� 6. The Times Of Jonathan, B.C. 161-143

§ 6. THE TIMES OF JONATHAN, B.C. 161-143
SOURCES
1Ma_9:23 to 1Ma_10:30.
Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1-6. A summary of the history in Zonaras, Annal. iv. 22-24.
The coins ascribed to Jonathan by de Saulcy, Recherches, pp. 85-93, belong to Alexander Jannäus, see § 10.
LITERATURE
The works on Syrian history by Foy-Vaillant, Frölich, Clinton, Flathe, Stark, etc.
The Treatises and Commentaries on the Books of Maccabees by Wernsdorff, Michaelis, Grimm, Keil, Bissel, Wace, etc.
EWALD, History of Israel, v. 324-333.
HERZFELD, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 296-320.
GRÄTZ, Geschichte der Juden, Bd. iii. 4 Aufl., under title: Geschichte der Judäer von dem Tode Juda Makkabi’s, etc., 1888, pp. 1-23.
HITZIG, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 421-450.
Articles “Jonathan” in Winer’s RWB., and Schenkel’s Bibellexicon.
THE power of the Jewish national party was quite annihilated by the defeat and death of Judas. The party friendly to the Greeks, with the high priest Alcimus at their head, was able now unhindered to carry on the government committed to it by the king. Wherever any opposition was offered, it was at once vigorously suppressed. The friends of Judas were sought out and brought to Bacchides, who “took vengeance on them.” The “unrighteous” and the “ungodly,” as the opponents of the Maccabees are designated in the First Book of Maccabees, had now the rule in Judea.[194]
[194] Macc. 9:23-27. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 1.
But the friends of Judas were by no means disposed to abandon all sort of resistance. They elected Jonathan, the brother of Judas, as their leader, “in order that he might direct the conflict.”[195] No regular or serious undertakings indeed were at first to be thought of. They required first of all gradually to gather together their forces and wait a favourable opportunity. The earliest incidents of this period which we have, represent the doings of Jonathan more in the light of the raiding of a freebooter than the acts of a religious party. When their personal property was no longer secure in Judea, they sent it under the guardianship of John, a brother of Jonathan, over into the country of the friendly Nabathaeans. While so engaged, John, along with his baggage, was attacked by a robber tribe of the sons of Ambri, near Medeba, in the country east of the Jordan, and slain. In order to avenge his death, Jonathan and Simon crossed the Jordan and fell upon the sons of Ambri when these were engaged in great festivities in connection with a wedding celebration. Many were slain, and the rest fled into the mountains. On their return Jonathan and his followers were met at the Jordan by Bacchides and a Syrian army, and were in great jeopardy, but saved themselves by swimming across the Jordan.[196]
[195] Macc. 9:28-31. Josephus, l.c.
[196] Macc. 9:32-49. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 2-4.—The fight with Bacchides took place on the eastern bank of the Jordan. For the account in 1Ma_9:43-49 goes back again, after the intercalated story of 1Ma_9:35-42, upon the statement of 1Ma_9:34 (Βακχίδης … ἦλθεν … πέραν τοῦ Ἰορδάνου). If, then, Jonathan and his adherents saved themselves by swimming over the river, they must have reached the western bank, and so remained in the wilderness of Judea (compare 9:33). Hitzig is therefore in error (ii. 422 f.), who represents the case as if Jonathan had been driven by Bacchides into the country beyond the Jordan; compare Keil, Commentary, p. 160.
