempts to arouse in his readers\u2014the fear of those awaiting the results of the battle. Cf. for example the opening of Aeschylus, Persians. The wording here is very similar to that used above, at 3:14.
\n22. O LORD, thou didst send thy angel See comment on 8:19.
\n23. good angel See comment on 11:6.
\n23\u201324. terror and trembling before us \u2026 By the might of thy arm This clearly uses Exod. 15:16: \u201cTerror and dread descend upon them; Through the might of Your arm.\u201d But in the present context God\u2019s arm must be seen as trumping Nicanor\u2019s (see 14:33 and 15:30, 32).
\n25\u201326. Nicanor and his men \u2026 Judas and his men Cf. the comment on 3:22\u201323.
\n29. shouting and tumult Both Greek words have negative connotations and usually imply people who feel threatened and frightened; for the former see 12:37, and for the latter\u20143:30; 10:30; 11:25; and 13:16. Perhaps the author\u2019s point is that a demonstration of God\u2019s active providence, even on one\u2019s own behalf, may first of all awaken fear and reverence, and only thereafter joy; see 12:40\u201341.
\n30. cut off Nicanor\u2019s head and arm As was usual in antiquity.
\n31. those who were in the citadel See comment on 4:28.
\n32. arm, which had been boastfully stretched out See 14:33.
\n33. these rewards of his folly The Gk. has a nice pun, for the word it uses for \u201crewards\u201d (or: \u201cwages\u201d) literally means \u201cthat which is over the hand\u201d\u2014that is, the arm. Thus the text refers to the hanging of Nicanor\u2019s arm\u2014the arm of folly\u2014vis-\u00e0-vis the Temple as his well-deserved \u201creward\u201d for threatening it.
\n34. kept his own place undefiled Echoing the prayer of 14:36.
\n36. decreed by public vote See comment on 10:8\u20139.
\nthe Syrian language That is, Aramaic. The names of the Hebrew months are of Babylonian origin. For Hellenistic Jewish writers pointing out that their Judean cousins regularly spoke Aramaic, see for example Let. Aris. 11 and Flaccus 39.
\nthe day before Mordecai\u2019s day That is, the day before Purim, which is celebrated on the 14th of Adar (Esther 9:19, 21; Ant. 11.291\u201392). There is Rabbinic evidence for this holiday celebrated on the 13th, called \u201cNicanor\u2019s Day,\u201d but none other for Purim being termed \u201cMordecai\u2019s Day.\u201d Perhaps the latter name developed in a natural way among people who celebrated \u201cNicanor\u2019s Day,\u201d the two adjacent days coming to be called by analogous names.
\n37. the Hebrews See comment on 7:31. Here it seems to be the formality of the closing that invited use of this special term.
\nSo I too Here the author clearly states that it is because the city has returned to Jewish hands that he may end his story, thus clearly defining the book\u2019s basic topic, closing out the story that began in 3:1; see introductory comments.
\n39. For just as it is harmful to drink wine alone, or, again, to drink water alone As in his preface (2:27), the author compares his work to that of a caterer. The Greeks held that only barbarians\u2014such as Scythians (see comment on 4:47)\u2014drank wine unmixed.
\nthe ears In antiquity it was usual to read aloud, even when reading alone; see, for example, Polybius, History 12.27.3 and Acts 8:30. Similarly, the appearance of \u201cAmen\u201d at the end of 3 Maccabees suggests that that book was read in public on the festival that 3 Maccabees explains, similar to the public reading of Esther on Purim. But there is no evidence that 2 Maccabees was publicly read as part of the celebration of Hanukkah or Nicanor\u2019s Day, just as there is hardly evidence that either was in fact celebrated by Greek-speaking Jews.<\/p>\n
Jewish War<\/p>\n
Excursus on Jewish Groups<\/p>\n
Albert I. Baumgarten<\/p>\n
The immediate context of this excursus on Jewish groups in Jewish War (2.119\u201366) was Josephus\u2019s introduction of Judah the Galilean and the anti-Roman group he founded at the time of the imposition of direct Roman rule in Judea in 6 CE, under the procurator Coponius. Intending to delegitimize Judah and his movement, Josephus dubbed it a sect that had nothing in common with the accepted expressions of Judaism (J.W. 2.118), the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, which he then went on to describe. If Josephus\u2019s comments in Life 10\u201312 are to be believed, he had personal knowledge of these groups, as he spent time investigating each in his youth before he chose to live with the hermit Bannus for three years and then returned to the city as a Pharisee. (For more on Josephus, see the essay \u201cJosephus and His Writings.\u201d)
\nNevertheless, the excursus began with the Essenes, the group Josephus described most extensively. As Josephus portrayed them, they were a movement that rejected virtually all forms of contact with other Jews; they observed the Law stringently, with many special regulations of their own that differed from the way other Jews observed the Law. When Josephus turned to the Pharisees, he called them the leading group and the most accurate interpreters of the Law (J.W. 2.162). However, Josephus said nothing about the legal positions they favored. Instead, he concentrated on their doctrines, as he did in his portrait of the Sadducees.
\nScholars have debated Josephus\u2019s source for these portraits and wondered to what audience this information was addressed. This first question becomes acute if one does not accept Josephus\u2019s boast of having learned the teachings of all three major groups in his youth. Indeed, skepticism on that point is warranted, as there seem to be few confirmations of the assertion that Josephus lived as a Pharisee after his trial year checking out all three groups, and after the three years with Bannus (Life 10\u201312). Some scholars have pointed to anterior sources of information on which Josephus might have drawn, while others point to the vagueness of the claim and to the fact that men of intellectual stature often declared that they learned everything there was to learn from all the best possible teachers, whether or not it was true.
\nWhatever Josephus\u2019s sources might have been, he made the contents of this excursus his own, repeating key terms about the Pharisees, for example, in his discussion of the group in his other works. As for the second question, apparently this excursus was written with non-Jewish readers in mind. This would explain the extended description of the picturesque Essenes with their strange customs, and the emphasis on beliefs of the other groups, intended to make them look as much as possible like Greek philosophical schools.<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Since the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, scholars have debated the relationship of the Essenes, in particular, to the Dead Sea covenanters. Most scholars are convinced that some sort of genealogical relationship must exist between Josephus\u2019s Essenes and the scrolls community. One widely accepted way of stating that connection is the so-called Groningen Hypothesis proposed by van der Woude and Garcia Martinez, who theorized that there was a pre-Qumran Essene movement, represented in the accounts of the Essenes by authors such as Philo, Josephus, and Pliny. The Dead Sea covenanters were an offshoot in the history of that larger Essene phenomenon.
\nJosephus himself described the groups in a second, shorter excursus in Ant. 18. A major difference between the excursus in J.W. 2 and that in Ant. 18 is that in the Jewish Antiquities, Josephus gave the Essenes a degree of attention that was more proportional to the amount he gave the other two groups. A second contrast is that the account in Ant. 18 included an explicit discussion of the revolutionary anti-Roman group affiliated somehow with the Pharisees that Josephus dubbed the \u201cFourth Philosophy.\u201d In addition, scattered throughout his works were remarks about the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes, as well as about other religious leaders and their followers (e.g., John the Baptist, in Ant. 18.116\u201319; or Bannus in Life 12). Accounts of the three groups appear in other sources, such as Philo\u2019s comments on the Essenes (Good Person, 75\u201387; Hypothetica 11.1\u201318), the denunciations of the Pharisees in the New Testament (Matt. 23, for example), and the debates between Pharisees and Sadducees in Rabbinic literature, such as in M. Yad. 4:6\u20137. Combining the data from these sources to draw a coherent picture of any single group is more difficult than one might think.
\nThis excursus is important both as a summary of information about three ancient Jewish groups and as a portrait of the phenomenon that these groups represented in Jewish life of the Second Temple period. Living a life of purity and scrupulous observance of the Torah were goals widely shared, yet members of these groups took these common objectives to extremes of greater or lesser degree, well beyond what biblical law required (hypernomism). The ancient groups had different ways of justifying their special suprabiblical regulations: some chose pseudepigraphy, new revelation, or simply interpolating the biblical text, while others openly and explicitly relied on interpretation. Whatever the method chosen, every group also argued that its additions to the written law of the Bible were not new, but old.
\nWhile these groups were small in number\u2014Josephus elsewhere mentioned 4, 000 Essenes (Ant. 18.21; see also Philo, Good Person 75), and 6, 000 Pharisees who refused to take an oath of loyalty (Ant. 17.42)\u2014the phenomenon they represented was one of the most significant in Jewish life of the era. According to many scholars, these groups ceased to function after the great revolt of 70 CE, both because many of their members were killed in battle and also because one of the foci of their debates, the Temple, no longer existed. When the sages grouped at Yavneh to establish what came to be Rabbinic Judaism, they largely adopted the Pharisaic legal and philosophical traditions. The Pharisees were therefore significant as the intellectual and spiritual progenitors of Rabbinic Judaism.<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Baumgarten, A. I. The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation. Leiden: Brill, 1997.
\nBeall, T. S. Josephus\u2019s Description of the Essenes Illustrated by the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.
\nCohen, S. J.D. \u201cThe Significance of Yavneh: Pharisees, Rabbis and the End of Jewish Sectarianism.\u201d HUCA 55 (1984): 27\u201353.
\nGarcia Martinez, F., and A. S. van der Woude. \u201cA \u2018Groningen\u2019 Hypothesis of Qumran Origins.\u201d RevQ 14 (1990): 521\u201341.
\nGoodman, M. \u201cJosephus and Variety in First-Century Judaism.\u201d PIASH 7, no. 6 (2000): 201\u201313.
