he was obliged to make many excuses to the heathen there for having conceded so much liberty to the Judeans.1

4) An agreement like this, concluded on both sides simply from momentary pressure, could not last long; and in the year 162 a further event occurred which terminated it. The son of the legitimate predecessor of Antiochus Epiphanes, Demetrius 2 (to whom the title Sôtêr was soon added), landed from Rome on the Phoenician coast at Tripolis,3 and, after Lysias and Eupator had been killed, secured possession of the kingdom. Prior to this, before the issue of the last campaign against the Judeans, Lysias had become unfavourably disposed towards Menelaus (we do not know for what exact cause), and had him put to death in Berea (Aleppo). In his place, however, he appointed Alcimus high-priest,5 who belonged, it was true, to the family of Aaron, but was not a member of the house which had hitherto held the high-priesthood. In passing over those who had a nearer claim, and selecting him, Lysias was plainly desirous of simply finding a supple instrument of his own purposes.6 Alcimus, however, had become an object of suspicion to the stricter Judeans ever since the ascendency of heathenism, and soon found himself, with his adherents, in many ways bitterly vexed by them. Accordingly he betook himself, accompanied by his principal adherents, and furnished with rich gifts, to the court of Demetrius, solicited aid against the rebels, and requested the king in particular to get rid entirely of the incurably obstinate Judas, as by no other course could peace be

which is mentioned in 2 Macc. xiii. 21, with only too great brevity and want of clearness.

According to the statements in 2 Mace. xiii. 25. That the Syrian king then appointed Judas prince from Ptolemais to Gerara' (for this is the reading we must adopt in place of reppa, in spite of MSS. and versions), i.e. over all Palestine in its widest extent from north to south (cf. 1 Macc. xi. 59), is only mentioned in 2 Macc. xiii. 24, and accords but little with 1 Macc.

2 P. 316.

32 Macc. xiv. 1.

According to 2 Macc. xiii. 3-7 and Jos. Ant. xii. 9, 7, xx. 10, 3. It is surprising that 1 Macc. passes over the death of Menelaus entirely.

According to Josephus. The brief words in 2 Macc. xiv. 3 rather support the conjecture that he had once before at a much earlier period been high-priest, which we cannot now, however, authenticate. Lysias, moreover, would certainly

have immediately appointed a successor to Menelaus.

6

Josephus, Ant. xii. 9, 7, cf. 10, 2 sq., implies that he was not of the highpriestly family; but the evidence in 1 Macc. vii. 14, 2 Macc. xiv. 7 contradicts this too clearly, and we must compare with this statement the further explanation given by Josephus himself elsewhere, xx. 10, sq. Alcimus was a Greek form made out of Eliakim, or more briefly Jâkim. Josephus only gives the last name as the original. In the series of high-priests as it was established later on (p. 124), he was entirely passed over, and Judas followed direct in his place. If in the original record of the series three years were assigned to Judas (see above, p. 270 sq., and this helps to explain the meaningless thirty-three of the Chron. Pasch.), ten to Menelaus (instead of the fifteen in G. Syncellus), and three to Jason, these numbers would agree together.

established. After some easily intelligible hesitation,' the king so far yielded to his entreaties as to send back Bacchides with him, one of the most important officers of the Syrian kingdom. He was to make a careful investigation into the whole circumstances on the spot; and, if he found it desirable, to confirm Alcimus in his office in the most emphatic manner. The royal plenipotentiary arrived with Alcimus and his large army in Jerusalem, and wished to negotiate with Judas and his brothers. They, on their part, had no confidence in him, and refused to meet him. The powerful party of the pious, however, after freedom of religion had been granted to them and was not again withdrawn, felt some hesitation in this critical moment about actually renouncing all obedience to a person who was not legally disqualified for the high-priesthood. They therefore sent a strong deputation of scribes to adjust equitable terms of peace.3 Bacchides received the deputies with much friendliness, but as he could not get Judas into his power, he selected sixty of them as the objects of the royal vengeance. After having thus spread sufficient terror in Jerusalem, his next step was to pitch a camp on the north of the city, on the hill subsequently connected with it, named Bethzetha.' Here he executed also a considerable number of the apostates who flocked around him," as they likewise caused too much disturbance in a popular rising, and flattered himself that he had at length sufficiently humbled all the unintelligible factions of the nation. Upon this he returned to Antioch, leaving behind a large army under the command of Alcimus; but frightful as was the way in which, the latter imagined that he ought to show himself worthy of such a master, all his efforts rebounded from the indomitable courage of Judas, and the craft in which he met his match. Judas passed round through the whole country beyond the enemy's reach, fell on some of the leaders of the apostates, who were now in the ascendant, and caused such general terror that none of them dared any longer to show themselves openly."

