Mac'cabee (MACCABAE'US), a title (usually in the plural οἱ Μακκαβαῖοι, '"the Maccabees"), which was originally the surname of Judas, one of the sons of Mattathias (see below, § 3), but was afterwards extended to the heroic family of which he was one of the noblest representatives, and in a still wider sense to the Palestinian martyrs in the persecution of Antiochus Epiphanes, SEE MACCABEES 4, a and even to the Alexandrine Jews who suffered for their faith at an earlier time. SEE 3 MACCABEES. In the following account of the Maccabaean family and revolution we shall endeavor to fill up this interesting interval of inspiration.
I. The Name. — The original term Maccabee (ὁ Μακκαβαῖος) has been variously derived. Some have maintained that it was derived from the banner of the tribe of Dan, which contained the last letters of the names of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Others imagine that it was formed from the combination of the initial letters of the Hebrew sentence, "Who among the gods is like unto thee, Jehovah?" (Ex 15:11; Hebrew י, ב, כ, מ), which is supposed to have been inscribed upon the banner of the patriots; or, again, of the initials of the simply descriptive title, "Mattathias, a priest, the son of Johanan." But, even if the custom of forming such words was in use among the Jews at this early time, it is obvious that such a title would not be an individual title in the first instance, as Maccabee undoubtedly was (1 Macc. 2:4), and still remains among the Jews (Raphall, Hist. of the Jews, 1:249). Moreover, the orthography of the word in Greek and Syriac (Ewald, Geschichte, 4:352, note) points to the form מקבי, and not מכבי. Another derivation has been proposed, which, although direct evidence is wanting, seems satisfactory. According to this, the word is formed from
מִקָּבָה, "a hammer" (like Malachi, Ewald, 4:353, n.), giving a sense not altogether unlike that in which Charles CMartel derived a surname from his favorite weapon, and still more like the Malleus Scotorum and Malleus Haereticorum of the Middle Ages.
Although the name Maccabees has gained the widest currency, that of Asmeonaeans, or Hasmonans, is the proper name of the family. The origin of this name also has been disputed; but the obvious derivation from Chashmon (חִשׁמָן, Α᾿αμωναῖος; comp. Gesenius, Thesaur. page 534 b), great-grandfather of Mattathias, seems certainly correct. How it came to pass that a man, otherwise obscure, gave his name to the family, cannot now be discovered; but no stress can be laid upon this difficulty, nor upon the fact that in Jewish prayers (Herzfeld, Geschichte c. Jud. 1:264) Mattathias himself is called ilashmonai. In Ps 68:32 we meet with a word חִשׁמִנַּם, to the supposed singular of which, חִשׁמָן, the name in question is commonly referred. In this case it might have been given to the priest of the course of Joarib to signify that he was a wealthy or a powerful person. In Jos 15:27 we find a town in the tribe of Judah called חֶשׁמוֹן, from which this name might equally be derived. Herzfeld's proposed derivation from חסם, "to temper steel," is fanciful and groundless. The word in the first instance appears more like a family than a personal name. The later Hebrew form is חשמונאי. See Zipser, Benennung der Makkabaer (in the Ben-Chananjah, 1860). SEE ASMONAEAN.
II. Pedigree. — The connection of the various members of the Maccabsean family will be seen from the table given below.
III. History of the War of Independence, involving that of the Individuals of the Family. —
1. The first of this family who attained distinction was the aged priest MATTATHIAS, who dwelt at Modin, a city west of Jerusalem and near the sea, of which the site has yet been but partly identified by modern research. He was the son of John, the son of Simon, the son of Asamonneus, as Josephus tells us, and was himself the father of five sons — John, otherwise called Gaddis; Simon, called Thassi; Judas, called Maccabaeus; Eleazar, called Avaran; and Jonathan, surnamed Apphus. Ewald remarks that Simon and John were favorite names in this family. After the expulsion of Antiochus Epiphanes from Egypt by the Romans, that monarch proceeded to vent his rage and indignation on the Jews. B.C. 168. SEE ANTIOCHIUS. He massacred vast numbers of them in Jerusalem on the Sabbath, took the women captives, and built a fortress on Mount Zion, which he used as a central position for harassing the people around. He ordered one Athenaeus to instruct, the inhabitants of Judaea and Samaria in the rites of the Grecian religion, with a view to abolishing all vestiges of the Jewish worship. Having succeeded in bringing the Samaritans to renounce their religion, he further went to Jerusalem, where he prohibited the observance of all Jewish ceremonies, obliged the people to eat swine's flesh and profane the Sabbath, and forbade circumcision. The Temple was dedicated to Olympian Jove, and his altar erected upon the altar of burnt-offering, which the first book of Maccabees, apparently quoting Daniel, calls the setting up of the abomination of desolation. When, therefore, Apelles, the king's officer (Josephus, Ant. 12:6, 2), came to Modin to put in force the royal edict against the national religion, he made splendid offers to Mattathias if he would comply. The old man, however, not only refused, but publicly declared his determination to live and die in the religion of his fathers; and when a certain Jew came forward openly to sacrifice in obedience to the edict, he slew him upon the altar. He slew, moreover, the king's commissioner, and destroyed the altar. Then, offering himself as a rallying-point for all who were zealous for the law, he fled to the mountains. Many others, with their wives and children, followed his example, and fled. They were pursued, however, by the officers of Antiochus, and, refusing even to defend themselves on the Sabbath day, were slain to the number of 1000. On this occasion the greatness of Mattathias displayed itself in the wise counsel he gave his companions and countrymen, which passed subsequently into the ordinary custom, that they should not forbear to fight upon the Sabbath day in so far as to defend themselves. While in this position, he was joined by the more austere of the two parties which had sprung up among the Jews after the return from the captivity, viz. the Assidseans, 1. the Hasidim, or pious, SEE CHASIDIM; and the Puritans, who subsequently became the Pharisees. They not only observed the written law, but superadded the constitutions and traditions of the elders, and other rigorous observances. The other party were called the Tsaddikim, or righteous, who contented themselves with that only which was written in the Mosaic law. Thus strengthened, Mattathias and his comrades carried on a sort of guerrilla warfare, and exerted themselves as far as possible to maintain and enforce the observance of the national religion. Feeling, however, that his advancing age rendered him unfit for a life so arduous, while it warned him of his approaching end, he gathered his sons together like the patriarchs of old, exhorted them to valor in a speech of great piety and faithfulness, and having recommended Simon to the office of counselor or father, and Judas to that of captain and leader, died in the year 166, and was buried in the sepulcher of his fathers at Modin. The speech which he is said to have addressed to his sons before his death is remarkable as containing the first distinct allusion to the contents of Daniel, a book which seems to have exercised the most powerful influence on the Maccabean conflict (1 Macc. 2:60; comp. Josephus, Ant. 12:6, 3).