\nMason, S. Flavius Josephus on the Pharisees. Leiden: Brill, 1991.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
119. The followers of the first school \u201cSchool\u201d is connected etymologically to \u201cchoose\/choice.\u201d These were voluntary groups. Cf. Philo, Hypothetica 11.2: being an Essene was a matter of choice, not birth.
\nOf Jewish birth Given Essene behavior toward fellow Jews as outsiders (not eating their food, not allowing them access to their meals, or treating contact with them as with aliens); see J.W. 2.129, 143 and 150, one might conclude that the Essenes were not Jewish.
\n120. they adopt other men\u2019s children This may be a sign that not enough adult members were joining the group.
\n120\u201321. Marriage they disdain \u2026 to protect themselves against women\u2019s wantonness The Essenes described here (unlike the group of Essenes described in J.W. 2.160\u201361) were expected to sacrifice their sexual identity by remaining celibate. Essene celibacy is explained as a consequence of the demand of total loyalty to the group by Philo, Hypothetica 11.14\u201317, although, like Josephus, Philo made a number of derogatory remarks about women in explaining Essene practice.
\n122. their community of goods is truly admirable Essenes sacrificed economic identity by making over their property to the group.
\nlike brothers This was a sacrifice of biological identity, replacing one form of kinship with another. See also \u00a7127.
\n123. Oil they consider defiling Josephus provided no explanation for this attitude.
\n124. They occupy no one city Essenes lived everywhere throughout the Land of Israel.
\nall the resources of the community As \u201cbrothers,\u201d Essenes took care of all the needs of members of their group, including traveling Essenes.
\n126. children under rigorous discipline The simple lifestyle and uniform dress of the Essenes not only served as a sign of membership in the group, but also enabled them to recognize each other.
\n127. freely permitted to take anything from any of their brothers As \u201cbrothers,\u201d no payment was required for goods or services rendered by fellow Essenes.
\n128. Before the sun is up they \u2026 offer to him certain prayers \u2026 as though entreating him to rise Essene morning prayer, understood by Josephus as directed to the rising sun, may be connected to the \u201cawakeners\u201d in the Temple (who every morning sang the verse from Ps. 44:24, \u201cRouse Yourself, why do You sleep, O my LORD? Awaken, do not reject us forever\u201d), abolished by Yohanan the High Priest, according to Ma\u2019aser Sheni 5:15.
\n129. bathe their bodies in cold water This ritual washing took place before the meal, as Jews bathed before entering the Temple. Non-Essene Jews were excluded from the meal, as non-Jews were excluded from the Temple. The purpose of the washing was not purification: the Essene was already pure. Rather, it was preparation for entering a higher level of sanctity.
\n130. each one plate with a single course The meal was simple.
\n131. the priest says a grace Priests had a place of distinction in the Essene order.
\nlaying aside their raiment Essenes changed their garments after the meal, as priests did when finishing their work in the Temple, according to Ezek. 44:19. Jubilees 21:17 ordered the priests to make sure their garments were clean when leaving the Temple, as does T. Levi 9:11.
\n133. silence of those within The Essene meal proceeded in silence, as the Temple sacrifice was offered in silence (Let. Aris. 92). In general, Essene practice exhibited several \u201ctranslations\u201d of Temple\/priestly behavior to a non-Temple\/nonpriestly context.
\n134. presents to relatives If an Essene wished to give tangible gifts to his biological family, he first had to obtain consent from the elders of the group.
\n135. swearing they avoid An oath proved that other statements made were unreliable. Perhaps Essenes avoided oaths in ordinary situations (when other Jews usually swore) because they attributed such high significance to oaths. See below, in \u00a7\u00a7139, 142, 143, where Josephus reported that Essene applicants were required to swear tremendous oaths, by which they were bound for life, even after they were expelled from the group.
\n136. properties of stones Healing by means of amulets.
\n137. candidate \u2026 is not admitted immediately The process of joining the group took place over time, as the Essenes had to decide whether the candidate was suitable, and not all candidates elected to remain, as Josephus explained in Life 10\u201312.
\na small hatchet To be used for the special Essene method of defecation, with its attendant restrictions (J.W. 2.148\u201349), which the candidate was obliged to obey from the outset. The hatchet, the loin-cloth, and the white garment he was expected to wear, \u00a7123, were thus symbolic of the candidate\u2019s intentions to become an Essene.
\n139. touch the common food The determining mark of full membership.
\n140. especially the powers that be As the context makes clear, these were the leaders of the group. See also \u00a7146.
\noutward marks of superiority A result of the requirement for Essene equality. Cf., however, \u00a7150.
\n141. to expose liars \u2026 to conceal nothing from members of the sect All Essenes were expected to spy on each other.
\nkeep his hands from stealing Abuse of the common fund, or leaders absconding with the order\u2019s funds, were especially dangerous for group morale, loyalty, and economic survival. See also \u00a7142 below where the Essene was to abstain from robbing.
\nreport none of their secrets to others Perhaps this was intended to deter setting up a parallel or competing Essene-like organization.
\n142. names of the angels What place the names of the angels held in the Essene system remains unclear.
\n143. convicted of serious crimes If expelled, an Essene faced a dilemma, with food under the auspices of the order denied him and other prepared food forbidden to him by his oaths on becoming an Essene. The ex-Essene could eat only \u201cgrass,\u201d that is, food taken raw directly from nature, on which the social order had not been imprinted.
\n145. any blasphemer of whom is punished with death One wonders just how the Essenes carried out such punishments. The Essenes were explicitly described by Philo as a voluntary group (see comment on \u00a7119 above). Such groups can usually expel members, but lack the means of legitimate violence necessary to carry out capital punishment ordinarily available only to governments.
\n146. to obey their elders Rules of the Essene meeting. These were particularly necessary because of the somewhat egalitarian nature of the Essene order (on which see further below on \u00a7150). Matters could easily become chaotic.
\n147\u201349. stricter than all Jews In Sabbath observance. Like other Jews, the Essenes prepared their food on Friday, as food preparation was forbidden on the Sabbath. Unlike other Jews, however, Essenes did not defecate on the Sabbath\u2014a sacrifice of bodily identity (on other aspects of Essene sacrifice of identity cf. the comment on \u00a7122, like brothers)\u2014as their rules and attitudes prohibited such an action. First of all, their rules for defecation required carrying a hatchet. This was presumably understood as \u201cremoving a vessel,\u201d prohibited by the Essenes on the Sabbath (\u00a7147). This method of defecation also required digging a trench, which was also likely forbidden on the Sabbath, when no work could take place. Furthermore, unlike other Jews, who considered defecation a nonpolluting natural function, Essenes purified themselves after defecation \u201cas if defiled.\u201d
\n150. four grades In spite of egalitarian aspects of Essenism, such as the common property and common dress mentioned above, Essenes were divided into four hierarchical orders.
\nas after contact with an alien The Essenes\u2019 internal hierarchy was reinforced by purity regulations. Given these regulations, one can only imagine what an Essene did after contact with a non-Essene Jew.<\/p>\n
152\u201353. The war with the Romans tried their souls As it is unlikely that Romans tortured Essenes during the Great Revolt (66\u201374 CE) just to amuse themselves, the best explanation of Josephus\u2019s comments is that Essenes fought against the Romans, despite Philo\u2019s description of the group as pacifist (Good Person 78). Furthermore, one of the commanders of Jewish rebel forces was John the Essene (J.W. 2.567; 3.11, 19).
\n154\u2013158. a fixed belief of theirs Greeks disagreed in their views of life after death and the fate of the soul. According to Josephus, the Essenes identified with the \u201cbest\u201d Greek views (those of the Stoics, as opposed to those of the Epicureans).
\n158. irresistibly attract This comment explained why Josephus devoted so much space to the Essenes, despite the fact that immediately below (\u00a7162) he called the Pharisees \u201cthe leading sect.\u201d Cf. Josephus\u2019s remarks in Ant. 18.14, where he suggested that the Pharisees were influential because of their belief in reward and punishment in the afterlife.
\n159. foretell the future Josephus viewed this ability as somehow connected to their study of holy books and purification practices. Josephus gave examples of Essene prophecy in Ant. 15.4 and 17.41\u201345. Those scholars who connect Josephus Essenes with the Dead Sea Scrolls see this aspect of the Essenes as an allusion to the pesher texts found at Qumran.
\n160\u201361. another order of Essenes These Essenes married, but only after the women had proven that they were fertile, presumably by a regular menstrual cycle. Josephus hastened to emphasize that this group of Essenes had sexual relations only for the purpose of procreation, abstaining from sex during pregnancy. Despite the critical difference between the marrying and celibate Essenes, which we might imagine would lead to a split, Josephus considered both sorts of Essenes as members of the same movement.
\n161. In the bath That these female Essenes wore a dress \u201cin the bath\u201d\u2014apparently the same type of bath in which the men wore loincloths, and presumably in preparation for sharing in the common meal.
\n162\u201363. most accurate interpreters of the laws, and hold the position of the leading sect Josephus employed the same terms in describing the Pharisees that he used in his final work, Life (\u00a7200). Unlike Life \u00a7197\u2013198, Josephus did not note here any surprise that the Pharisees were non-priestly experts in the Torah. Rather, in this passage, Josephus focused on Pharisaic doctrine.
\nattribute everything to Fate and to God Despite this view of why things happen the way they do, the Pharisees believed that humans were also somehow responsible for their actions. Cf. Ant. 18.13. The Rabbis inherited from the Pharisees an equally complex and paradoxical combination of belief in providence and predestination together with absolute free will. M. Avot 3:15 states: \u201ceverything is foreseen, but freedom of choice is granted.\u201d Along the same lines, B. Nid. 16b teaches: \u201cthe angel who is appointed over conception is named \u2018night.\u2019 It takes a seminal drop and places it before the holy one, blessed be he, and asks, \u2018what will be the fate of this drop? Strong or weak? Intelligent or foolish? Rich or poor?\u2019 but it does not ask, \u2018wicked or righteous,\u2019 as R. Hanina stated. For R. Hanina stated, \u2018everything is in the hands of heaven except for the fear of heaven.\u2019 \u201d
\n163. passes into another body That is, only the soul of a good person merited reincarnation.