Thus far there may be historical ground for the representation in 2 Macc. xiv. 4 sq.

2 This has been changed in Ben-Gorion and other later writers into D, Bagris.

In the somewhat obscure words in 1 Macc. vii. 12 sq. the writer seems not to have been able to refrain from blaming to a certain extent the haste of the Chasidim. Certainly the course of events soon contradicted their good intentions.

The name would mean 'oil-house,' and would be connected with the name of the Mount of Olives, which lay on the east. Forms like Bégela are mere abbreviations.

5 According to 1 Macc. vii. 19; cf. ver. 24; except that in this passage we should follow the Alex. and other MSS. in reading μετ' αὐτοῦ αὐτομόλησάντων.

This is the meaning of the words in 1 Macc. vii. 24; cf. Judges v. 6, Is. xxxiii. 8, Job. xxiv. 4.

Alcimus soon recognised the untenable nature of his position, and with a numerous band of refugees repaired again to the court to seek assistance. In response to his application, Nicanor, a general with most hostile feelings towards the Judeans and a generally savage nature, was despatched with a fresh army against Jerusalem. In vain did Simon, brother of Judas, attempt to arrest his march. The same game was begun in Jerusalem which Bacchides had tried. With the most friendly protestations Judas was induced to come to a conference, but on a sign of impending treachery he broke it off in the middle and hastened to his army. Nicanor, upon this, advanced against him. He was defeated near Capharsalama,3 but he succeeded in effecting his retreat with the great bulk of his troops into the citadel at Jerusalem, and soon succeeded in re-occupying the temple-mountain also. When the priests met him in trepidation and pointed to the sacrifices daily offered in the temple for the Syrian king, the monster threatened that if Judas and his adherents were not delivered up to him he would immediately proceed to destroy the temple and burn it up. He then retired to Beth-horon, north-west of Jerusalem, there to await the reinforcements which were on their way from the north. Judas was encamped with only three thousand men at no great distance, near Adasa. In the battle which ensued, Nicanor fell at the very beginning; his army was put to flight, and swept along the whole day through from place to place as far as Gazer by the inhabitants, who rose up everywhere in pursuit; and thus on almost the same field where Judas had won his first victory 5 he now achieved another more decisive still. The battle took place on the day before the feast of Pûrîm, on the thirteenth of the month Adâr, so that it was

1 Probably the same who has been already mentioned, p. 310.

22 Macc. xiv. 17. 2 Macc., it is true, confuses the two campaigns of Bacchides and Nicanor together, and in this one does not name Bacchides at all. If, however, Simon did what is ascribed to him, ver. 17, his only opportunity would have been on the actual march of Nicanor. Moreover, the narrative in 2 Macc. xiv. 18-25 of the frequent and friendly meetings of Nicanor with Judas, and of the advice given by the former to the latter to marry in peace, cannot be well referred to Bacchides, although the fresh journey of Alcimus is not mentioned till ver. 26. The village of Dessau mentioned in 2 Macc. xiv. 16, where Nicanor encamped, is not to be VOL. V.

Y

heard of anywhere else, and perhaps (as it has a strange sound) arose simply from a confusion with Adasa. At any rate, Adasa is not mentioned in 2 Macc. xv., and the Adas found by Robinson (Bib. Res. ii. p. 13, ed. 1856), on the south-west of Jerusalem, is hardly to be thought of.

According to 2 Macc. xv. 1, it probably lay on the Samaritan boundary, north of Ramleh, and appears in the Middle Ages as Carvasalim (Robinson Bibl. Res. ii. p. 242, ed. 1856).

The situation of Adasa is given according to Jos. Ant. xii. 10, 5; a occurs in Josh. xv. 37, LXX 'Adaσá, unless this lay too much to the south. 5 P. 309 sq.

all the more easy to maintain an annual commemoration of it.1 The country now enjoyed a period of tranquillity; Alcimus was obliged to flee again to the court; and the hand of Nicanor, which he had but a short time before blasphemously raised on high against the temple, was hung up at one of the great gates in perpetual remembrance.2

Thus did the fortune of war waver from side to side, whilst it was gradually inclining more and more perceptibly to the champion whom nothing could crush. Had the Syrian kingdom been in the position of Egypt when Israel contended against it under the leadership of Moses, had it been still free and sufficiently powerful, the struggle, which had already become so deadly, might have reached a termination productive of the purest good for the ancient people of Israel. But Rome already cast its shadow far and deep enough to reach to Asia a; and among the leaders in this contest carried on by the people so venerable and yet so young the ambiguous question had been already mooted whether it was not expedient for Israel to follow the example of so many other small nations and seek its aid. The league which two able Judeans, Eupolemus 3 and Jason, son of Eleazar, entreated Judas to conclude with the Romans, but the actual accomplishment of which he did not live to see, might have seemed called for in the general position of affairs, as it was known that the Romans were favourably disposed to every enemy of Demetrius Sôtêr; but it involved consequences which its promoters never considered, and it shows what an interval there was between this era of the 'people of God,' in spite of its new aspiration, and the pure courage of the nobler days of its past; for every one of the greater prophets of old would have lifted up his voice against it. Thus the great elevation of the people, both in so far as it