Bacchides now took measures to secure that the subjection of Judea under the Syrian rule should be more decided than hitherto. He fortified the cities of Jericho, Emmaus, Beth-Horon, Bethel, Thamnatha, Pharathon, Tephon, and occupied them with Syrian garrisons. He likewise gave orders that the fortifications of Beth-zur, Gazara, and the citadel of Jerusalem should be strengthened. Finally, he took the sons of distinguished Jews as hostages, and put them in ward in the citadel of Jerusalem.[197]
[197] Macc. 9:50-53. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 3.—The most of the towns here named are otherwise unknown. On Emmaus, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 159; on Beth-Horon, see above, page 214.—Bethel is the well-known ancient centre of Israelitish worship, according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 209, twelve Roman miles north of Jerusalem.—Thamnatha is in Hebrew תִּמְנָתָה or תִּמְנָה, the name of these places in Southern Palestine, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 158. The best known is תִּמְנַת־סֵרַח, where the tomb of Joshua was. According to the received text of 1Ma_9:50, Thamnatha-Pharathon is to be taken as the name of one place. But probably Josephus, the Syriac, and the Vet. Lat. are right when they read καί between the two words. Pharathon is in Hebrew פִּרְעָתוֹן, a town in the tribe of Ephraim, Judges 12:13; Judges 12:15, perhaps the modern Ferata, southwest of Nablous (Robinson, Later Bibl. Researches, p. 65 sq.; Guérin, Samaria, ii. 179 f.). But this Pharathon, as well as Thimnath-Serach, belonged to Samaria, according to 1Ma_11:34. It is therefore questionable whether other similarly named towns in Judea may not be meant.—Τεφών or Τεφώ is usually identified with the Hebrew תַּפּוּחַ. If this were only more certain than it is, it would still be doubtful which of the different Old Testament towns of the name were meant (see Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, p. 1612, art. “Tappuah;” and p. 185, art. “Beth-Tappuah”).—On Beth-zur, see above, p. 216; on Gazara, see § 7 on the history of Simon.
About this time, in the second month of the Seleucid year 153, that is, in May B.C. 160 (1Ma_9:54), the high priest Alcimus by his ungodly conduct caused great offence to those who adhered strictly to the observance of the law. He threw down the walls of the inner court, and “so destroyed the works of the prophets.” In his death, which speedily followed, they beheld God’s righteous judgment on such wickedness.[198] The office of the high priest does not seem to have been again filled.[199]
[198] Macc. 9:54-56. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 10. 6 (Josephus places the death of Alcimus before the death of Judas, see above, p. 230). The levelling of the walls, according to 1Ma_9:54, was only partially carried out.—It is doubtful what we are to understand by the τεῖχος τῆς αὐλῆς τῶν ἁγίων τῆς ἐσωτέρας of 1Ma_9:54. In the temple of the Herodian age the inner court, that is, the inner court in the strict and proper sense, was surrounded first of all by a strong wall. Then a narrow terrace ran round about this, the so-called Chêl, from which the ascent was made by steps into the outer court. Under the steps ran a low breastwork, the so-called Soreg, סוֹרֶג, which marked the boundary beyond which no Gentile was allowed to penetrate. When the First Book of Maccabees speaks of a τεῖχος, it seems unquestionable that the actual wall of the inner court is intended. On the other hand, we find in the Mishna the tradition, that the Soreg had been thrown down in thirteen places (מלכי יון) by the Greek kings, and that these thirteen “breaches” (פְּרָצוֹת) had been subsequently closed up, and that in memory of this thirteen obeisances were ordered to be made before it (Middoth ii. 3). It was an easy step in advance to combine this tradition with the fact mentioned above, in which case τεῖχος would be considered an inexact translation of סוֹרֶג (so, for example, Grätz, Geschichte der Juden, iii., 4 Aufl. p. 10 f.; Monatsschr. für Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenthums, 1876, p. 395 ff.; on the other hand: Herzfeld, Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 348, Anm. iii.; Derenbourg, Histoire, p. 65, note 3). But it is very questionable whether in the simple arrangements of the pre-Herodian temple, wall and Soreg were found already existing alongside of one another. In any case the offence consisted in the attempt made by Alcimus to destroy the lines of demarcation between the “holy” space of the court and the unholy outer space, and thus to admit the Gentiles freely within the court.—The interpretation is certainly wrong which supposes that by the inner court only the so-called court of the priests was to be understood, and so by the τεῖχος the boundary which within the court proper marked off the space for the Israelites (so e.g. Keil). For this boundary was no τεῖχος, but a δρύφακτος (Antiq. xiii. 13. 5) or γείσιον (Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 6; compare, Antiq. viii. 3. 9), and did not probably exist before the time of Alexander Jannäus (the mode of expression in Antiq. xiii. 13. 5 is at least indistinct). The αὐλὴ ἐσωτέρα is undoubtedly the same as is called by Josephus: ἡ ἔνδον αὐλή (Wars of the Jews, v. 5. 6 fin.), ὁ ἐνδότερος περίβολος (Wars of the Jews, v. 1. 2), ὁ ἐντὸς περίβολος (Antiq. xv. 11. 5), τὸ ἐνδοτέρω ἱερόν (Wars of the Jews, iv. 5, v. 3. 1 fin., vi. 1. 8), τὸ ἔνδον ἱερόν (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 4), τὸ εἴσω ἱερόν (Wars of the Jews, vi. 2. 7), τὸ ἔσωθεν ἱερόν (Wars of the Jews, vi. 4. 1), that is, the court in the strict and proper sense, to which all Israelites but no Gentiles were admitted; compare also Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 299-305.