\n164\u201365. do away with Fate altogether According to the Sadducees, human freedom of choice between good and evil meant that humans alone were responsible for the outcome of their actions, not God; contrast the Pharisees, above.
\n165. they will have none of them Because the Sadducees did not believe that the soul survived beyond death, they also did not believe in penalties and rewards after death, in contrast to the Pharisees and the Essenes. According to the New Testament (Acts 23:6\u20139), Sadducees did not believe in resurrection, while Pharisees did (J.W. 2.163); furthermore, this was a point of contention between the groups. While belief in an afterlife, reincarnation, and in resurrection are not quite identical, it is worth noting that Rabbinic literature also made reference to these issues as a matter of controversy between groups of Jews. Avot R. Nat. A, Ch. 5, reports that two students of Antigonus of Sokho (early 2nd century BCE) inferred from a teaching of their master that there was no afterlife nor resurrection of the dead. These students separated and founded the Sadducees and Boethusians. Although this legend cannot be historically confirmed, it is significant that the Rabbis, Josephus, and the New Testament all pointed to belief in some sort of post-mortem reward in the afterlife as a major source of contention between the Sadducees and their rivals.
\n166. harmonious relations with the community Other sources (e.g., Matt. 23 testify to the interest of the Pharisees in being well regarded by other Jews and to receive appropriate recognition of their stature, although this concern was interpreted unfavorably in Matt. 23.
\nintercourse with their compatriots Sadducees treated other Jews with disdain. Treating fellow Jews who were not members of their group as if they were aliens, or foreigners, was apparently a characteristic shared by Essenes and Sadducees, at the very least.<\/p>\n
Against Apion<\/p>\n
John M. G. Barclay<\/p>\n
The two-book treatise known as Against Apion is the last surviving work of the Jewish historian Josephus, written either in the 90s or in the early 100s CE. It responds to criticisms of his earlier 20-volume Jewish Antiquities, and specifically to doubts about the great antiquity that Josephus had there claimed for his people. At the same time it responds to a series of stories, slanders, and stereotypes that had gathered around the Jewish people, some of Egyptian origin and some of more recent Hellenistic provenance, many still current in Josephus\u2019s new home, Rome.
\nThe rhetorical genre of Against Apion as a whole is apologetic, although it contains a variety of materials of diverse tone and focus. Although the portion of the treatise discussed below is limited to two sections of book 2 (\u00a7\u00a7145\u2013150 and \u00a7\u00a7190\u2013218), a summary of the overall content is presented here for background.
\nJosephus first answers the hostile doubts of those who questioned the antiquity of Jews (Ag. Ap. 1.6\u2013218), beginning with a discussion of historiography (1.6\u201356), then providing numerous Egyptian, Phoenician, Babylonian, and Greek witnesses to the Jews as an ancient people (1.69\u2013218). In the course of this he attempts to make links between his witnesses\u2019 statements and biblical episodes (e.g., Manetho and Joseph, 1.91\u201392; Menander, Dius, and Solomon, 1.106\u201327), though the connections are generally strained. In the second part of the treatise (1.219\u20132.286), he refutes a wide range of slanders directed against Jews, beginning with three accounts of their \u201cexodus,\u201d by Manetho, Chaeremon, and Lysimachus (1.227\u2013320). The next main opponent, Apion, occupies the first half of book 2 (2.1\u2013144), with discussion ranging from the history of Jews in Alexandria to the Jews\u2019 supposed ass-head cult and the legend of their annual slaughter of a Greek, fattened up in the Temple. Again, there are occasional references to the biblical material in order to refute Apion\u2019s claims (e.g., 2.20\u201328 on the Exodus; 2.102\u20138 on the Temple), but the main rhetorical tactic is to demonstrate the stupidity and inconsistency of Apion himself.
\nJosephus then finishes his work by combining a response to slanders of Moses\u2019s legislation, articulated by Apollonius Molon, with an encomium on the Jewish constitution (2.145\u2013286). After the introduction (2.145\u201350), cited below, Josephus describes the work of Moses in the Exodus and the giving of the Law, together with the structure of the constitution (2.151\u201389), outlining its chief virtues, its special character (that of a theocracy), and the reasons for Jewish faithfulness through 2000 years. He then gives a summary of the key components of the Law (2.190\u2013218; cited below), before expanding on the special character of Jewish endurance (2.219\u201335), and then explaining and defending Jewish religious difference, in contrast with Greek mythology and non-Jews\u2019 religious decadence (2.236\u201386).<\/p>\n
Authorship and History<\/p>\n
Jews in Rome clearly had a mixed reputation. Some Romans, intrigued by Jewish tradition and practices, adopted some Jewish customs and even became proselytes. There were others who scorned Jews as irreligious and antisocial and felt their peculiar customs were at odds with Roman tradition. From contemporary sources, we can see that Jewish culture was most interesting, and most controversial, in Rome in relation to three topics: Jewish origins (whether from Egypt or elsewhere), Jewish customs (and their rationale), and Jewish exclusiveness (e.g., in meals and marriage, and always potentially offensive).
\nAgainst Apion at times appears off-target regarding these concerns, and is sometimes directed against straw men for rhetorical effect, but is often more or less directly related to these prevalent issues, which had political as well as cultural significance. Josephus\u2019s treatise may have been written for both Jews and non-Jews, but in the latter case his work would have had most influence on those already sympathetic to his cause. The ways in which he matches aspects of Jewish culture to the values of elite Romans suggests that the image of Judaism he here represents, though not wholly original, was at least partly \u201cRomanized\u201d in character.
\nSee also the essay \u201cJosephus and His Writings.\u201d<\/p>\n
Significance<\/p>\n
Scholars generally acknowledge that Josephus draws on earlier materials in this summary of the Law: its structure and contents are different from his treatment of the Law elsewhere, and there are striking similarities to the presentation of particular laws in other Jewish texts, most notably Hypothetica attributed to Philo and the collection of maxims known as Pseudo-Phocylides.
\nNo convincing evidence exists for direct literary dependence, but it seems that Josephus drew on a pool of tradition that summarized, interpreted, and supplemented biblical laws, not least through absorption of Greek maxims. The moral and philosophical explanations of the Law, and the philosophical description of God, seem to derive from earlier trends in Hellenistic Judaism, as found in Aristobulus, Philo, and others. On the other hand, the arrangement of the material into three paragraphs (see \u201cGuide to Reading\u201d below) may be Josephus\u2019s work, and the specific statements on the \u201cwelcome\u201d of foreigners (2.209\u201310) are clearly in his hand. Thus, this passage should not be viewed as lifted verbatim from some literary source; it is certainly derived from, or inspired by, a number of sources, but edited, arranged, and expanded by Josephus himself.<\/p>\n
GUIDE TO READING<\/p>\n
Apart from the introduction to this final section of the work (2.145\u201350), the material cited below consists of the Law-summary (2.190\u2013218), designed in part to illustrate the virtues claimed in 2.146 and internally divided into three main sections: on God and worship (2.190\u201398), on marriage\/household and Jewish community (2.199\u2013208), and on relations with outsiders (2.209\u201314). It concludes with a statement of penalties and rewards, emphasizing the strictness of the Law (appealing to Romans) and the utter faithfulness of Jews toward it (2.215\u201318).
\nElsewhere, Josephus summarizes the law following biblical sources: Ant. 3.224\u201386, from Leviticus and Numbers, and Ant. 4.196\u2013301, largely from Deuteronomy. Philo used the Ten Commandments to structure his presentation of the law, or the virtues inculcated by it (Philo, On the Decalogue; On the Special Laws books 1\u20134; On the Virtues).<\/p>\n
SUGGESTED READING<\/p>\n
Barclay, J. M. G. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Volume 10: Against Apion. Edited by S. Mason. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
\nElledge, C. D. Life After Death in Early Judaism: The Evidence of Josephus. T\u00fcbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.
\nFeldman, L. H. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary. Volume 3: Judean Antiquities 1\u20134. Leiden: Brill, 2000.
\nFeldman, L. H., and J. R. Levison, eds. Josephus\u2019s Contra Apionem: Studies in Its Character and Context. Leiden: Brill, 1996.
\nGoodman, M. \u201cJosephus\u2019s Treatise Against Apion.\u201d In Apologetics in the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, edited by M. Edwards, M. Goodman, and S. Price, 45\u201358. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
\nJackson, B. S. Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History. Leiden: Brill, 1975.
\nOppenheimer, A. \u201cJewish Penal Authority in Roman Judea.\u201d In Jews in a Graeco-Roman World, edited by M. Goodman, 181\u201391. Oxford: Clarendon, 1998.
\nSanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies. London: SCM, 1990.
\nSiegert, F. (ed.), Flavius Josephus, \u00dcber die Urspr\u00fcnglichkeit des Judentums. Contra Apionem. 2 vols. G\u00f6ttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.
\nVermes, G. \u201cA Summary of the Law by Flavius Josephus.\u201d NovT 24 (1982): 289\u2013303.<\/p>\n
COMMENTARY<\/p>\n
145. Apollonius Molon He lectured in Rhodes in the early 1st century BCE and wrote an ethnographic account of Jews, comparing their laws unfavorably with others (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.148, 238, 255, 258, 262, 270).