2. Mattathias himself named JUDAS, apparently his third son, as his successor in directing the war of independence (1 Macc. 2:66). The energy and skill of "THE MACCABEE" (ὁ Μακκαβαῖος), as Judas is often called in 2 Macc., fully justified his father's preference. It appears that he had already taken a prominent part in the first secession to the mountains (2 Macc. 5:27, where Mattathias is not mentioned), and on receiving the chief command he devoted himself to the task of combining for common action those who were still faithful to the religion of their fathers (2 Macc. 8:1). His first enterprises were night-attacks and sudden surprises, which were best suited to the troops at his disposal (2 Macc. 8:6,7), and, when his men were encouraged by these means, he ventured on more important operations, and met Apollonitus (1 Macc. 3:10-12), the king's general, who had gathered a large army at Samaria, of which place he was governor, in the open field. He totally defeated his army, and slew him. He then divided the spoils, and took the sword of Apollonius for a trophy, which he used all his life afterwards in battle. Exasperated at the defeat of Apollonius, Seron (1 Macc 3:13-24), who was general of the army of Coele-Syria, got together a force, partly composed of Jews, and came against Judas as far as Bethhoron, where he pitched his camps This place, which had been rendered memorable many centuries before as the site of Joshua's great victory over the allied forces of the Canaanites, was destined now to witness a victory scarcely less glorious, wrought by a small band of Jews, spent and hungry, against the disciplined troops of Syria. Seron was completely overthrown, and his army scattered. Antiochus, though greatly enraged at this dishonor to his arms, was nevertheless compelled, by the condition of his treasury, to undertake an expedition to Armenia and Persia, with a view to recruiting his exhausted finances (1 Macc. 3:27-31). He therefore left Lysias, one of his highest lieutenants, to take charge of his kingdom, from the River Euphrates to the confines of Egypt, and having etrusted his son Antiochus to his care, and enjoined Lysias to conquer Judaea and destroy the nation of the Jews, he went into Persia. The success of Judas called for immediate attention. The governor of Jerusalem was urgent in his entreaties for assistance; Lysias therefore sent an army of 20,000 men, under the command of Nicanor and Gorgias, into Judaea. It was followed by another of the same number, with an addition of 7000 horse, under Ptolemy Macron, the son of Dorymcnes, as commander-in- chief. The united forces encamped in the plains of Emmaus. To oppose this formidable host Judas could only muster 6000 men at Mizpeh. Here, as Samuel had done a thousand years before at a like period of national calamity, he fasted and prayed, and, in compliance with the Mosaic injunction, advised those who were newly married, or had built houses, and the like, to return to their homes. This reduced his number to one half. The heroic spirit of Judas, however, rose against every difficulty, and he marched towards Emmaus. B.C. 166. Having heard that Gorgias had been dispatched with a force of 6000 men to surprise him in the passes by night, he instantly resolved to attack the enemies' camp. He rushed upon them unexpectedly, and completely routed them; so that when Gorgias returned, baffled and weary, he was dismayed at finding his camp in flames. In the brief struggle which ensued the Jews were victorious, and took much spoil. The year following, Lysias gathered together an army of 60,000 chosen men, with 5000 horse, went up in person to the hill-country of Judaea, and pitched his camp at a place called Bethsura, the Bethzur of the Old Test. Here Judas met him with 10,000 men, attacked his vanguard, and slew 5000 of them, whereupon Lysias retreated with the remainder of his army to Antioch. After this series of triumphs Judas proceeded to Jerusalem. There he found the sanctuary desolate, shrubs growing in the courts of it, and the chambers of the priests thrown down; so he set to work at once to purify the holy places and restore the worship of God (1 Macc. 4:36, 41- 53) on the 25th of Kislev, exactly three years after its profanation (1 Mace. 1:59; Grimm on 1 Macc. 4:59). In commemoration of this cleansing of the Temple, the Jews afterwards kept for eight days annually a festival which was called Lights, and was known as the Feast of Dedication (Joh 10:22). SEE DEDICATION, FEAST OF. Judas, having strongly fortified the citadel of Mount Zion, and placed a garrison at Bethsura, made an expedition into Idumaea. The Syrians meanwhile, frustrated in their efforts against Judaea, turned their attention to Galilee and the provinces beyond Jordan. A large army from Tyre and Ptolemais attacked the north, and Timotheus laid waste Gilead, whereupon Judas determined to divide his army into three. He himself, with Jonathan, led 8000 men across the Jordan into Gilead; his brother Simon he sent with 3000 into Galilee; and the rest he left behind, under the command of Joseph, the son of Zacharias, and Azarias, for the protection of Judaea, with strict injunctions to act only on the defensive. These orders, however, they imprudently violated by an attack upon the sea-port Jamnia, where they met with a signal repulse. But the Maccabees in Gilead and Galilee were triumphant as usual, and added to their renown.
Antiochus Epiphanes, meanwhile, had died in his Persian expedition, B.C. 164, and Lysias immediately proclaimed his son, Antiochus Eupator, king, the true heir, Demetrius, the son of Seleucus, being a hostage at Rome. One of the first acts of Lysias was directed against the Jews. He assembled an enormous army of 100,000 men and 32 elephants, and proceeded to invest Bethsura. The city defended itself gallantly. Judas marched from Jerusalem to relieve it, and slew about 5000 of the Syrians. It was upon this occasion that his brother Eleazar sacrificed himself by rushing under an elephant which he supposed carried the young king, and stabbing it in the belly, so that it fell upon him. The Jews, however, were compelled to retreat to Jerusalem, whereupon Bethsura surrendered, and the royal army advanced to besiege the capital. Here the siege was resisted with vigor, but the defenders of the city suffered from straitness of provisions, because of its being the sabbatical year. They would therefore have had to surrender; but Lysias was recalled to Antioch by reports of an insurrection under Philip, who, at the death of Antiochus, had been appointed guardian of the young king. He was consequently glad to make proposals of peace, which were as readily accepted by the Jews. He had no sooner, however, effected an entrance into the city than he violated his engagements by destroying the fortifications, and immediately set out with all haste for the north. There Demetrius Soter, the lawful heir to the Syrian throne, encountered him, and, after a struggle, Antiochus and Lysias were slain, leaving Demetrius in undisputed possession of the kingdom.
Menelaus, the high-priest at this time, had purchased his elevation to that rank by selling the sacred vessels of the Temple. Hoping to serve his own ends, he joined himself to the army of Lysias, but was slain by command of Antiochus. Onias, the son of the high-priest whom Menelaus had supplanted, fled into Egypt, and Alcimuls or Jacimus, not of the high- priestly family, was raised to the dignity of high-priest. By taking this man under his protection, Demetrius hoped to weaken the power of the Jews. He dispatched Bacchides with Alcimus to Jerusalem, with orders to slay the Maccabees and their followers. Jerusalem yielded to one who came with the authority of the high-priest, but Alcimus murdered sixty of the elders as soon as he got them into his power. Bacchides also committed sundry atrocities in other parts. No sooner, however, had he left Judaea than Maccabaeus again rose against Alcimus, and drove him to Antioch, where he endeavored as far as possible to injure Judas with the king. Upon this Demetrius sent Nicanor with a large army to reinstate Alcimus, and when he came to Jerusalem, which was still held by the Syrians. he endeavored to get Judas into his power by stratagem, but the plot being discovered, he was compelled to meet him in the field. They joined battle at Capharsalama, and Nicanor lost about 5000 men; the rest fled to the stronghold of Zion. Here he revenged himself with great cruelty, and threatened yet further barbarities unless Judas was delivered up. As the people refused to betray their champion, Nicanor was again compelled to fight. He pitched his camp ominously enough in Bethhoron; his troops were completely routed, and he himself slain. The next act of Judas was to make an alliance with the Romans, who entered into it eagerly; but no sooner was it contracted than the king made one more determined effort for the subjugation of Palestine, sending Alcimus ad Bacchides, with all the flower of his army, to a place called Berea or Bethzetho, apparently near Jerusalem. The Roman alliance seems to have alienated many of the extreme Jewish party from Judas (Midr. Hhanuka, quoted by Raphall, Hist. of Jews, 1:325). Moreover, the terror inspired by this host was such that Judas found himself deserted by all but 800 followers, who would fain have dissuaded him from encountering the enemy. His reply was worthy of him: "If our time be come, let us die manfully for our brethren, and let us not stain our honor." He fought with such valor that the right wing, commanded by Bacchides, was repulsed and driven to a hill called Azotus or Aza, but the left wing doubled upon the pursuers from behind, so that they were shut in, as it were, between two armies. The battle lasted from morning till night. Judas was killed, and his followers, overborne by numbers, were dispersed. His brothers Jonathan and Simon received his body by a treaty from the enemy, and buried it in the sepulcher of his fathers at Modin, B.C. 161. Thus fell the greatest of the Maccabees, a hero worthy of being ranked with the noblest of his country, and conspicuous among all, in any age or clime, who have drawn the sword of liberty in defense of their dearest and most sacred rights.