[199] Josephus assumes this in Antiq. xiii. 1. 5.
Soon after the death of Alcimus, Bacchides returned to Syria, believing that the subjugation of Judea was now complete.[200] There follows a period of seven years, B.C. 160-153, about which the First Book of Maccabees says almost nothing. But these seven years must have been of very great importance for the reinvigorating of the Maccabean party. For at the close of that period it stands forward as the one party really capable of forming a government and as actually having Judea under its control, so that the Syrian kings in their contentions with one another are found eagerly seeking to secure its devoted adherence. Only by one episode is light shed upon the darkness of this era in the record of the First Book of Maccabees. Two years after the retirement of Bacchides, that is, in B.C. 158, the dominant party of the Jews favourable to the Greek customs made urgent representations to the king’s government about the resuscitation of the Maccabean party. The consequence of this was that Bacchides went again with a still larger army in order to utterly destroy Jonathan and his adherents. But his following had already become so strong that Bacchides could not so easily be done with them. A portion of them entrenched themselves under Simon’s leadership in the wilderness at Bethbasi, a place not otherwise known, and was there laid siege to by Bacchides in vain. With another portion Jonathan went forth on a plundering expedition into the country. When Bacchides observed how difficult the task assigned to him was, very much against the will of the Graeco-Jewish party which had brought him into such difficulties, he made peace with Jonathan and returned again to Syria.[201]
[200] Macc. 9:57. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 5.
[201] Macc. 9:57-72. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 5-6.
The Jewish parties appear now to have made an attempt to come to terms with one another. The result of this seems to have been that Jonathan more and more secured again to himself the leadership. “The sword was now at rest in Israel, and Jonathan dwelt at Michmash; and he began to judge the people, and drove out the ungodly from Israel.” With this laconic notice the First Book of Maccabees passes over the following five years.[202] This can only mean that Jonathan, while the official Sanhedrim of Jerusalem was still filled by those friendly to the Greeks, established at Michmash a sort of rival government, which gradually won the position of main influence in the country, so that it was able even to drive out (ἀφανίζειν) the ungodly, that is, the Hellenizing party. The Hellenistic or Greek favouring party had no root among the people. The great mass of the Jews had still the distinct consciousness that Hellenism, even if it should tolerate the religion of Israel, was irreconcilable with the ideal of the scribes. So soon, then, as pressure from above was removed, the great majority of the people gave themselves heart and soul to the national Jewish movement. The Maccabees, therefore, had the people soon again at their back. And this is the explanation of the fact that during the struggles for the Syrian throne now beginning, the claimants contended with one another in endeavouring to secure to themselves the good-will of the Maccabees. The Syrian kings were no longer in a position to force upon the people a Hellenistic government, but were obliged to do all in their power to conciliate and win the favour of the Jews. But this they could have only under the sway of the Maccabees. The concessions they made, however, furthered at the same time those tendencies which actually brought about the dissolution of the Syrian empire.
[202] Macc. 9:73. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 1. 6.—Μαχμάς is the Old Testament מִבְמָס, according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 280, nine Roman miles north of Jerusalem, in the neighbourhood of Rama, the modern Mukhmas. See Robinson, Bibl. Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 59-63. Raumer, Pal. p. 212. Guérin, Judée, iii. 63-65. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, iii. 12 and 149. Also the great English Map, Sheet xvii.