\nLysimachus This may be an Alexandrian author of the 1st century BCE\/CE, or a Greek intellectual of unknown origin and date. Josephus paraphrases his account of the Exodus in Ag. Ap. 1.304\u201311. Lysimachus\u2019s critique of Jewish \u201cantisocial\u201d behavior (1.309\u201311) runs parallel to the main charges of Apollonius Molon (2.148, 258).
\n146. piety Gk. eusebeia. It is no accident that this comes at the head of the qualities promoted by the laws; cf. its prominence in 2.170 and its primary placement in the summaries of 2.291, 293. Josephus places the same emphasis on piety in the introduction to Jewish Antiquities (1.6, 21; cf. Ag. Ap. 1.60; J.W. 2.139). \u201cPiety\u201d counters the first of Apollonius\u2019s accusations, concerning Jewish \u201catheism\u201d (Ag. Ap. 2.148). The Law-summary is headed by laws relating to God and the Temple (2.190\u201398). It was common in Greek-speaking Judaism to make \u201cpiety\u201d the chief of the virtues; see, e.g., Philo, Spec. Laws 4.135, 147; 4 Macc. 1:1\u20133:18 (on \u201cpious reason\u201d).
\nfellowship with one another Gk. koin\u014dnia h\u0113 met\u2019 all\u0113l\u014dn. The focus here is on relations among Jews; the next virtue concerns relations with outsiders.
\nuniversal benevolence Gk. h\u0113 katholou philanthr\u014dpia. Central to Apollonius\u2019s critique of Judeans was their alleged \u201cmisanthropy,\u201d 2.148; cf. 2.258; cf. Lysimachus (1.309) and Apion (2.121). The third part of the Law-summary is associated with this virtue (2.213, covering 2.209\u201314) and it is prominent in 2.260\u201366.
\njustice Gk. dikaiosyn\u0113, a term that will feature again in 2.170 and in the conclusion (2.291). Josephus emphasizes the enforcement of the laws (2.185\u201387), and the strict application of punishment (2.215\u201317, 292), but gives the term little explicit elaboration. \u201cJustice\u201d was more commonly the head virtue in the Greek tradition (cf. Plato, Republic, 427ff.); the four Greek cardinal virtues (justice, prudence, courage and temperance) are also often listed in Greek-speaking Judaism (e.g., Philo, Abraham 219; 4 Macc. 1:18).
\nendurance in labors Gk. h\u0113 en tois ponois karteria. The next phrase concerns courage in the face of death, and karteria denotes Judean \u201ctoughness\u201d in two respects: 1) the discipline of observing the laws (2.228\u201329); and 2) frugality and devotion to hard work (291; cf. 2.281, 283, 291, 294).
\ncontempt for death Gk. thanatou periphron\u0113sis. This theme was previously highlighted in 1.42\u201343, 190\u201391, 212, and plays a significant role in what follows, in answer to Apollonius\u2019s charges of \u201ccowardice\u201d and \u201crashness\u201d (2.148). Jewish willingness to die for the Law is emphasized immediately after the Law-summary (2.219), and is compared with the Spartans\u2019 in 2.232\u201335.
\n147. encomium On encomium and apology as twin rhetorical strategies, and the apologetic genre of this whole treatise, see Barclay.
\n148. atheists From elsewhere in Against Apion, we can deduce that Apollonius was outraged by the nonparticipation of Jews in common religious cult (\u201cwe do not worship the same gods as other people,\u201d 2.79, cf. 2.117) and by their religious exclusivity (2.258). He apparently contrasted Jews with the Persians who, despite their wars against the Greeks, at least shared with them a common piety (2.270).
\nmisanthropes The charge is expressed more specifically in 2.258, where it concerns both religious exclusivity and general inhospitality to non-Jews.
\ncowardice Apollonius apparently contrasted Jewish cowardice with Persian courage (2.270), and may have argued that, when they did fight, Judeans were too reckless to turn warfare into conquest (see the next comment). Josephus in reply (2.219\u201335, 272) argues that courage in warfare is as nothing compared to Jewish bravery under torture, a bravery devoted to the preservation of the Law (2.272, 292).
\nrashness and recklessness Apollonius\u2019s accusations may reflect a presumption of \u201cbarbarian\u201d inferiority in warfare, supplemented by accounts of Jewish self-sacrifice for the Law (cf. 1.209\u201311).
\nno invention of use Cf. Apion\u2019s claims in 2.135 that Jews have produced no remarkable inventors or extraordinary intellectuals. Many Greek-speaking Jews countered this sort of accusation by claiming Jewish heroes as inventors of culture (e.g., Eupolemus, Artapanus and others on the inventions of Abraham and Moses).
\n149. All this I consider \u2026 thoroughly refuted Although only some of what follows is structured by the charges of 2.148, those charges are all met either directly or indirectly in the encomium of 2.151\u2013286: the charge that Judeans are \u201catheists\u201d is met by demonstration of Judean piety (2.157\u201389, 190\u201398); that they are \u201cmisanthropes,\u201d by proof of Judean benevolence (2.209\u201314; all of 2.236\u201386 is related to the charge of 2.258 on misanthropy); their \u201ccowardice\u201d and \u201crecklessness,\u201d by reference to Jewish rational courage (2.219\u201335, 271\u201378); and their \u201clack of invention,\u201d by the double claim of Jewish conservatism and Mosaic originality (2.182\u201383; 2.156, 168, 257, 279\u201386).
\n190. proclamations This term (prorrh\u0113seis) is unusual and may derive from the analogy between Judaism and mystery cults in the previous section (2.189): in the context of mystery-cults, the term means an announcement, which conveys information, instruction and warning.
\nThe first That Judean laws begin with statements about the nature of God is a peculiarity discussed in Ant. 1.18\u201326 (where Josephus maintains that this hierarchy is the best inducement to virtue). The priority of this statement reflects both the status of the first commandment (cf. Ant. 3.91), and the status of God himself, at the head of the universe (2.165\u201367).
\nself-sufficient and sufficing for all The idea is widespread in ancient theology (cf. Ant. 8.111; Euripides, Herc. fur. 1345\u201346; Seneca, Ep. 95.47\u201350; Acts 17:25). Aristobulus (quoted in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.12) makes the motif Judean by adapting an Orphic poem, and in his wake Judean theology was content to adopt and adapt the terminology of Greek theology in this matter.
\nbeginning, middle, and end The beginning and end could be understood as \u201csource\u201d and \u201cgoal\u201d (cf. the description of God in Ant. 8.280), but the presence of all three terms suggests the emphasis is both metaphysical (the origin, means, and goal) and chronological (start, middle, and finish). Plato cites as an \u201cancient saying\u201d the slogan that God \u201chas the beginning, end, and middle of all things\u201d (Leg. 715e). The motif is of Orphic origin and, long before Josephus, Aristobulus had claimed it to express Moses\u2019s philosophy (quoted in Eusebius, Praep. ev. 13.12). The Rabbinic parallels (e.g., J. Sanh. 18a) are more remote.
\nform \u2026 beyond our description This aspect of God\u2019s transcendence is the basis for the Jewish tradition that God cannot be represented in any physical form (Ag. Ap. 2.191; cf. 2.167).
\n191. unworthy The Gk. atimos has a double sense, both cheap and dishonoring. The most one could create with materials would be the \u201cimage\u201d of God, but not even this can be adequately made. The reference to materials may be influenced by Exod. 20:23, with its ban on the construction of images in silver or gold (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.22).
\nlikeness The use of the term mim\u0113sis, shows that at issue here is not the appropriateness of an image as the object of worship, but rather the impossibility of representing God through similarity.
\nnor is it holy to represent it The final clause provides the sting in the tail: representations of God not only attempt the impossible, but are positively sacrilegious.
\n192. without hands, without effort, without needing The new tricolon of negatives rules out an anthropomorphic conception of God (hands), any notion of cosmic struggle (effort), and any hint of plurality in creation or divine insufficiency (assistants). Elsewhere Josephus polemicizes against such mythological concepts (Ag. Ap. 2.239\u201349; Ant. 1.22), and his denials here defend divine transcendence (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.190). In explaining the origin of both good and evil, Plato speaks of the \u201cdemiurge\u201d using assistants in the creation of the world (Tim. 41c; 42e). Philo insists that God needed no assistants, in language very similar to that used here (Creation 72).
\nworship him by exercising virtue Josephus makes a notable effort in what follows to explain sacrifice and purity in moral terms. Josephus has a full discussion of the various sacrifices and associated purity rules in Ant. 3.224\u201379.
\n193. One temple \u2026 one God Josephus is writing at a time when there is no Temple of the one God\u2014the Second Temple having been destroyed in 70 CE. Nonetheless, in this treatise, as in Jewish Antiquities, the Jerusalem Temple and its priests play a central role in his depiction of the constitution. This is not just because Josephus was a priest and had a personal interest in portraying matters so, but apparently because for him, as for most of his contemporaries, it was not possible to imagine the Judean tradition without its religious expression, and it was hard to imagine the worship of God without Temple, priests, and sacrifice. Josephus had no reason to imagine that the recent demolition of the Temple would be permanent; similarly, the Mishnah contains detailed rules regarding the nonexistent Temple. The one Temple is that in Jerusalem. A similar slogan matching \u201cone\u201d with \u201cone\u201d is paralleled elsewhere, and with regard to God and the Temple is paralleled most closely in Philo, Spec. Laws 1.67; 4.159; Virtues 35. Cf. Josephus\u2019s own statement in Ant. 4.200\u2013201.
\nlike is always attracted to like This tag is very ancient (cf. Homer, Od. 17.218), and adaptable to both philosophical (e.g., Aristotle, Eth. nic. 1165b 16\u201317) and nonphilosophical (Sir. 13:15\u201320) subjects.