3. After the death of Judas the patriotic party seems to have been for a short time wholly disorganized, and it was only by the pressure of unparalleled sufferings that they were driven to renew the conflict. For this purpose they offered the command to JONATHAN, surnamed Apphus (חִפּוּשׂ, the wary), the youngest son of Mattatthias. The policy of Jonathan shows the greatness of the loss involved in his brother's death. He was glad to see safety from Bacchides among the pools and marshes of the Jordan (1 Macc. 9:42), whither he was pursued by him. At the same time, also, his brother John was killed by a neighboring Arab tribe. Jonathan took occasion to revenge his brother's death upon a marriage-party, for which he lay in wait, and then repulsed an attack of Bacchides, and slew a thousand of his men. At this point Alcimus died, and Bacchides, after fortifying the strong towns of Judaea, returned to Antioch; but upon Jonathan again emerging from his hiding-place, Bacchides came back with a formidable army, and was for some time exposed to the desultory attacks of Jonathan, till weary of this mode of fighting, or for other reasons, he thought it fit to conclude a peace with him, and returned to his master. B.C. 158. The Maccabee was thus left in possession of Judaea (1 Macc. 9:73), and had not long afterwards an opportunity offered him of consolidating his position; for there sprung up one Alexander Balas, who was believed to be a son of Antiochus Epiphanes, and laid claim to the throne of Syria. Demetrius and Alexander mutually competed for the alliance of Jonathan, but Alexander was successful, having offered him the high-priesthood, and sent him a purple robe and a golden crown — the insignia of royalty — and promised him exemption from tribute as well as other advantages. Jonathan thereupon assumed the high-priesthood, and became the friend of Alexander, who forthwith met Demetrius in the field, slew him, usurped his crown, and allied himself (B.C. 150) in marriage with Cleopatra, the daughter of Ptolemy Philometor, king of Egypt. Jonathan was invited to the wedding, and was made much of at court. In return, he attacked and defeated Apollonius, the general of Demetrius Nicator, who aspired to his father's throne, besieged Joppa, captured Azotus, and destroyed the temple of Dagon. The prosperity, however, of Alexander was of short duration, for Ptolemy, being jealous of his power, marched with a large army against him, and after putting him to flight, seized his crown, and gave his wife to Demetrius. On the other hand, the overthrow of Alexander was speedily followed by the death of Ptolemy, and Demetrius was left in possession of the throne of Syria. Jonathan, meanwhile, besieged Jerusalem, and, leaving it invested, repaired to Antioch. Demetrius not only welcomed, but entered into a treaty with him, upon terms that greatly augmented the power of the Maccabee. After this Demetrius disbanded the greater part of his army and lessened their pay, which being a course contrary to that pursued by former kings of Syria, who kept up large standing armies in time of peace, created great dissatisfaction, so that upon the occasion of Jonathan writing to him to withdraw his soldiers from the strongholds of Judaea, he not only complied, but was glad to ask for the assistance of 3000 men, who were forthwith sent to Antioch. Here they rendered him signal service in rescuing him from an insurrection of his own citizens which his behavior to them had aroused. His friendship for Jonathan, however, was soon at an end, and, contrary to his promises, he threatened to make war upon him unless he paid the tribute which previous kings had exacted. This menace might have been carried out had not a formidable antagonist at home arisen in the person of Trypho, who had formerly been an officer of Alexander Balas, and had espoused the cause of his young son Antiochus Theos. This man attacked Demetrius, defeated him in battle, captured his city, drove him into exile, and placed his crown on the head of Antiochus, B.C. 144. One of the first acts of the new king was to ingratiate himself with Jonathan; he therefore confirmed him in the highpriesthood, and appointed him governor over Judaea and its provinces, besides showing him other marks of favor. His brother Simon he appointed to be general over the king's forces from what was called the Ladder of Tyre, viz., a mountain lying on the sea-coast between Tyre and Ptolemais, even to the borders of Egypt. Jonathan, in return, rendered good service to Antiochus, and twice defeated the armies of Demetrius. He then proceeded to establish his own power by renewing the treaty with Rome, entering into one also with Lacedamon, and strengthening the fortifications in Judaea. He was destined, however, to fall by treachery, for Trypho, having persuaded him to dismiss a large army he had assembled to support Antiochus, decoyed him into the city of Ptolemais, and then took him prisoner. The Jews immediately raised Simon to the command, and paid a large sum to ransom Jonathan. Trypho, however, took the money, but, instead of releasing Jonathan, put him to death, and then, thinking that the main hinderance to his own ambitious designs was removed, caused Antiochus to be treated in the same manner. Thus fell the third of the illustrious Maccabaean race, who distinguished himself nobly in the defense of his country, B.C. 143. When Simon heard of his brother's death he fetched his bones from Bascama, where he had been buried, and had them interred at Modin. Here he erected to his memory a famous monument of a great height, built of white marble, elaborately wrought, near which he placed seven pyramids, for his father and mother and their five sons, the whole being surrounded with a stately portico. For many years afterwards this monument served the purpose of a beacon for sailors, and it was standing in the time of Eusebius. SEE MODIN.
4. The last remaining brother of the Maccabee family was thus SIMON, surnamed "Thassi" (Θασσί, Θασσίς; the meaning of the title is uncertain. Michaelis [Grimm, on 1 Maccabees 2] thinks that it represents the Chaldee תִּדשַׁי). As above related, when he heard of the detention of Jonathan in Ptolemais by Trypho, he placed himself at the head of the patriot party, who were already beginning to despond, and effectually opposed the progress of the Syrians. His skill in war had been proved in the lifetime of Judas (1 Maccabees 5:17-23), and he had taken an active share in the campaigns of Jonathan, when he was entrusted with a distinct command (1 Maccabees 11:59). He was soon enabled to consummate the object for which his family had fought gloriously, but ill vain. When Trypho, after having put Jonathan to death, murdered Antiochus, and seized the throne, Simon made overtures to Demetrius II (B.C. 143) against Trypho. He was consequently confirmed in his position of sovereign high-priest. He then turned his attention to establishing the internal peace and security of his kingdom. He fortified Bethsura, Jamnia, Joppa, and Gaza, and garrisoned them with Jewish soldiers. The Lacedaemonians sent him a flattering embassy, desiring to renew their treaty; to Rome also he sent a shield of gold of immense value, and ratified his league with that nation. See SPARTAN. He moreover took the citadel of Jerusalem by siege, which up to this time had always been occupied by the Syrian faction; and, besides pulling it down, even levelled the hill on which it was built, with immense labor, that so the Temple might not be exposed to attacks from it. Under the wise government of this member of the Asmonaean family Judaea seems to have attained the greatest height of prosperity and freedom she had known for centuries, or even knew afterwards. The writer of the first book of the Maccabees evidently rejoices to remember and record it. "The ancient men," he says, "sat all in the streets communing together of good things, and the young men put on glorious and warlike apparel. He made peace in the land, and Israel rejoiced with great joy. For every man sat under his vine and his fig-tree, and there was none to fray them" (14:9, 11, 12). This time of quiet repose Simon employed in administering justice and restoring the operation of the law. He also beautified the sanctuary, and refurnished it with sacred vessels.