In the Seleucid year 160, or B.C. 153-152, and indeed, as the sequel shows, as early as B.C. 153 (1Ma_10:1; 1Ma_10:21), Alexander Balas, a youth of mean extraction, and merely a tool of the kings leagued against Demetrius, made his appearance as a claimant of the throne.[203] The despotic Demetrius was himself no favourite in the country, and so all the greater was the danger threatening him from the forces of the confederate kings. It was even feared that the Jews might go over to his opponent if he should be inclined to promise to set up among them a national government. Demetrius now sought to meet this danger by himself granting concessions to Jonathan. He gave him full authority to summon together an army in order to support the king, and for this purpose agreed to the liberation of the Jewish hostages who were still detained in the citadel of Jerusalem. Jonathan then went to Jerusalem invested with full power. The hostages were, in fact, set free, and given back to their parents. But Jonathan now formally seized possession of Jerusalem, and fortified the city and the temple mount. Also the Syrian garrisons of most of the fortresses built by Bacchides were sent away. Only in Beth-zur and in the citadel of Jerusalem did these garrisons remain.[204]
[203] The details are as follows: In Smyrna there lived a boy (μειρακίσκος Diodorus) of the name of Balas (Justin.), who greatly resembled Antiochus Eupator, and gave himself out as a son of Antiochus Epiphanes, but in truth was of mean origin (sortis extremae juvenis, Justin). Attalus II., king of Pergamum, had the youth brought to him, gave him the name Alexander, and set him up in rivalry to Demetrius as a claimant to the Syrian throne (Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. ii. praef. p. 12, n. 14; Justin. xxxv. 1). Under the direction of Heraclides, formerly finance minister of Antiochus Epiphanes, whom Demetrius had dismissed (Appian. Syr. 45, 47), Alexander went to Rome, and endeavoured to obtain recognition from the Roman senate. Although the falsity of his pretensions was quite plain, the senate took him up and promised him its support (Polybius, xxxiii. 14, 16). Besides, Alexander was aided not only by Attalus II. of Pergamum, but also by Ptolemy VI. Philometor of Egypt and Ariarathes V. of Cappadocia (Justin. xxxv. 1; Strabo, xiii. 4. 2, p. 624; Appian. Syr. 67; Eusebius, Chronicon, ed. Schoene, i. 255); and the people of Syria themselves, on account of the overbearing and tyrannical character of Demetrius, were decidedly inclined to favour the new claimant (Diodorus and Justin.; compare also Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 1). Thus Alexander began the war against Demetrius, “totius ferme orientis viribus subcinctus” (Justin.).—From this statement of the facts, for which see especially Justin., it is evident that it is incorrect, with Josephus (Antiq. xiii. 4. 8: Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ Βάλας λεγόμενος), to represent “Balas” as the cognomen of Alexander. Rather Balas was his own proper name, and so Strabo correctly names him (xvi. 2. 8, p. 751): τὸν Βάλαν Ἀλέξανδρον.
[204] 1Ma_10:1-14. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 1.
But Demetrius was not sufficiently liberal in his concessions to Jonathan. He was immediately far outbidden by Alexander Balas. He appointed Jonathan high priest of the Jews, and sent him, as a badge of princely rank, the purple and the diadem. Jonathan was not slow to grasp these new offers. At the Feast of Tabernacles of the Seleucid year 160, in the autumn of B.C. 153, he put on the sacred vestments.[205] He had thus all at once, even formally, become the head of the Jewish people. The Greek party was driven out of the government in Judea, and never again regained power, for Jonathan succeeded in maintaining his position amid all the changes of the following year. Favoured by circumstances, he was able to attain to that which Judas, with all his bravery, had never been able to reach.
[205] 1Ma_10:15-21. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 2-3.
When Demetrius heard that Jonathan had gone over to the party of Alexander Balas, he endeavoured by yet more liberal promises to win him back to his side. The gracious offers which he now made the Jewish leader were indeed too good to be credited: the tribute was to be remitted, the citadel of Jerusalem given over to the Jews, the Jewish territory to be enlarged by the addition of three districts of Samaria, the temple to be endowed with rich presents and privileges, the expense of building the walls of Jerusalem was to be defrayed out of the royal treasury.[206]
[206] 1Ma_10:22-45. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 3.
Jonathan was prudent enough not to yield to these tempting offers. It was quite foreseen that Demetrius would succumb to the superior strength of his opponent. But even should he go forth conqueror, it was not to be expected that he would fulfil such extravagantly liberal promises. Jonathan therefore remained on the side of Alexander Balas, and never had occasion to regret his doing so. Demetrius was conquered by Alexander and his confederates in B.C. 150, and lost his own life in the battle. Alexander was crowned king.[207]
[207] 1Ma_10:45-60. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 2. 4. Polybius, iii. 5. Justin. xxxv. 1; Appian. Syr. c. 67.—The account of the death of Demetrius is given in fullest detail by Josephus, whose story is confirmed by Justin: invicto animo inter confertissimos fortissime dimicans cecidit.