\ncommon to all \u2026 the common God of all That is, the particular Temple and Deity are also universal (echoing Pericles\u2019 claim regarding Athens; Thucydides 2.39.1). Elsewhere Josephus speaks of the cosmic significance of the Temple architecture, its furnishings, and the high priest\u2019s clothing (J.W. 4.324; 5.213; Ant. 3.123, 179\u201387; cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.82\u201397), with an apologetic concern to show that Jews do not slight the deity others profess to worship (Ant. 3.179\u201380). Similarly, he insists that the Temple and the city of Jerusalem entertain visitors from all over the world (e.g., J.W. 4.278, 324; 5.17); Jews are not unfriendly to foreigners (Ant. 8.116\u201317; 11.87).
\nfirst by descent For the importance of priestly descent, see Ag. Ap. 1.30\u201336; Life 1\u20132.
\n194. will sacrifice \u2026 safeguard \u2026 adjudicate \u2026 punish For the priests\u2019 legal roles (in supervision of the law, as judges and in meting out punishment), see Ag. Ap. 2.187.
\npenalty Penalties are a recurrent theme in this Law-summary, summarized in 2.215\u201317. Sacrilege merits death (2.217; cf. Deut. 17:12; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.54\u201357). The authority of the high priest undergirds the constitution, and his relationship to God is unique. The high priest\u2019s turban bears the very name of God (Ant. 3.178), before which even Alexander the Great was in awe (Ant. 11.331). On disrespect of the high priest, cf. Acts 23:2\u20135, where appeal is made to Exod. 22:28.
\n195. sacrifices Josephus offers no description of the content or occasion of the sacrifices (cf. Ant. 3.224\u201357); instead, he emphasizes their moral tone and purpose. His phrasing implies a positive distinction between Jews\u2019 and others\u2019 feasts. We may compare Philo\u2019s moral tone (Spec. Laws 1.192\u201393; Drunkenness 130) and his critique of pagan symposia (Contempl. Life 40\u201347, Decalogue 52\u201380).
\nlavish expenditure Gk. polyteleia; this faulty approach to sacrifice is also critiqued elsewhere (Ag. Ap. 2.205; cf. 2.234, 291). Cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.172\u201376, on simplicity and self-control in sacrifice.
\n196. for the common welfare \u2026 for ourselves In Ant. 3, Josephus had divided Judean sacrifices into two categories, those offered by individuals and those by the people as a whole (3.224, 233); he made no suggestion that one category took moral priority over the other (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.168). But here, Josephus is looking for moral lessons.
\ncommunal fellowship Prayers for \u201ccommon welfare\u201d (koin\u0113 s\u014dt\u0113ria) symbolize the priority of \u201ccommunal fellowship\u201d (koin\u014dnia, a key term in Ag Ap. 2.146). The Rabbis also express the importance of praying for others: \u201cWhoever requests mercy for his friend and he needs the same thing, he is answered first\u201d (B. B. Qam. 92A).
\n197. available to everyone For God as beneficent to all, cf. 2.166, 190, 193 (\u201ccommon to all\u201d). That God is the perfect giver, who gives spontaneously and loves to give, is a constant theme in Philo (e.g., Moses 2.5).
\nable to receive This and the previous section are the fruit of philosophical reflection on prayer. Is it selfish? Not if one prays first for others (Ag. Ap. 2.196). Is it necessary? Only for oneself, not to cajole God into giving (2.197). The latter depends on a fine distinction between asking God to give, and asking that we be capable of receiving, but the distinction is philosophically necessary if one wishes to dispel the notion of imploring a reluctant giver.
\n198. purifications Purifications are here related specifically to sacrifice. But the three cases cited will all be discussed below (2.202\u20133, 205) from a different viewpoint, where purity is defined in moral terms. The two explanatory frameworks sit side by side, since worship of God can be understood as a matter of both ritual and virtue (2.192). Ritual purification was clearly a matter of importance among Judeans in the homeland, as archaeology confirms. Less clear is how purification was practiced in the Diaspora, though there are indications of hand-washing before prayer, in common with other traditions.
\nafter a funeral The notion of corpse impurity is based on Num. 19:10\u201322 (cf. 31:19\u201320); it affected access to the Temple and to sacrifice (Num. 19:13, 20), and for this reason the high priest operated under severe restrictions (Lev. 21:10\u201311). The subject is touched on in Ant. 3.262 (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.261; 3.205\u20137), and is further discussed below (2.203, 205).
\nchildbirth The Greek could mean either \u201cmarriage-bed\u201d (and thus sexual intercourse) or \u201cchildbirth.\u201d The former would overlap with the following category. According to Lev. 12:2\u20138, a woman is impure for 40 days after the birth of a son, and for 80 days after the birth of a daughter; she is forbidden to enter the sanctuary or touch holy things (cf, 2.102\u201314 on purity rules regarding access to different courts in the Temple). Cf. Ant. 3.269 and M. Kelim 1:8.
\nsexual union with a woman The law is seen from a male perspective, although the impurity affects both parties (cf. Ant. 3.78, 263). Leviticus 15:16\u201318 locates impurity in any discharge of semen, including sex with a woman (15:18): since anything touched by the semen is impure, both man and woman must wash and wait till the evening when they are pure again. Philo (Spec. Laws 3.63) suggests a simple rite of sprinkling (cf. Justin, Dial. 46). The notion of impurity through sex was (and is) widespread; Josephus offers a physiological explanation below (Ag. Ap. 2.203).
\nmany other causes These could include nocturnal emission of semen (Lev. 15:16; Ant. 3.263); menstruation (Lev. 15:19\u201324; Ant. 3.261; Ag. Ap. 2.103); other kinds of emission from male or female genitals (Lev. 15:1\u201315, 25\u201330); and \u201cleprosy\u201d (Lev. 13\u201314; Ant. 3.261). Josephus has selected only those three on which he will comment below.
\n199. What are the statements concerning marriage? The question opens a new section of the summary (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.190). Its extent is not immediately obvious, but it is traditional for discussion of \u201chousehold\u201d matters to include sex, marriage, children, slaves (missing here), and relations between parents and children, young and old (see, e.g., Aristotle, Pol. 1; Pseudo-Phocylides 175\u2013227). Since these topics are discussed in Ag. Ap. 2.199\u2013206, we should take the new unit to continue at least until then. But the concluding statement in 2.208 (\u201cThese [rules] and many like them cement our fellowship with one another\u201d) suggests we should understand 2.207\u20138 as an extension of the same horizon to the community as a whole (see also the comment on \u00a7207, friendship).
\nwoman Gyn\u0113 might be translated \u201cwife\u201d (cf. 2.198, 201), but the context suggests that Josephus is focusing here on gender, not marital status. \u201cNatural\u201d intercourse is highlighted to contrast with that between males, which is thus implicitly \u201cunnatural\u201d (explicitly in 2.273, 275). Following the biblical ban (an \u201cabomination,\u201d Lev. 18:22; cf. 20:13, with the death penalty), the Jewish tradition was unanimous in condemning homoerotic practice, but adopted Hellenistic modes of explanation. Here Josephus does not explain the rule; elsewhere he speaks of \u201clawless pleasures\u201d evoked by the beauty of young boys (Ant. 1.200; 3.275; 15.28\u201329), and the \u201cfeminine\u201d passions of the passive partner (J.W. 4.561\u201362). See further below, section 215 on \u201cthe passive partner.\u201d
\nprocreation This requirement is not found in the Sinaitic laws, but may be understood as implied when the tradition is interpreted through the lens of philosophical idealism. Thus, the rule against intercourse with a menstruating woman (Lev. 18:19; 20:18; cf. Ant. 3.275) could be heard as an injunction not to waste seed in a \u201cfield\u201d where it will be \u201cwashed away\u201d (Philo, Spec. Laws 3.32\u201333, cf. Gen 38:9\u201310 on Onan). By extension, intercourse with a sterile or pregnant woman could be understood as a waste of seed, an indication that \u201cpleasure\u201d has become the sole aim. Thus Josephus interprets the Essene ban on sex during pregnancy as a sign that their motive for marriage was procreation, not pleasure (J.W. 2.161). Elsewhere, Josephus expresses the ideal that one should seek marriage, and sexual intercourse, for procreation and not for pleasure (Ant. 4.261; cf. 4.290). Similarly, Philo condemns sex with a sterile woman as mere frenzy, an intentional destruction of seed (Spec. Laws 3.34\u201336). Cf. the Mishnaic laws on marriage with a sterile woman (M. Yev. 6.5\u20136), the 10-year limit matching Plato\u2019s view (Leg. 784b).
\nabhorred The language of abhorrence is exceptionally strong (cf. Lev. 20:13); for the attitude to homoerotic practice, see the comment above on \u00a7199, woman. The reference to a penalty anticipates 2.215; there the death penalty is specified for both partners (so Lev. 20:13; cf. Lev. 18:29; Ant. 3.275; M. Sanh. 7:4, stoning).
\n200. instruction to marry The instruction could be taken as absolute, i.e., one must marry (cf. Pseudo-Phocylides 175), but is more likely qualified by what follows. For Rabbinic views on the necessity of marriage and procreation, see, for example, M. Git. 4:5. Josephus offered a fuller set of instructions in Ant. 4.244\u201359, based on Deuteronomic laws; here, he omits reference to bigamy, levirate marriage, and divorce.
\ndowry Josephus presupposes that Jews had adopted the custom of a dowry given by the wife\u2019s family to the husband (but returnable on divorce); at upper levels of society. The sums involved could be huge (e.g., J.W. 1.483). Josephus offers no explanation for the rule, but it fits his emphasis on moderation and simplicity (Ag. Ap. 2.195, 234, 291).
\nby violent seizure The biblical source is Deut. 22:28\u201329, concerning the rape of an unbetrothed girl; cf. Ant. 4.251\u201352; Philo, Spec. Laws 3.69\u201371; Pseudo-Phocylides 198; Sib. Or. 2:28.