In the mean time Demetrius had been taken prisoner in an expedition against the Parthians, whereupon his brother Antiochus Sidetes immediately endeavored to overthrow the usurper Trypho. Availing himself of a defection in his troops, he besieged him in Dora, a town upon the sea- coast a little south of Mount Carmel. Simon sent him 2000 chosen men, with arms and money, but Antiochus was not satisfied with this assistance while he remembered the independence of Palestine. He therefore refused to receive them, and, moreover, dispatched Athenobius to demand the restoration of Joppa, Gaza, and the fortress of Jerusalem, or else the payment of a thousand talents of silver; but when the legate saw the magnificence of the high-priest's palace at Jerusalem he was astonished, and as Simon deliberately refused to comply with the terms of the king's message, and offered by way of compensation only a hundred talents for the places in dispute, Athenobius was obliged to return disappointed and enraged. Trypho meanwhile escaped from Dora by ship to Orthosia, a maritime town in Phoenicia, and Antiochus, having deputed Cendebneus to invade Judea, pursued him in person. The king's armies proceeded to Jamnia, and, having seized Cedron and fortified it, Cendebmeus made use of that place as a center from which to annoy the surrounding country. Simon at this time was too old to engage actively in the defense of his native land, and therefore appointed his two eldest sons, Judas and John Hyrcanus, to succeed him in the command of the forces. They forthwith set themselves at the head of 20,000 men, and marched from Modin to meet the king's general: they utterly discomfited and scattered his host, drove him to Cedron, and thence to Azotus, which they set on fire, and afterwards returned in triumph to Jerusalem. But destruction threatened their house from nearer home; for Ptolemy, the son of Abubus, who had married a daughter of Simon, and was governor in the district of Jericho, with plenty of money at his command, aspired to reduce the country under his dominion, and took occasion, upon a visit that Simon paid to that neighborhood, to invite him and two of his sons, with their followers, to a banquet, and then slew them (1 Maccabees 16:11-16). John alone, whose forces were at Gaza, now survived to carry on the line of the Maccabees, and sustain their glory, B.C. 135. He likewise had been included in the treacherous designs of Ptolemy, but found means to elude them. With the death of Simon the narrative of the first book of the Maccabees concludes.
5. We trace now the fortunes of the next member of the family, JOHN HYRCANUS. Having been unanimously proclaimed high-priest and ruler at Jerusalem, his first step was to march against Jericho, and avenge the death of his father and brothers. Ptolemy held there in his power the mother of Hyrcanus and her surviving sons, and, shutting himself up in a fortress near to Jericho — which Josephus calls Dagon, and Ewald Dok he exposed them upon the wall, scourged and tormented them, and threatened to throw them down headlong unless Hyrcanus would desist from the siege. This had the effect of paralyzing the efforts of Hyrcanus, and, in spite of his heroic mother's entreaties to prosecute it with vigor, and disregard her sufferings, caused him to protract it till the approach of the sabbatical year obliged him to raise the siege. Ptolemy, after killing the mother and brethren of Hyrcanus, fled to Philadelphia ("Rabbath, of the children of Ammon"), which is the last we hear of him. It is not easy to see why Milman calls this reason of the sabbatical year, which is the one assigned by Josephus, "improbable." Ewald assigns the approach of that year as a reason for the flight of Ptolemy to Zeno, the tyrant of Philadelphia, because it had already raised the price of provisions, so that it became impossible for him to remain. Antiochus meanwhile, alarmed at the energy displayed by John, invaded Judaea, burning up and desolating the country on his march, and at last besieging him in Jerusalem. He compassed the city with seven encampments and a double ditch, and Hyrcanus was reduced to the last extremities. On the recurrence, however, of the Feast of Tabernacles, Antiochus granted a truce for a week, and supplied the besieged with sacrifices for the occasion, and ended with conceding a peace, on condition that the Jews surrendered their arms, paid tribute for Joppa and other towns, and gave him 500 talents of silver and hostages. On this occasion Josephus says that Hyrcanus opened the sepulcher of David, and took out of it 3000 talents, which he used for his present needs and the payment of foreign mercenaries. This story is utterly discredited by Prideaux, passed over in silence by Milman, but apparently believed by Ewald. Some time afterwards, having made a league with Attiochus, he marched with him on an expedition to Parthia, to deliver Demetrius Nicator, the king's captive brother. This expedition proved fatal to Antiochus, who was killed in battle. Demetrius, however, made his escape, and succeeded him on the throne of Syria, whereupon Hyrcanus availed himself of the opportunity to shake off the Syrian yoke, and establish the independence of Judaea, which was maintained till the time of the subjugation by the Romans. He took two towns beyond the Jordan, Samega and Medaba, as well as the city of Sichem, and destroyed the hated Samaritan temple on Mount Gerizim, which for 200 years had been an object of abhorrence to the Jews. He then turned his arms towards Ilumsea, where he captured the towns of Dora (Ewald spells it Adora) and Marissa, and forced the rite of circumcision on the Idumaeans, who ever afterwards retained it. He proceeded further to strengthen himself by renewing a treaty, offensive and defensive, with the Romans. Demetrius, meanwhile, had little enjoyment of his kingdom. He was unacceptable to the army, who besought Ptolemy Physcon to send them a sovereign of the family of Seleucus, and he accordingly chose for them Alexander Zebina, a pretended son of Alexander Balas. Demetrius was beaten in the fight which ensued between them, and subsequently slain; whereupon Alexander tool the kingdom and made a league with Hyrcanus. He found a rival, however, in the person of Antiochus Grypus, the son of Demetrius, who defeated and slew him. The struggle which now took place between the brothers Grypus and Cyzicenus, rivals for the throne, only tended to consolidate the power of Hyrcanus, who quietly enjoyed his independence and amassed great wealth. He likewise made an expedition to Samaria, and reduced the place to great distress by siege. His sons Antigonus and Aristobulus were appointed to conduct it; and when Antiochus Cvzicenus came to the relief of the Samaritans, he was defeated and put to flight by Aristobulus. Cvzicenus, however, returned with a re- enforcement of 6000 Egyptians, and ravaged the country, thinking to compel Hyrcanus to raise the siege. The attempt, was unsuccessful, and he retired, leaving the prosecution of the Jewish war to two of his officers. They likewise failed, and, after a year, Samaria fell into the hands of Hyrcanus, who entirely demolished it, and, having dug trenches on the site, flooded it with water. After this, Hyrcanus, who himself belonged to the sect of the Pharisees, was exposed to some indignity from one of their party during a banquet, which exasperated him so far that he openly renounced them, and joined himself to the opposite faction of the Sadducees. This occurrence, however, does not seem to have prevented him from passing the remainder of his days happily. He built the palace or castle of Baris on a rock within the fortifications of the Temple. Here the princes of his line held their court. It was identical with what Herod afterwards called Antonia. There is some confusion as to the length of his reign. It probably lasted about thirty years. He left five sons. With him terminates the upper house of the Asmoneans or Maccabees, B.C. 107.