4

1 Cf. p. 232.

5

21 Mace. vii. 35-38, 47, and with much circumstantial detail, but with great freedom, in 2 Macc. xiv. sq. According to later statements, the so-called beautiful gate, Acts iii. 2, was also called Nicanor's gate; a great deal has been said about it, but with little clear historical basis; cf. Mish. Middoth, i. 4, ii. 3, 6 ad fin., Shekalim, 6, 3, &c.

P. 284 note 2.

4 1 Macc. viii. On Eupolemus cf. also 2 Macc. iv. 11; whether he was the historian Eupolemus is discussed below. An earlier interference of the Romans is only mentioned in 2 Macc. xi. 34-38.

According to Jos. Ant. xii. 10, 6; 11, 2, Alcimus died before Judas, in which

6

case the latter, elected high-priest by the people, filled the office for three years. But this is in too clear contradiction of the language of 1 Macc. vii. 1, 50, ix. 1-3, 54-56. Gradually, however, it became the custom (as 2 Macc. shows) to transfer all the greatness of the age to Judas, and consequently also to regard him as the first Asmonean high-priest. On the other hand, in the list of high-priests in Jos. Ant. xx. 10, 2, derived from another source, his name does not occur at all.

On this see the distinct testimony of Diodorus, in C. Müller's Fragm. Hist. Græc. ii. p. 11 sq. Even the Median satrap obtained from Rome a decree on his side.

was a national movement, and in so far as it made for the true religion, had received in its very beginning an irremediable blow, as the whole subsequent history will show.

5) The days of Judas, however, were now numbered. The Syrian king unexpectedly sent forward the whole of his southern army, under Bacchides and Alcimus. The troops marched southwards from the Samaritan boundary upon Galgala. At Masaloth, in spite of a large number of Judeans who hastily opposed their course, they succeeded in effecting a bloody passage to Jerusalem,' and, in the first month (April) of the year 161, stood beneath its walls. The people, who were celebrating the Passover, were necessarily quite unprepared for so swift a campaign, after a defeat so severe. Judas quickly collected three thousand men north of Jerusalem, at a place called Eleasah. Bacchides now advanced against him with twenty thousand infantry and two thousand horse, as far as BeerZâth. The troops of Judas, however, had so little desire to contend against such overwhelming forces that in a short time he had but eight hundred men left on whose courage he could rely. These he encouraged to the desperate struggle, firmly determined to conquer or to die. Bacchides had disposed his army in the regular battle array; he himself commanded the right wing. The battle raged the whole day, and when Judas perceived on which wing Bacchides was posted he attacked it with the most valiant of his men, and drove it in flight as far as the neighbouring mountain of Azôth. But, in the meantime, the enemy's left wing wheeled round opportunely, and beset the victors in the rear. Judas fell, and his troops fled in haste: but his brothers, Jonathan and Simon, succeeded in carrying off his body.1

Galgala may be the modern Gilgilia, north of Gophna (p. 318 note 4); of Masaloth, ev 'Apßnois, we do not now know anything further, unless Meiselon, which we shall meet with again in the life of Alexander Jannæus, be the place intended. Josephus, however, is certainly arbitrary (Ant. xii. 11, 1) in making Galgal into Galilee, and referring to the Arbel there. Since the campaigns of Judas already mentioned, p. 314, the whole field of battle was limited to Judea. Gilead, also, which some MSS. and the Pesh. have, is out of place. Compare further the observations in the Jahrbb. der Bibl. Wiss. vi. p. 112

sq.

2 This is the form correctly given by some MSS. in 1 Macc. ix. 4; even in Jos. some MSS. at least have Bnphe.

We may therefore with great probability refer to the present Bîr-ez-Zeit (Robinson, Bib. Res. ii. p. 264, ed. 1856), somewhat north of Gophna. This further defines the place of Eleasah, y, which is not mentioned elsewhere. The general reading, Beera, must refer to the ancient Beeroth, which lay south of Gophna.

* In Jos. Aca, according to some ancient MSS. also "AÇapa. Westwards of Bîr-ez-Zeit there really is a mountain to which a place in the neighbourhood seems to have given its modern name, Atâra. The Philistine Ashdod is quite out of the question, owing to its position.

4 While Ben-Gorion collects all possible stories about Mattathias and Judas, and relates them in their broadest and most unhistorical form, iii. 7-23, what he says