\nseducing Seducing is the nonviolent but still dishonorable means of achieving sexual conquest; the two means are juxtaposed again in Ag. Ap. 2.201 and in Ant. 4.251\u201352. Here the biblical base is Exod. 22:16\u201317; cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 3.72.
\nto betroth In Jewish, as in Greek and Roman tradition, betrothal was sometimes an informal, sometimes a formal agreement (Philo, Spec. Laws 3.72, speaks of documents) between the bridegroom and whoever had the legal right to \u201cgive\u201d her (for the verb, see Exod. 22:17). This \u201cman with authority\u201d was usually her father, failing whom it could be the girl\u2019s brother, other adult male relatives, or a guardian; cf. Ant. 4.246, 252; 12.187; Philo, Spec. Laws 3.66\u201368 (parents, brothers, guardians, or others).
\nsuitable kinship That the betrothal\/marriage be \u201cin accordance with suitable kinship\u201d could mean one of two things, both of which fit the context. First, it could allude to the laws of \u201cforbidden degrees\u201d (Lev. 18:6\u201318; 20:11\u201314; cf. Ant. 3.274) put in positive terms; cf. the critique of sibling marriage in Ag. Ap. 2.275. Second, it could refer to the ban on marrying a non-Jew, to which Josephus makes reference more than once in his Jewish Antiquities. In this apologetic context it would be awkward to make this point explicit; cf. Ag. Ap. 2.209\u201310, in the light of Apollonius\u2019s criticism (2.148, 258). The phrase may be sufficiently ambiguous to refer to both these points.
\n201. inferior \u2026 in all respects Physiologically, women were widely considered less perfect than men: wetter, weaker, colder, softer, more changeable, and unbalanced (generating excess fluid). Intellectually and morally, they were considered less rational, more emotional, unstable, and prone to lose control. Thus men could consider women both dangerous and endangered, a view that justified their laws concerning male control. Although he acknowledges knowing of powerful women (e.g., in the Herodian family), Josephus shows signs of believing many of these stereotypes (e.g., Ant. 1.49; 4.219), which he sometimes attributes to the Essenes (e.g., Ant. 18.21; J.W. 2.121). The Talmud also speaks of the weakness of women (B. Kid. 80B).
\nGod has given power to the man The ancient discussion of the household insisted on its governance by the male head. Similar motifs are found in early Christian texts (Col. 3:18\u201319; Eph. 5:22\u201324; 1 Pet. 3:1\u20136; 1 Tim. 2:11). Tracing male rulership to the will of God may reflect the influence of Gen. 3:16.
\na woman who belongs to another man This covers the two cases about to be discussed: a married woman and a betrothed girl (both discussed in the Deuteronomic law). Josephus makes no mention of other possible sexual partners: slaves (forbidden in Ant. 4.244), prostitutes (forbidden in Ant. 4.245), or widows. The unmarried and unbetrothed virgins have just been discussed (cf. Ant. 4.252). But if the first part of this sentence is absolute, all the above cases would be ruled out by the restriction to a single sexual partner.
\na virgin betrothed to another man The betrothal is taken to represent the conveyance of the woman even before the marriage ceremony, so the offense is as great as adultery. Deut. 22:23\u201327 legislates for two circumstances, one where the offense takes place in the town (both are guilty and punished by death); the other, in the country (only the man suffers death: she may have cried out in protest but none would have heard her); cf. Josephus\u2019s adaptation of this law, Ant. 4.251\u201352 (see also Philo, Spec. Laws 3.72\u201378).
\nmarried woman The case of adultery with a married woman is discussed in Lev. 20:10 and Deut. 22:22 (cf. the Seventh Commandment, Exod. 20:14). In both passages, both partners are condemned to death; cf. Ant. 3.274; 4.244.
\n202. gave orders to nurture all children This is apparently directed against the disposal of unwanted children\u2014an extremely widespread practice in the ancient world, especially if the infant was defective in any way, or in poorer households overcrowded with offspring. Although the Jewish taboo on exposure is not expressly biblical, it is found in a variety of sources as a mark of Judean difference: see, for example, Pseudo-Phocylides 185; Sib. Or. 3:765\u201366; Philo, Virtues 131\u201332; Spec. Laws 3.110\u201319 (based on Exod. 21:22). It was noticed by observers as diverse as Hecataeus (quoted in Diodorus, Library 40.3.8) and Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.3), both finding here an explanation for the size of the Jewish population.
\ncausing the seed to miscarry Contraception (by barrier or medicine) was common in the ancient world, often followed by abortion when it proved inefficient. Judean unease with this practice could claim a biblical base in Exod. 21:22\u201323 (see Ant. 4.278; Philo, Spec. Laws 3.108\u20139; Virtues 137\u201339); cf. Pseudo-Phocylides 184; Sib. Or. 2:281\u201382; Philo, Hypothetica 7.7. The Rabbis allow contraception in limited circumstances (T. Nid. 2:6).
\nif it were to become evident The text is uncertain, but the comment may reflect the fact that in many circumstances an aborted pregnancy would not be evident, or if it was, the responsibility might be unclear (e.g., for a miscarriage).
\nobliterating a soul and diminishing the human race Josephus implies a double crime: a dereliction of parental duty, and a crime against humanity. The reference to the soul is important in supporting the reasoning that follows, in which Josephus draws a parallel between conception and death (Ag. Ap. 2.203).
\nfit to be pure at that time An abortion or stillbirth is a human death (not the loss of lifeless matter), so even proximity to an aborted fetus entails corpse impurity. The rule may be extrapolated from laws regarding corpse impurity (Num. 19:10\u201322), or from Lev. 15:25\u201330, on women with a discharge other than menstruation; such a \u201cdischarge\u201d defiles the bed and those who touch it (cf. M. Nid. 7:4). The sentence then links Ag. Ap. 2.202 with 2.203: impurity is contracted both through sex and through death (including abortion or miscarriage), since both entail the suffering of the soul.
\n203. instruction to wash Josephus has already mentioned post-coital ablution in 2.198, but now he makes an attempt to explain sex- and corpse-related impurities together, in physiological terms.
\ndivision of the soul Josephus, along with many of his contemporaries, presumed that the (male) seed carries the \u201csoul,\u201d a part of the father\u2019s soul, splintered or split off.
\nseparated at death The dualism of soul and body was common philosophical parlance in the Greek tradition. Josephus attributes to the Essenes belief in an immortal soul, entangled and imprisoned in the body, but to be released at death (J.W. 2.154\u201358; cf., in his own voice, 3.372\u201375). Similarly, Eleazar speaks of the soul as trapped in the body, but liberated at death, coming and going unseen (J.W. 7.341\u201357); the Indians, he asserts, have the purest means of dealing with this \u201cdeparture\u201d at death, through fire (7.347). Here both conception and death are painful events for the soul, the one in separation from the parental soul, the other through separation from the body; this is why sexual intercourse and death are treated alike (both requiring purification).
\npurifications in all such cases The statement summarizes Ag. Ap. 2.202\u201303: purification is needed for miscarriage and stillbirth, as forms of death, as it is for sexual intercourse. In fact, Josephus has shown only that sexual intercourse and death are similar events (in pain for the soul), not why either is inherently defiling. Later he will try a moral explanation for corpse impurity (2.205, as a warning against murder).
\n204. feasts \u2026 sober moderation Birth was traditionally an occasion for familial celebration, but Josephus sets a high moral tone, urging moderation (cf. 2.170, 195). The biblical law required \u201credemption\u201d of the first-born (Exod. 22:29; Num. 18:15\u201316; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.137\u201340), but Josephus does not specify how birth (or male circumcision) are to be marked. The interest in a child\u2019s life \u201cfrom the very beginning\u201d is a characteristic of this treatise (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.173, 178).
\nreading Literally, \u201cletters\u201d; cf. 1.10. The ideal reflects Josephus\u2019s elite status and priestly education. It is hard to estimate literacy rates in the ancient world (and \u201cliteracy\u201d itself covers a broad range of ability), but the vast majority of the population was either illiterate, or literate only at the very simplest level.
\nin relation to the laws The concern that children know the Law is present in the Law itself (Deut. 6:7; 11:19; cf. T. Kid. 1:11), and echoed by Josephus elsewhere (Ant. 4.211); cf. Ag. Ap. 1.60; 2.173\u201374.
\nthe exploits of their forebears Exod. 13:8 indicates that parents should instruct children regarding the Exodus. Cf. the use of the \u201cnoble example\u201d of Jeconiah in J.W. 6.103\u20135; Josephus\u2019 whole account of Jewish Antiquities could be seen as an effort in the same direction.
\nneither transgress nor have an excuse for ignorance On children brought up with the Law, cf. 2.173\u201374, 178 (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 1.314). On guarding against transgression, or excuses of ignorance, cf. Ag. Ap. 2.174\u201375 (and Ant. 4.210), where instruction of children in the law \u201cright from the beginning of their nurture\u201d is essential to ensure faithfulness to the law.
\n205. piety toward the dead Since burial is primarily a household matter (expressly so, later in \u00a7205), this topic is closely connected to the preceding family rules. The duty to bury one\u2019s dead, especially one\u2019s own family, was an unwritten law in all ancient cultures (cf. M. Ket. 4:4).
\nexpensive burial rites \u2026 striking monuments As in Ag. Ap. 2.204, Josephus starts with a negative point that suggests moderation. Burial rites (processions, prayers, and graveside banquets) were a means to signal the significance of the deceased, while monuments could be lavish in size, material, and decoration, to ensure the continuation of the honor achieved by the dead. Expense on such matters was open to moral and philosophical critique (see, e.g., Plato, Leg. 717d; 958c\u2013959e). Josephus draws from this tradition (he has no biblical base) as another means of claiming virtue in contemporary philosophical terms; but elsewhere he notes that expensive funerary rites are a Jewish custom, reducing many to penury (J.W. 2.1).