6. ARISTOBULUS succeeded his father as high-priest and supreme governor. He was the first, also, after the captivity, who openly assumed the title of king. He threw his mother, who claimed the throne, into prison, and starved her to death. Three of his brothers, also, he held in bonds. Antigonus, the other one, by whose help he subdued Iturnea or Auranitis, a district at the foot of the Anti-Libanus, was killed by treachery; and, after a year of misery and crime, Aristobulus died. His wife, Salome or Alexandra, immediately released his brethren, and Alexander Janneus was made king. One of his brothers, who showed signs of ambition, he slew, the other one he left alone. His first military act was the siege of Ptolemais, which was in the hands of the Syrians. The inhabitants sought help from Ptolemy Lathyrus, who governed Cyprus, but fearing the army of 30,000 men he brought with him, declined to open their gates to him, whereupon he attacked Gaza and Dora. Alexander pretended to treat with him for the surrender of these places, and at the same time sent to Cleopatra, the widow of Physcon, for a large army to drive him from Palestine. He detected the duplicity of this conduct, and took ample vengeance on Alexander by ravaging the country. He also defeated him with the loss of 30,000 men. Judaea was saved by a large army from Cleopatra, commanded by Chelcias and Ananias, two Jews of Alexandria. They pursued Ptolemy into Coele-Syria, and besieged Ptolemais, which was reduced. Alexander next invaded the country beyond Jordan. Here, also, he was defeated, but not thereby discouraged from attacking Gaza, which, after some fruitless attempts, he captured and totally destroyed. His worst enemies, however, were the Pharisees, who had great influence with the people, and a sedition arose during the Feast of Tabernacles, in which the troops slew 6000 of the mob. He again invaded the transJordanic country, and was again defeated. The Jews rose in rebellion, and for some years the land suffered the horrors of civil war. The rebels applied for aid to Demetrius Euchemrus, brother of Ptolemy Lathyrus, and king of Damascus, who completely routed Alexander. A sudden change of fortune, however, put him at the head of 60,000 men, and he marched in triumph to Jerusalem, where he took signal vengeance on his subjects. The rest of his life was peaceful. After a reign of twenty-seven years he died, B.C. 79, solemnly charging his wife Alexandra to espouse the Pharisaic party if she wished to retain her kingdom. His eldest son, Heranus II, became high-
priest. Aristobulus, the younger son, espoused the opposite party to his mother. In order to employ his active mind, the queen sent him northwards to check the operations of Ptolemy, king of Chalcis. He got. possession of Damascus, and won the affections of the army. After a reign of nine years his mother died, B.C. 70, and Aristobulus forthwith marched towards Jerusalem. Hyrcanus and the Pharisees seized his wife and children as hostages, and met his army at Jericho, but were discomfited, and Aristobulus entered Jerusalem and besieged his brother in the tower of Baris. At length they agreed that Hyrcanus should retire to a private station, and that Aristobulus should be king. This was a fatal blow to the Pharisees. But there was a worse enemy waiting for the conqueror. This was none other than Antipater, the Idumacan, who had been made general of all Idumnea by Alexander Jannaeus. He was wealthy, active, and seditious, and possessed, moreover, of great influence with the deposed Hyrcanus. Suspicious of the power, successes, and designs of Aristobulus, he persuaded his brother Hyrcanus to fly to Petra, to Aretas, king of Arabia, and with his help an army of 50,000 men was marched against Aristobulus. The Jews were defeated, and the usurper fled to Jerusalem, where he was closely besieged by Aretas, Antipater, and Hyrcanus. Here, however, deliverance was at length brought by Scaurus, the general of Pompeys who, having come to Damascus, and finding that the city had been taken by Metellus and Lollius, himself proceeded hastily into Judaea. His assistance was eagerly sought by both parties. Aristobulus offered him 400 talents, and Hyrcanus the same; but as the former was in possession of the treasure, Scaurus thought that his promises were the most likely to be fulfilled, and consequently made an agreement with Aristobulus, raised the siege, and ordered Aretas to depart. He then returned to Damascus; whereupon Aristobulus gathered an army, defeated Aretas and Hyrcanus, and slew 6000 of the enemy, together with Phalion, the brother of Antipater. Shortly after Pompey himself came to Damascus, when both the brothers eagerly solicited his protection. Antipater represented the cause of Hyrcanus. Pompey, however, who was intent on the subjugation of Petra, dismissed the messengers of both, and on his return from Arabia marched directly into Judaea. Aristobulus fled to Jerusalem, but, finding the city too distracted to make good its defense, offered to surrender. Gabinius was sent forward to take possession; meanwhile the soldiery had resolved to resist, and when he came he was surprised to find that the gates were shut and the walls manned. Pompey, enraged at this apparent treachery, threw Aristobulus into chains, and advanced to Jerusalem. The fortress of the Temple was impregnable except on the north, and, notwithstanding his engines, Pompey was unable to reduce it for three months; neither could he have done so then had it not been for the Jewish scruples about observing the Sabbath. The Romans soon found that they could prosecute their operations on that day without disturbance, and after a time the battering- rams knocked down one of the towers, and the soldiers effected an entrance (midsummer, B.C. 63) on the anniversary of the capture of the city by Nebuchadnezzar. Great was the astonishment of Pompey at finding the Holy of Holies empty, without an image or a statue. The wealth he found in the building he magnanimously left untouched; Hyrcanus he reinstated in the high-priesthood; the country he laid under tribute; the walls he demolished; Aristobulus and his family he carried captives to Rome. Alexander, the son of Aristobulus, on the journey made his escape, and, raising a considerable force, garrisoned Macherus, Hyrcania, and the stronghold of Alexandrion. Gabinius, however, subdued him, but had no sooner done so than Aristobulus likewise escaped from Rome, and intrenched himself in Alexandrion. He was taken prisoner, and sent in chains to Rome. At the entreaty of his wife, who had always espoused the Roman cause, Antigonus his son was released, but he remained a prisoner. Alexander, with 80,000 men, once more tried his strength with the Romans on the field of battle, but was put to flight. He was subsequently executed by Metellus Scipio at Antioch, B.C. 49. Thus Hyrcanus retained the sovereignty, but Antipater enjoyed the real power; he contrived to ingratiate himself with Caesar, who made him a Roman citizen and procurator of all Judaea. He began to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem, and made his eldest son, Phasael, governor of that city; and his younger son, Herod, governor of Galilee. The latter soon began to distinguish himself against the banditti that invested the hills. He carefully contrived also to make friends with the Roman governor of Syria, as a step to his own aggrandizement. His riches enabled him to do this by means of enormous bribes. He found, however, a troublesome enemy in Antigonus, the son of Aristobulus, who allied himself with the Parthians, and for a time held Jerusalem and kept Herod in check. At Masada, also, a city on the west coast of the Dead Sea, Antigonus was nearly successful, until Heroli at last compelled him to raise the siege. he afterwards suffered a defeat by Herod, and was finally vanquished by the Roman general Sosius, who, in derision, called him by the female name Antigona, and sent him in chains to Antony, by whom, at the request of Herod, he was put to death, B.C. 37. Thus fell the last of the Maccabees, who seemed to inherit something of their ancient spirit. Hyrcanus, who, before this, had been incapacitated for the priesthood by having his ears cut off, was subsequently, B.C. 30, in his eightieth year, put to death by Herod. The latter, meanwhile, by Augustus and Antony, was made king of Judaea, and consolidated his throne by his marriage with Mariarnne, a woman of incomparable beauty, the daughter of Alexander, son of Aristobulus, by Alexandra, the daughter of Hyrcanus II, and therefore granddaughter to both brothers. In her the race of the Asmonmeans came to an end, and by her marriage passed into the Idumaean line of the Herodians.
7. Two of the first generation of the Maccabean family still remain to be mentioned. These, though they did not attain to the leadership of their countrymen like their brothers, shared their fate — Eleazar, by a noble act of self-devotion; John, apparently the eldest brother, by treachery. The sacrifice of the family was complete, and probably history offers no parallel to the undaunted courage with which such a band dared to face death, one by one, in the maintenance of a holy cause. The result was worthy of the sacrifice. The Maccabees inspired a subject-people with independence; they found a few personal followers, and they left a nation.