In the same year, however, B.C. 150 (1Ma_10:57, Seleucid year 162), an opportunity was afforded Alexander of showing marked respect to Jonathan, and loading him with honours. Alexander had treated with King Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt for the hand of his daughter Cleopatra. Ptolemy had promised her to him, and the two kings now met together in Ptolemais, where Ptolemy himself gave away his daughter to Alexander, and the marriage was celebrated with great magnificence. Alexander also invited Jonathan to be present, and received him with marked respect. The deputies of the Hellenistic party in Judea, who made accusations against Jonathan, were indeed also there. But the king gave them no audience, but only showed his favour toward Jonathan the more conspicuously. He had him clothed in the purple and seated beside him, and appointed him στρατηγός and μεριδάρχης, presumably for the province of Judea, and thus the political privileges already actually exercised were now formally confirmed.[208]
[208] 1Ma_10:46-50. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 1-2.—Στρατηγός and μεριδάρχης may be taken as equivalent to military and civil governor. For further particulars, see Grimm on 1Ma_10:65. It specially deserves notice, that, in epite of Jonathan’s appointment as στρατηγός, a Syrian governor still continued to occupy the citadel of Jerusalem.
During the next year Jonathan was exposed to no danger from any side in maintaining the position which he had reached. The Greek party had been thoroughly silenced. Alexander Balas was an incapable ruler, who abandoned himself to sensual gratifications, and never thought of restricting the concessions that had been made to the Jewish high priest.[209] The Syrian suzerainty continued indeed to exist. But since Jonathan and his party ruled in Judea, the aims hitherto striven after by the Maccabees were reached. Soon, however, the revolutions about the Syrian throne brought new dangers, but at the same time a new opportunity for the extension of political power. We see Jonathan now as a political partisan, sometimes of one, sometimes of another claimant of the Syrian throne, and using in a clever manner the weakness of the Syrian empire for the purpose of obtaining advantages to the Jewish people. But the aims of the Maccabean movement pointed higher than this. It no longer seemed enough that the party of Jonathan ruled unopposed in internal affairs. The troubles of the Syrian empire were made use of for the purpose of widening the boundaries of the Jewish territory—partly by donation, partly by conquest at their own hand, and finally with a dogged determination to accomplish the complete emancipation of the Jewish nation from the Syrian empire.
[209] On Alexander’s character, see Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. ii. praef. p. xvi. n. 19 (he speaks of a παντελὴς ἀδυναμία τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ).—Livy, Epit. 50: In Syria, quae eo tempore stirpe generis parem regi Macedonum, inertia socordiaque similem Prusiae regem habebat, jacente eo in ganea et lustris, Ammonius regnabat.—Justin. xxxv. 2: Alexandrum insperatae opes et alienae felicitatis ornamenta velut captum inter scortorum greges desidem in regia tenebant.
In B.C. 147 (1Ma_10:67, Seleucid year 165), Demetrius II., son of Demetrius I., set himself up as rival king in opposition to the contemptible weakling Alexander Balas. Apollonius, the governor of Coele-Syria, took his side, while Jonathan continued faithful to Alexander. Consequently hostilities were commenced between Apollonius and Jonathan, in which Jonathan was victorious. He drove out a garrison of Apollonius’ from Joppa, then defeated an army under the command of Apollonius in the neighbourhood of Ashdod, destroyed Ashdod and the temple of Dagon in that city, and returned to Jerusalem with rich spoils.[210] In acknowledgment of this support, Alexander Balas bestowed upon him the city of Ekron and its territory.[211]
[210] 1Ma_10:67-87. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 3-4. Josephus describes the affair so erroneously as to make Apollonius take the side of Alexander Balas.—On Joppa and Ashdod, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 79 ff., 76 ff.
[211] 1Ma_10:88-89. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 4. Josephus assigns as motive for the donation, that Alexander Balas wished to make it appear that Apollonius, as his general, had attacked Jonathan against the king’s will.—Ἀκκαρών is the old Philistine עֶקְרוֹן, according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 218, between Ashdod and Jamnia, toward the east, therefore probably identical with the modern Akir, east of Jamnia. See Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 189, 234. Raumer, Palästina, p. 185. Guérin, Judée, ii. 36-44. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 408. Also the large English Map, Sheet xvi.