\nshare in the mourning The relatives are to be expected, though Jewish tradition prevented priests from attending the burials of all but their immediate blood relatives (Lev. 21:1\u20134). The addition of passers-by was a common social courtesy, since a funeral was a public event involving all the social ties contracted by the deceased; cf. Tob. 4:17; Sir. 7:33\u201334; Rom. 12:15; B. Ber. 18a.
\npurified Cf. Ag. Ap. 2.198. Numbers 19:1\u201322 describes the ritual of the red heifer, whose ashes, mixed with water, are sprinkled on those with corpse impurity on the third and seventh days; the rite is familiar to Josephus (Ant. 4.78\u201381; cf. 18.38). What equivalent ritual was practiced in the Diaspora is unclear. Josephus elsewhere refers to purification after seven days (Ant. 3.262), and Philo (Spec. Laws 3.205\u20139; cf. 1.256\u201366) suggests a simple sprinkling with water. The biblical law requires purification for all who enter the \u201ctent,\u201d and for all its furnishings and unstopped vessels (Num. 19:15, 18\u201319). Accordingly, Josephus speaks of both people and house needing purification, though he makes no reference to the time required or the method, nor is there any trace of the Pharisaic extension to cases of \u201covershadowing,\u201d where impurity is extended to anything which a corpse overshadows.
\nanyone who has committed murder This final clause provides a moral explanation for the rite of purification after a funeral, another attempt to place the laws within a moral\/philosophical framework. The line of thought is illuminated by Philo: \u201cWith such forethought did he [Moses] guard against someone being responsible for causing another\u2019s death that he thought it necessary that even those who touch a corpse that has met a natural death should not be clean at once until they have been purified through sprinkling and washing\u201d (Spec. Laws 3.205). Corpse impurity is thus explained as a means to demonstrate the moral impurity in causing another\u2019s death: to reinforce the fact that murder is impure, Moses made even a natural, ordinary death a cause of impurity.
\n206. second to honoring God The topic is a natural extension from Ag. Ap. 2.204\u20135; honoring of parents is another aspect of good order in the household. The command to honor father and mother stands fifth in the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:12; Deut. 5:16; cf. Lev. 19:3). Its position following commandments about God, and before other laws on human relations, encouraged reflection on its special status (see Philo, Decalogue 51, 106\u20137). B. Kid. 30B states a similar idea: \u201cThere are three partners in [creating] humans: God, his father, and his mother. When a person honors his father and mother, God says, \u2018I consider it as if I dwelled amongst them and they honored me.\u2019 \u201d
\nreciprocate the gifts he has received The obligation of reciprocity toward a benefactor was everywhere assumed in antiquity. It was also common to describe parents as benefactors, whose gifts to their children should be returned in honor and reciprocal care (e.g., Josephus, Ant. 1.231; 4.261\u201362; Philo, Decalogue 111\u201318; Spec. Laws 2.229\u201330). The emphasis on even minor failure in this regard (cf. Philo, Hypothetica 7.1\u20132) matches Josephus\u2019s desire to underline the strictness of the law (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.215\u201317, 276\u201377). In fact, death by stoning was required only in the case of a \u201cwayward and defiant son\u201d (Deut. 21:18; see also the next comment); elsewhere Josephus emphasizes that it is a measure of last resort (Ant. 4.260\u201365).
\nstoned The death penalty has already been specified in two other cases (Ag. Ap. 2.199, 201). Exodus 21:15, 17 requires the death penalty (means unspecified) for insulting either parent. Stoning is the punishment for the rebellious son, a draconian law that was generally qualified or limited in application. Josephus paraphrases it elsewhere, adding a parental plea (Ant. 4.260\u201365).
\nhonor everyone who is older This instruction extends beyond the borders of the household, but respect for elders was often twinned with respect for parents (Philo, Spec. Laws 2.237\u201338; Pseudo-Phocylides 220\u201322). A specifically scriptural root may be identified in Lev. 19:32 (cf. Sir. 8:6), but the expectation was common across all ancient cultures.
\nsince God is oldest This explanation is brief to the point of obscurity. The source of the idea is probably philosophical: since what is older is the origin of what is younger, and since God is the cause and maker of all things, God must be the oldest reality of all (the adjective here is neuter, not masculine; for the logic, see Philo, Spec. Laws 2.228; Decalogue 69).
\n207. friendship The horizon widens further to relationships beyond the household. The themes of friendship and trust (cf. Pseudo-Phocylides 218) are characteristic of Jewish Wisdom Literature, rather than its Law. In the Greek definition of friendship \u201ceverything is common between friends,\u201d and since many relationships could be characterized as \u201cfriendship,\u201d the motif defines close social bonds of various kinds.
\nif some hostility ensues For friends becoming enemies, cf. Sir. 6:8\u201312; 22:22; 27:16\u201321 (betraying secrets). The sentiment and its terms are closely paralleled in Philo, Hypothetica 7.8.
\nIf a judge accepts bribes The focus has now broadened to communal justice (for communal justice as a virtue, see Ag. Ap. 2.146, 170), though its treatment is extremely brief (cf. 2.216 for the law on weights and measures). The law prohibits judges taking bribes (Exod. 23:8; Deut. 16:19) but cites no penalty (cf. Ant. 4.216; 9.3; M. Bek. 4:6), though this injustice is the subject of a Deuteronomic curse (Deut. 27:25). For Plato, even if the judge gives the right verdict, his acceptance of bribes requires putting him to death (Leg. 955c\u2013d). This discussion has certainly influenced Philo (Spec. Laws 4.62\u201367). Josephus may also be influenced by Plato (directly or at one remove), though his strictness may simply reflect his particular emphasis on the death penalty (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.199, 201, 206).
\nIgnoring a suppliant The suppliant may be a beggar (cf. Philo, Hypothetica 7.6), but might also represent other kinds of need (Josephus uses a related verb when speaking of animals, Ag. Ap. 2.213), and the sentiment has its closest parallel in the general rule of Prov. 3:27.
\n208. he shall not pick up The three prohibitions in this section have no connecting particles but are united in banning greed. This first is drawn from the Greek tradition. Although the Torah contains laws about returning a deposit and extracting repayment of a loan (Deut. 24:10\u201311; cf. Ant. 4.268\u201369), this rule concerns taking property whose ownership is uncertain (lost property or treasure trove). There are some biblical materials on this topic (Lev. 5:22; Deut. 22:1\u20133; cf. M. BM 1\u20132), but the principle expressed here (and repeated in Ag. Ap. 2.216) is more or less exactly that known in the Greek tradition as a rule of Solon (Diogenes Laertius, Lives 1.57). It is cited as such by Plato.
\ntouch nothing belonging to others Here the ownership is clear (what belongs to others), so the phenomenon is clearly theft. The Eighth Commandment, against stealing (Exod. 20:13; Deut. 5:17; cf. Lev. 19:11), is expanded in other biblical laws.
\nhe shall not extract interest There are several biblical sources for this law: Exod. 22:24 (22:25 LXX), against imposing interest on \u201cthe poor among you\u201d (NJPS) or \u201ca poor brother near you\u201d (LXX); Lev. 25:35\u201337 (the wording of the Septuagint, LXX, is close to that of Josephus), regarding a \u201ckinsman\u201d (NJPS) or \u201cbrother\u201d (LXX); Deut. 23:20\u201321 (23:19\u201320 LXX), allowing interest from a foreigner, but not from an Israelite; cf. Ps. 15:5; Ezek. 18:8, 13, 17. In Ant. 4.266, Josephus had cited this law as applying only to Israelites, and only in relation to food; cf. the exegesis of this law in Philo, Spec. Laws 2.74\u201378; Virtues 82\u201387; 4 Macc. 2:8; M. BM 5:1\u201311. Josephus does not make explicit that the law applies only to relations among Jews (the context is sensitive; see Ag. Ap. 2.148), though the following statement (\u201cThese [rules] \u2026 cement our fellowship\u201d) indicates that all these rules concern \u201cfellowship\u201d within the Jewish community.
\n209. kindness \u2026 to foreigners This new paragraph (\u00a7\u00a7209\u201310) is different in style and content from its surrounding context. In contrast to the rules summarized in 2.199\u2013208, 211\u201314, the material in \u00a7\u00a7209\u201310 is general, more a comment about the tone and purpose of the legislation than a summary of laws themselves. In fact, the ideas and much of the vocabulary are closely paralleled in other parts of this treatise, especially in 2.255\u201361, and seem designed to support the later, apologetic discussion of Jewish attitudes toward \u201cforeigners\u201d (2.236\u201386, with 2.257\u201361 at its heart). This first sentence of \u00a7209 signals the shift of topic to \u201cforeigners\u201d (in contrast to fellowship \u201cwith one another,\u201d \u00a7208), and the new section, which runs to 2.214, is held together by reference to \u201ckindness.\u201d If Josephus has particular laws in mind, it might be those which forbid oppressing the \u201cstranger\u201d (e.g., Exod. 22:20; Lev. 19:33\u201334; Deut. 10:19).
\nshould neither corrupt our own habits The balance between restriction and welcome is evident in the balanced arrangement of Ag. Ap. 2.209\u201310: restriction (in this clause), welcome (in the next clause), welcome (\u00a7210a), restriction (\u00a7210b). Elsewhere, Josephus vividly illustrates the fear of corruption in the story of the Midianite women (Ant. 4.129\u201355), where marriage to non-Jews introduces idolatry, and threatens to destroy the Jewish way of life (4.140). The Rabbis also strike a balance between encouraging and testing the sincerity of potential converts (B. Yev. 47A).