III. National Effects of the Maccabaean Revolution, —
1. The great outlines of the Maccabaean contest, which are somewhat hidden in the annals thus briefly epitomized, admit of being traced with fair distinctness, though many points must always remain obscure from our ignorance of the numbers and distribution of the Jewish population, and of the general condition of the people at the time. The disputed succession to the Syrian throne (B.C. 153) was the political turning-point of the struggle, which may thus be divided into two great periods. During the first period (B.C. 168-153) the patriots maintained their cause with varying success against the whole strength of Syria; during the second (B.C. 153-139) they were courted by rival factions, and their independence was acknowledged from time to time, though pledges given in times of danger were often broken when the danger was over. The paramount importance of Jerusalem is conspicuous throughout the whole war. The loss of the Holy City reduced the patriotic party at once to the condition of mere guerrilla bands, issuing from "the mountains" or "the wilderness" to make sudden forays on the neighboring towns. This was the first aspect of the war (2 Maccabees 7:1-7; comp. 1 Maccabees 2:45); and the scene of the early exploits of Judas was the hill-country to the north-east of Jerusalem, from which he drove the invading armies at the famous battle-fields of Beth-horon and Emmaus (Nicopolis). The occupation of Jerusalem closed the first act of the war (B.C. 165); and after this Judas made rapid attacks on every side-in Idumaea, Ammon, Gilead, Galilee-but he made no permanent settlement in the countries which he ravaged. Bethsura was fortified as a defense of Jerusalem on the south; but the authority of Judas seems to have been limited to the immediate neighborhood of Jerusalem, though the influence of his name extended more widely (1 Maccabees 7:50, ἡ γῆ Ι᾿ούδα). On the death of Judas the patriots were reduced to as great distress as at their first rising; and, as Bacchides held the keys of the "mountains of Ephraim" (9:50), they were forced to find a refuge in the lowlands of Jericho, and, after some slight successes, Jonathan was allowed to settle at Michmash I undisturbed, though the whole country remained absolutely under the sovereignty of Syria. So far it seemed that little had been gained when the contest between Alexander Balas and Demetrius I opened a new period (B.C. 153). Jonathan was empowered to raise troops: the Jewish hostages were restored, many of the fortresses were abandoned, and apparently a definite district was assigned to the government of the high-priest. The former unfruitful conflicts at length produced their full harvest. The defeat at Eleasa, like the Swiss St. Jacob, had shown the worth of men who could face all odds, and no price seemed too great to secure their aid. When the Jewish leaders had once obtained legitimate power they proved able to maintain it, though their general success was checkered by some reverses. The solid power of the national party was seen by the slight effect which was produced by the treacherous murder of Jonathan. Simon was able at once to occupy his place and carry out his plans. The Syrian garrison was withdrawn from Jerusalem, Joppa was occupied as a sea-port, and "four governments" (τέσσαρες νομοί, 11:57; 13:37)-probably the central parts of the old kingdom of Judah, with three districts taken from Samaria (10:38, 39), were subjected to the sovereign authority of the high-priest.
2. The war, thus brought to a noble issue, if less famous, is not less glorious than any of those in which a few brave men have successfully maintained the cause of freedom or religion against overpowering might. The answer of Judas to those who counselled retreat (1 Maccabees 9:10) was as true-hearted as that of Leonidas; and the exploits of his followers will bear favorable comparison with those of the Swiss, or the Dutch, or the Americans. It would be easy to point out parallels in Maccabmaan history to the noblest traits of patriots and martyrs in other countries; but it may be enough here to claim for the contest the attention which it rarely receives. It seems, indeed, as if the indifference of classical writers were perpetuated in our own days, though there is no struggle — not even the wars of Joshua or David — which is more profoundly interesting to the Christian student; for it is not only in their victory over external difficulties that the heroism of the Maccabees is conspicuous: their real success was as much imperilled by internal divisions as by foreign force. They had to contend on the one hand against open and subtle attempts to introduce Greek customs, and on the other against an extreme Pharisaic party, which is seen from time to time opposing their counsels (1 Maccabees 7:12-18). It was from Judas and those whom he inspired that the old faith received its last development and final impress before the coming of our Lord.
3. For that view of the Maccabean war which regards it only as a civil and not as a religious conflict is essentially one-sided. If there were no other evidence than the book of Daniel — whatever opinion be held as to the (late of it — that alone would show how deeply the noblest hopes of the theocracy were centered in the success of the struggle. When the feelings of the nation were thus again turned with fresh power to their ancient faith, we might expect that there would be a new creative epoch in the national literature; or, if the form of Hebrew composition was already fixed by sacred types, a prophet or psalmist would express the thoughts of the new age after the models of old time. Yet, in part at least, the leaders of Maccabaean times felt that they were separated by a real chasm from the times of the kingdom or of the exile. If they looked for a prophet in the future, they acknowledged that the spirit of prophecy was not among them. The volume of the prophetic writings was completed, an, as far as appears, no one ventured to imitate its contents. But the Hagiographa, though they were already long fixed as a definite collection, SEE CANON, were equally far removed from imitation. The apocalyptic visions of Daniel, SEE DANIEL, served as a pattern for the visions incorporated in the book of Enoch, SEE ENOCH, BOOK OF; and it has been commonly supposed that the Psalter contains compositions of the Aaccabsean date. This supposition, which is at variance with the best evidence that can be obtained on the history of the Canon, can only be received upon the clearest internal proof; and it may well be questioned whether the hypothesis not as much at variance with sound interpretation as with the history of the Canon. The extreme forms of the hypothesis, as that of Hitzig, who represents Ps 1; Ps 2; Ps 44; Ps 60, and all the last three books of the Psalms (Psalm 73-150) as Maccabaean (Grimm, 1 Maccabees Einleit. § 9, 3), or of Just. Olshausen (quoted by Ewald, Jahrb. 1853, p. 250 sq.), who is inclined to bring the whole Psalter, with very few exceptions, to that date, need only be mentioned as indicating the kind of conjecture which finds currency such a subject. The real controversy is confined to a much narrower field; and the psalms which have been referred with the greatest show of reason to the Alaccabaan age are Isaiah 44, 60, 74, 79, 80, 83. It has been argued that all these speak of the dangers to which the house and people of God were exposed from heathen enemies, at a period later than the captivity; and the one ground for referring them to the time of the Maccabees is the general coincidence which they present with some features of the Greek oppression. But, if it were admitted that, the psalms in question are of a later date n han the captivity, it by no means follows that they are Maccabaean. On the contrary, they do not contain the slightest trace of those internal divisions of the people which were the most marked features of the Maccabaean struggle. The dangers then were as much from within as from without; and party jealousies brought the divine cause to the greatest peril (Ewald, Psalmen, p. 355). It is incredible that a series of Maccabaean psalms should contain no allusion to a system of enforced idolatry, or to a temporizing priesthood, or to a faithless multitude. While the obscurity which hangs over the history of the Persian supremacy from the time of Nehemiah to the invasion of Alexander makes it impossible to fix with any precision a date to which the psalms can be referred, the one glimpse which is given of the state of Jerusalem in the interval (Josephus, Ant. 11:7) is such as to show that they may well have found some sufficient occasion in the wars and disorders which attended the decline of the Persian power (comp. Ewald). It may, however, be doubted whether the arguments for a post-Babylonian date are conclusive. There is nothing in the psalms themselves which may not apply to the circumstances which attended the overthrow of the kingdom; and it seems incredible that the desolation of the Temple should have given occasion to no hymns of pious sorrow.
4. The collection of the so-called Psalms of Solomon furnishes a strong confirmation of the belief that all the canonical Psalms are earlier than the Maccabaean era. This collection, which bears the clearest traces of unity of authorship, is, almost beyond question, a true Maccabeaen work. There is every reason to believe (Ewald, Geschichte, 4:343) that the book was originally composed in Hebrew; and it presents exactly those characteristics which are wanting in the other (conjectural) Maccabaean Psalms. "The holy ones" (οἱ ὅσιοι, םחסידם SEE ASSIDAEANS; οἱ φοβούμενοι τὸν Κύριον) appear throughout as a distinct class, struggling against hypocrites and men-pleasers, who make the observance of the law subservient to their own interests (Song 4:13-15). The sanctuary is polluted by the abominations of professing servants of God before it is polluted by the heathen (Song 1:8; Song 2:1 sq.; 8:8 sq.; 17:15 sq.). National unfaithfulness is the cause of national punishment; and the end of trial is the "justification" of God (Song 2:16; Song 3:3; Song 4:9; Song 8:7 sq.; 9). On the other hand, there is a holiness of works set up in some passages which violates the divine mean of Scripture (Song 1:2-3; Song 3:9); and, while the language is full of echoes of the Old Testament, it is impossible not to feel that it wants something which we find in all the canonical writings. The historical allusions in the Psalms of Solomon are as unequivocal as the description which they give of the state of the Jewish nation. An enemy "threw down the strong walls of Jerusalem," and "Gentiles went up to the altar" (Song 2:1-3; comp. 1 Maccabees 1:31). In his pride "he wrought all things in Jerusalem, as the Gentiles in their cities do for their gods" (Song of Solomon 17:16). "Those who loved the assemblies of the saints (συναγωγὰς ὁσίων), wandered (lege ἐπλανῶντο) in deserts" (Song of Solomon 27:19; comp. 1 Maccabees 1:54; 2:28); and there "was no one in the midst of Jerusalem who did mercy and truth" (Song of Solomon 17:17; comp. 1 Maccabees 1:38). One psalm (8) appears to refer to a somewhat later period. The people wrought wickedly, and God sent upon them a spirit of error. He brought one "from the extremity of the earth" (8:16; compare 1 Maccabees 7:1 — "Demetrius from Rome"). "The princes of the land met him with joy" (1 Maccabees 7:5-8); and he entered the land in safety (1 Maccabees 7:9-12-Bacchides, his general), "as a father in peace" (1 Maccabees 7:15). Then "he slew the princes and every one wise in counsel" (1 Maccabees 7:16), and "poured out the blood of those who dwelt in Jerusalem" (1 Maccabees 7:17). The purport of these evils, as a retributive and purifying judgment, leads to the most remarkable feature of the Psalms, the distinct expression of Messianic hopes. In this respect they offer a direct contrast to the books of Maccabees (1 Maccabees 14:41). The sorrow and the triumph are seen together in their spiritual aspect, and the expectation of "an anointed Lord" (χριστὸς Κύριος, Song of Solomon 17:36 [18:8]; comp. Lu 2:11) follows directly after the description of the impious assaults of Gentile enemies (Song of Solomon 17; comp. Da 11:45; Da 12). "Blessed," it is said, "are they who are born in those days, to see the good things which the Lord shall do for the generation to come. [When men are brought] beneath the rod of correction of an anointed Lord (or the Lord's anointed, ὑπὸ ῥάβδον παιδείας χριστοῦ Κυρίου) in the fear of his God, in wisdom of spirit, and of righteousness, and of might"... then there shall be a "good generation the fear of God, in the days of mercy" (Song of Solomon 18:6-10).
5. Elsewhere there is little which marks the distinguishing religious character of the era. The notice of the Maccabaean heroes in the book of Daniel is much more general and brief than the corresponding notice of their great adversary, but it is not, on that account, less important as illustrating the relation of the famous chapter to the simple history of the period which it embraces. Nowhere is it more evident that facts are shadowed forth by the prophet only in their typical bearing on the development of God's kingdom. In this aspect the passage itself (Da 11:29-35) will supersede in a great measure the necessity of a detailed comment: "At the time appointed [in the spring of B.C. 168] he [Antiochus Epiph.] shall return and come toward the south [Egypt]; but it shall not be as the first time, so also the last time [though his first attempts shall be successful, in the end he shall fail]. For the ships of Chittim [the Romans] shall come against him, and he shall be cast down, and return, and be very wroth against the holy covenant; and he shall do [his will]; yea, he shall return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant (compare Da 8:24-25). And forces from him [at his bidding] shall stand [remain in Judaea as garrisons; comp. 1 Maccabees 1:33, 34]; and they shall pollute the sanctuary, the stronghold, and shall take away the daily [sacrifice]; and they shall set up the abonination that maketh desolate [I Maccabees 1:45-47]. And such as do wickedly against (or rather such as condemn) the covenant shall be corrupt [to apostasy] by smooth words; but the people that know their God shall be strong and do [exploits]. And they that understand [know God and his law] among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword and by flame, by captivity and by spoil [some] days (1 Maccabees 1:60-64). Now when they shall fall, they shall be holpen with a little help (1 Maccabees 1:28; 2 Maccabees 5:27; Judas Maccabees with nine others . . ); and maney shall cleave to them [the faithful followers of the law] with hypocrisy [dreading the prowess of Judas: 1 Maccabees 2:46, and yet ready to fall away at the first opportunity, 1 Maccabees 7:6]. And some of them of understanding
shall fall, to make trial among them, and to purge and to snake them white, unto the time of the end; because [the end is] yet for a time appointed." From this point the prophet describes in detail the godlessness of the great oppressor (ver. 36-39), and then his last fortunes and death (ver. 40-45), but says nothing of the triumph of the Maccabees or of the restoration of the Temple, which preceded the last event by some months. This omission is scarcely intelligible unless we regard the facts as symbolizing a higher struggle — a truth wrongly held by those who from early times referred ver. 36-45 only to Antichrist, the antitype of Antiochus-in which that recovery of the earthly temple had no place. At any rate, it shows the imperfection of that view of the whole chapter by which it is regarded as a mere transcription of history.
6. The history of the Maccabees does not contain much which illustrates in detail the religious or social progress of the Jews. It is obvious that the period must not only have intensified old beliefs, but also have called out elements which were latent in them. One doctrine at least, that of a resurrection, and even of a material resurrection (2 Maccabees 14:46), was brought out into the most distinct apprehension by suffering. "It is good to look for the hope from God, to be raised up again by him" (πάλιν ἀναστήσεσθαι ὑπ᾿ αὐτοῦ), was the substance of the martyr's answer to his judge; "as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life" (ἀνάστασις εἰς ζωήν, 2 Maccabees 7:14; comp. 6:26; 14:46). "Our brethren," says another, "have fallen, having endured a short pain leading to everlasting life, being under the covenant of God" (2 Maccabees 7:36, πόνον, ἀεννάου ζωῆς). As it was believed that an interval elapsed between death and judgment, the dead were supposed to be in some measure still capable of profiting by the intercession of the living. Thus much is certainly expressed in the famous passage, 2 Maccabees 12:43-45, though the secondary notion of a purgatorial state is in no way implied in it. On the other hand, it is not very clear how far the future judgment was supposed to extend. If the punishment of the wicked heathen in another life had formed a definite article of belief, it might have been expected to be put forward more prominently (2 Maccabees 7:17, 19, 35, etc.), though the passages in question may be understood of sufferings after death, and not only of earthly sufferings; but for the apostate Jews there was a certain judgment in reserve (6:26). The firm faith in the righteous providence of God shown in the chastening of his people, as contrasted with his neglect of other nations, is another proof of the widening view of the spiritual world which is characteristic of the epoch (2 Maccabees 4:16, 17; 5:17-20; 6:12-16, etc.). The lessons of the captivity were reduced to moral teaching; and in the same way the doctrine of the ministry of angels assumed an importance which is without parallel except in patriarchal times. SEE 2 MACCABEES. It was perhaps from this cause also that the Messianic hope was limited in its range. The vivid perception of spiritual truths hindered the spread of a hope which had been cherished in a material form; and a pause, as it were, was made, in which men gained new points of sight from which to contemplate the old promises.