\nthose who choose to share our ways The notion of \u201cchoice\u201d is crucial (repeated immediately in \u00a7210; cf. \u201cagreement\u201d in Ag. Ap. 2.123). To \u201cshare our ways\u201d entails greater commitment than mere imitation of Jewish customs (discussed in 2.280\u201386, with different terms). Josephus is here speaking of (what we call) \u201cproselytes,\u201d whose adoption of Jewish culture he describes with a variety of terms (cf. 2.123). Cf. Philo\u2019s discussion of this phenomenon (e.g., Spec. Laws 1.51\u201353; 4.178; Virtues 102\u20138, 182, 212\u201319).
\n210. a friendly welcome Jewish communities rarely if ever engaged in active proselytization, if that is defined (like Christian \u201cmission\u201d) as a systematic policy to \u201csave\u201d Gentiles. But \u201cfriendly welcome\u201d (active support) for those who wished to become proselytes may be presupposed by the fact that the phenomenon occurred at all, and with enough frequency (in Rome) to elicit hostile remarks from Tacitus (Hist. 5.5.1) and Juvenal (Satires 14.96\u2013106). Josephus has an extended account of the assistance given to Izates, king of Adiabene (Ant. 20.17\u201396).
\naffinity In relation to proselytes, Philo insists that the truest affinity lies in common virtue, a phenomenon broader and deeper than physical kinship. Josephus stretches \u201caffinity\u201d beyond relations of \u201cbirth,\u201d with which he juxtaposes (not opposes) \u201cchoice.\u201d Josephus does not explain whether or how the ethnicity of the proselyte might be redefined (cf. Ant. 20.37 on Izates\u2019 desire to become \u201csecurely Jewish\u201d); the matter was sensitive in Rome, where proselytes could be accused of abandoning their Romanness (Tacitus, Hist. 5.5.1).
\nmixed with our intimate ways A concern about \u201cmixing\u201d is characteristic of this treatise, and Josephus here anticipates the argument of Ag. Ap. 2.236\u201386. The forms of forbidden mixing might include Gentile participation in domestic rites (e.g., Passover; see Exod. 12:43), Temple access (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.104; Ant. 3.318\u201319), table fellowship (Ag. Ap. 2.174, 258), and intermarriage.
\n211. to all who request them Cf. 2.207 on not ignoring a suppliant; Prov. 25:21 specifies giving food and water to enemies. The universal scope helps refute the impression that Judeans are misanthropic (Ag. Ap. 2.148). In Philo (Hypothetica 7.6) we find the same rule: not begrudging fire to one who needs it, nor closing off running water, but giving food to the poor and crippled. Although the vocabulary is different, the same three items are found in the same order. In fact both texts draw from a common tradition, a stock of Greek precepts traditionally known as \u201cthe curses of Bouzyges\u201d (cf. Hypothetica 7.8; Bouzyges was a priest of Zeus Teleios who pronounced curses against social crimes). This flexible tradition inculcated the basic rules of civility, including this and the next two items in this section. The tradition was known in Rome (Cicero, Off. 1.52; 3.54\u201355), and Josephus draws from it (rather than the Law) to insist that Jews are as civilized as any others. The Rabbis similarly decree that one must give charity to the poor among the Gentiles, visit the sick among the Gentiles, and bury the dead of Gentiles along with those of Israel (B. Git. 61A).
\nto point the way Biblical law forbids misleading a blind person (Deut. 27:18), or placing a stumbling block in a blind person\u2019s path (Lev. 19:14); cf. Ant. 4.276. But this rule is also influenced by the Bouzygian tradition, where aiding the lost was a fundamental duty (cf. Cicero, Off. 1.52; 3.54\u201355; Seneca, Ben. 4.29.1; Ep. 95.51). Juvenal scorns Jews in Rome as a clannish, antisocial group, and complains that they do not point the way to any but those who practice the same rites (Sat. 14.103). If Juvenal voices a Roman impression, that Jews flout the rules of common civility, Josephus is eager to claim an exemplary humanity.
\nunburied corpse The duty to bury the dead was noted in Ag. Ap. 2.205, but is here universal. The biblical law presumes this duty, and applies it even to criminals (Deut. 21:22\u201323; cf. J.W. 3.377; 4.317; Ant. 4.265). The duty was regarded in antiquity as one of the unwritten or \u201cnatural\u201d laws, and Josephus is horrified by failure to observe this duty even in time of war (J.W. 4.317 [By Idumaeans]; 4.381\u201382 [By Zealots, a crime against the laws of nature and country]; 6.2\u20133), and takes for granted that everyone would want to cover the dead with at least a sprinkling of soil (J.W. 4.332; 5.514). In the biblical tradition, it is regarded as terrible to die, like an animal, unburied (e.g., Jer. 16:4; 22:19), and the theme is particularly prominent in Tobit (e.g., 1:17\u201318; 2:7; 4:3; 12:12\u201313); cf. Pseudo-Phocylides 99.
\n212. setting their country on fire Biblical law does not specifically address this topic, though it does address the next (cutting down trees; see the next comment), and the two are related features of a \u201cscorched earth\u201d policy. Josephus had considerable experience of houses and villages being set on fire during the revolt against Rome in 66 CE (e.g., J.W. 4.443\u201348. 488, 536\u201337), not to mention the burning of Jerusalem (J.W. 6.407).
\ncutting down cultivated trees Deut. 20:19\u201320 allows taking the fruit from fruit trees, but not cutting them down; but if they do not produce fruit, the timber can be used for siege works. It was (and still is in the midst of contemporary hostilities) customary to destroy the enemy\u2019s orchards of fruit and olive trees. Indeed, the Bible records this as practiced against the Moabites (2 Kings 3:19, 25; Ant. 9.36, 41), at the instigation of Elisha, while Josephus notes the Roman devastation of trees around Jerusalem, at the time of the siege (J.W. 5.107, 523; 6.5\u20137; cf. later, 7.211). The Deuteronomic ban is echoed in Jewish literature, with imaginative comment on its rationale (Ant. 4.299; Philo, Spec. Laws 4.226\u201329; Virtues 150\u201354; 4 Macc. 2:14). Cf. the Rabbinic extension of this prohibition to anything useful, even when not at war (B. Kid. 32a).
\nthose who have fallen in battle In antiquity, it was normal in war to take captives as slaves and to strip the dead of their weapons or anything else of value (e.g., their clothes). The Law has no comment on this practice (cf. Exod. 23:4, on returning an enemy\u2019s livestock), but the biblical narratives suggest to Josephus that Jewish soldiers stripped their enemies in the usual way (Josephus points out that Moses even ordered this). This ban (cf. Life 128) thus seems dependent more on the Greek than the biblical tradition. Plato\u2019s discussion of this topic (Resp. 469c\u2013e) allowed stripping off weapons, but nothing else. Josephus uses the same term, without indicating if weapons may be taken; he thus presents Jews as exceptionally generous to their enemies.
\nespecially women Enslavement is not prohibited, only \u201cabuse,\u201d a term that, in connection with women, had sexual connotations (cf. Ag. Ap. 2.201, 270). It was normal to rape captive women, married or unmarried, as Josephus presumes elsewhere (1.35; J.W. 7.334, 377, 385; Ant. 3.276; 13.292). The biblical law allows sexual intercourse with a captive woman, after a month\u2019s interval, on the condition that she is either kept thereafter as a wife or allowed to go free (Deut. 21:10\u201314). Elsewhere, Josephus paraphrases this closely (Ant. 4.257\u201359), though it was modified in other traditions (Philo, Spec. Laws 4.223\u201325; Virtues 110\u201315; Hypothetica 7.8). Here he implies a total ban on the sexual use of captives, stretching to an ideal above the Law.
\n213. civility and benevolence For the former (h\u0113merot\u0113s) see Ag. Ap. 2.151; for the latter (philanthr\u014dpia), 2.146. The laws concerning enemies could be put under several headings, such as kindness (Philo, Virtues 116\u201320), self-restraint (Philo, Virtues 125\u201327), or the triumph of reason (4 Macc. 2:14).
\nbrute animals In the hierarchy of nature, animals are viewed as much lower than humans; that the Law even considers them can occasion surprise (e.g., Paul at 1 Cor. 9:9\u201310). Their inclusion here seems justified a fortiori: if we are to be kind to animals, how much more to humans (cf. Philo, Spec. Laws 4.196; Virtues 140, 160)? Philo (Hypothetica 7.9) regards laws on animals (including those here cited) as \u201clittle things\u201d that may seem worthless (cf. M. Hul. 12:5).
\ndisallowed all others The application is not immediately clear (asses may be beaten, Ag. Ap. 2.87). Some find an allusion to including animals in Sabbath rest (Deut. 5:14) or the ban on muzzling the ox (Deut. 25:4). Philo (Hypothetica 7.7) notes a prohibition on gelding. However, the reference to \u201cuse\u201d here suggests either food laws (Lev. 11; Deut. 14:3\u201321), or the ban on sexual contact (Exod. 22:18; Lev. 18:23; 20:15\u201316; Deut. 27:21; Pseudo-Phocylides 188).
\nThose that take refuge in homes \u2026 he prohibited killing No biblical warrant exists for this law, but we find it, with very similar vocabulary, in Philo (Hypothetica 7.9).<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
of [or leader of] the people [or crowd],\u201d is best interpreted with Goldstein as \u201cin charge of the non-combatants.\u201d It is they whom Jonathan sends with the baggage for safekeeping across the Jordan. The Nabatean Arabs must have maintained some degree of freedom from the Seleucids and seemed like a reliable refuge. 36. sons of … <\/p>\n