7. The various glimpses of national life which can be gained during the period show, on the whole, a steady adherence to the Mosaic law. Probably the law was never more rigorously fulfilled. The importance of the Antiochian persecution in fixing the canon of the Old Testament has already been noticed. SEE CANON. The books of the law were specially sought out for destruction (1 Maccabees 1:56, 57; 3:48), and their distinctive value was in consequence proportionately increased. To use the words of 1 Maccabees, "the holy books" (τὰ βιβλία τὰ ἃγια τὰ ἐν χερσίν ἡμῶν) were felt to make all other comfort superfluous (1 Maccabees 12:9). The strict observance of the Sabbath (1 Maccabees 2:32; 2 Maccabees 6:11; 8:26, etc.) and of the sabbatical year (1 Maccabees 6:53), the law of the Nazarites (1 Maccabees 3:49), and the exemptions from military service (1 Maccabees 3:56), the solemn prayer and fasting (1 Maccabees 3:47; 2 Maccabees 10:25, etc.), carry us back to early times. The provision for the maimed, the aged, and the bereaved (2 Maccabees 8:28,30),. was in the spirit of the law; and the new Feast of the Dedication was a homage to the old rites (2 Maccabees 1:9), while it was a proof of independent life. The interruption of the succession to the high-priesthood was the most important innovation which was made, and one which prepared the way for the dissolution of the state. After various arbitrary changes the office was left vacant for seven years upon the death of Alcimus. The last descendant of Jozadak (Onias), in whose family it had been for nearly four centuries, fled to Egypt, and established a schismatic worship; and at last, when the support of the Jews became important, the Maccabaean leader, Jonathan, of the family of Joarib, was elected to the dignity by the nomination of the Syrian king (1 Maccabees 10:20), whose will was confirmed, as it appears, by the voice of the people (comp. 1 Maccabees 14:35).
8. Little can be said of the condition of literature and the arts which has not been already anticipated. In common intercourse the Jews used the Aramaic dialect which was established after the return: this was "their own language" (2 Maccabees 7:8, 21, 27; 12:37); but it is evident from the narrative quoted that they understood Greek, which must have spread widely through the influence of Syrian officers. There is not, however, the slightest evidence that Greek was employed in Palestinian literature till a much later date. The description of the monument which was erected by Simon at Modin in memory of his family (1 Maccabees 13:27-30) is the only record of the architecture of the time. The description is obscure, but in some features the structure appears to have presented a resemblance to the tombs of Porsena and the Curiatii (Pliny, H. N, 36:13), and perhaps to one still found in Idumsea. An oblong basement, of which the two chief faces were built of polished white marble (Josephus, Ant. 13:6, 5), supported "seven pyramids in a line ranged one against another," equal in number to the members of the Maccabaean family, including Simon himself. To these he added other works of art (μηχανήματα), placing round (on the two chief faces?) great columns (Josephus adds, each of a single block), bearing trophies of arms and sculptured ships, which might be visible from the sea below." The language of 1 Maccabees and Josephus implies that these columns were placed upon the basement, otherwise it might be supposed that the columns rose only to the height of the basement supporting, the trophies on the same level as the pyramids. So much, at least, is evident, that the characteristics of this work and probably of later Jewish architecture generally bore closer affinity to the styles of Asia Minor and Greece than to that of Egypt or the East, a result which would follow equally from the Syrian dominion and the commerce which Simon opened by the Mediterranean (1 Maccabees 14:5). SEE MODIN.
9. The only recognized relics of the time are the coins which bear the name of "Simon," or Simon, prince (nasi) of Israel," in Samaritan letters. The privilege of a national coinage was granted to Simon by Antiochus VII, Sidetes (1 Maccabees 15:6, κόμμα ἵδιον νόμισμα τῆ χώρᾷ); and numerous examples occur which have the dates of the first, second, third, and fourth years of the liberation of Jerusalem (Israel, Zion); and it is a remarkable confirmation of their genuineness, that in the first year the name Zion does not occur, as the citadel was not recovered till the second year of Simon's supremacy, while after the second year Zion alone is found (Bayer, De Nummis, p. 171). The privilege was first definitely accorded to Simon in B.C. 140, while the first year of Simon was B.C. 143 (1 Maccabees 13:42); but this discrepancy causes little difficulty, as it is not unlikely that the concession of Antiochus was made in favor of a practice already existing. No date is given later than the fourth year, but coins of Simon occur without a date, which may belong to the last four years of his life. The emblems which the coins bear have generally a connection with Jewish history — a vine-leaf, a cluster of grapes, a vase (of manna?), a trifid flowering rod, a palm branch surrounded by a wreath of laurel, a lyre (1 Maccabees 13:51), a bundle of branches symbolic of the Feast of Tabernacles. The coins issued in the last war of independence by Bar- cochba repeat many of these emblems, and there is considerable difficulty in distinguishing the two series. The authenticity of all the Maccabaean coins was impugned by Tychsen (Die Unächtheit d. Jud. Münzen... bewiesen... O. G. Tychsen, 1779), but on insufficient grounds. He was answered by Bayer, whose admirable essays (De Nunmmnis e br. Saunaritanis, Val. Ed. 1781; Vindiciae... 1790) give the most complete account of the coins, though he reckons some apparently later types as Maccabaean. Eckhel (Doctr. Numim. 3:455 sq.) has given a good account of the controversy, a anan accurate description of the chief types of the coins. Compare De Saulcy, Numism. Judaique; Ewald, Gesch. 7:366,476. SEE MONEY.
IV. Literature. — The original authorities for the history of the Maccabees are extremely scanty; but for the course of the war itself the first book of Maccabees is a most trustworthy, if an incomplete witness. SEE MACCABEES, BOOKS OF. The second book adds some important details to the history of the earlier part of the struggle, and of the events which immediately preceded it; but all the statements which it contains require close examination, and must be received with caution. Josephus follows 1 Maccabees, for the period which. it embraces, very closely, but slight additions of names and minute particulars indicate that he was in possession of other materials, probably oral traditions, which have not been elsewhere preserved. On the other hand, there are cases in which, from haste or carelessness, he has misinterpreted his authority. From other sources little can be gleaned. Hebrew and classical literature furnishes nothing more than a few trifling fragments which illustrate Maccabmean history. So long an interval elapsed before the Hebrew traditions were committed to writing, that facts, when not embodied in rites or precepts, became wholly distorted. Classical writers, again, were little likely to chronicle a conflict which probably they could not have understood. Of the great work of Polybius — who alone might have been expected to appreciate the importance of the Jewish war — only fragments remain which refer to this period; but the omission of all mention of the Maccabaean campaign in the corresponding sections of Livy, who follows very closely in the track of the Greek historian seems to prove that Polybius also omitted them. The account of the Syrian kings in Appian is too meagre to make his silence remarkable; but indifference or contempt must be the explanation of a general silence which is too widespread to be accidental. Even when the fall of Jerusalem had directed unusual attention to the past fortunes of is defenders. Tacitus was able to dismiss the Maccabaean conflict in a sentence remarkable for scornful carelessness. "During the dominion of the Assyrians, the Medes, and the Persians, the Jews," he says, "were the most abject of their dependent subjects. After the Macedonians obtained the supremacy of the East, king Antiochus endeavored to do away with their superstition, and introduce Greek habits, but was hindered by a Parthian war from reforming a most repulsive people" (teterrimam gentem, Tacitus, Hist. v. 8).
For a table of contemporary Syrian kings, SEE ANTIOCHUS; and for further information, see Milman, Hist. of the Jews, vol. ii; Prideaux. Connection, vol. ii (Oxford, 1838); Ewald, Geschichte des V. Israel, vol. iii, part ii; Herzfeld, Geschichte d. Volkes Isr.; Raphall, Hist. of the Jews; Grätz, Gesch. d. Juden, vol. iii; Jost, Gesch. I. Israeliten; Weber und Holtzmann, Gesch. d. Volkes Israel (Leipsic, 1867, 2 vols. 8vo), vol. ii, ch. iii.