But Jonathan was the only one who stood by Alexander in opposition to Demetrius. The inhabitants of Antioch, and Alexander’s own soldiers, declared in favour of Demetrius.[212] Even his own father-in-law, Ptolemy, ranged himself on the side of Alexander’s opponent, took Cleopatra back from Alexander, and gave her to the new candidate for the throne as his wife.[213] Ptolemy also led a strong army against Alexander, with which he attacked him at the river Oenoparas, on the plains of Antioch. Alexander fled to Arabia, where his life was put an end to by the hand of an assassin. Immediately afterward Ptolemy also died of wounds received in the battle.[214] Thus Demetrius became king in B.C. 145 (1Ma_11:19, Seleucid year 167. Comp. on this subject, above, page 175).
[212] Justin. xxxv. 2.
[213] 1Ma_11:1-13. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 5-7. Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. ii. p. xvi. n. 19. Livy, Epit. 52.
[214] 1Ma_11:14-19. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 8. Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. ii. p. xvi. n. 20. Livy, Epit. 52.—The locality of the battle is given by Strabo, xvi. 2. 8, p. 751.
As the confederate of Alexander Balas, Jonathan had occupied a hostile attitude toward Demetrius. It would appear that he now felt himself strong enough to make the attempt to secure by force emancipation from the Syrian empire. In a regular manner he laid siege to the citadel of Jerusalem, in which a Syrian garrison still lay. Here again, as so often happened in similar cases, it was the opposition party in his own nation, the ἄνδρες παράνομοι and ἄνομοι, as they are called in 1Ma_11:21; 1Ma_11:25, who called the attention of the Syrian king to these revolutionary measures. In consequence of these reports, Demetrius summoned Jonathan to Ptolemais to answer for his conduct. But Jonathan was daring enough boldly to claim concessions from Demetrius. He allowed the siege still to proceed, betook himself with rich presents to Ptolemais, and demanded of Demetrius the cession to Judea of three provinces of Samaria, and immunity from tribute for this whole district. These were some of the most essential points in the concessions which Demetrius I. had made to Jonathan. Demetrius did not venture to refuse these demands. He agreed to add to Judea the three Samaritan provinces of Ephraim, Lydda, and Ramathaim, made over this enlarged Judea to Jonathan free from tribute, and confirmed him in all dignities which he had previously enjoyed. Of the citadel of Jerusalem no mention whatever was then made. Evidently these concessions were the price on account of which Jonathan agreed to raise the siege.[215]
[215] 1Ma_11:20-37. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 4. 9.—Confirmation of former dignities, 1Ma_11:27. The three provinces, 11:34 (compare 10:30, 38, 11:28, 57); freedom from tribute, 11:34, 35.—Ἀφαίρεμα is in all probability that Ephraim to which Christ withdrew shortly before the Passover (John 11:54), according to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 9, in the neighbourhood of Bethel; according to Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 254, twenty Roman miles north of Jerusalem (καὶ ἔστι νῦν κώμη Ἐφραεὶμ μεγίστη περὶ τὰ βόρεια Αἰλίας ὡς ἀπὸ σημείων κʹ), and five Roman miles east of Bethel (Jerome, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 94, et est hodie vicus Efrem in quinto miliario Bethelis ad orientem respiciens; the parallel Greek text of Eusebius, p. 222, is defective). Also אפרים of 2 Samuel 13:23, and עפרון of 2 Chronicles 13:19, designate probably the same place. For conjectures about its situation, see Robinson, Researches in Palestine, vol. iii. 67-72. Guérin, Judée, iii. 45-51.—On Lydda, the modern Ludd, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 159.—Ῥαμαθέμ is certainly the wellknown city of Samuel, 1 Samuel 1:1, רָמָתַיִם צוֹפִים, elsewhere more shortly named הָרָמָה; but its position still continues very doubtful. According to 1 Samuel 1:1, it lay on Mount Ephraim. Eusebius places it in the neighbourhood of Diospolis-Lydda (Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 225 sq.: Ἀρμαθὲμ Σειφά· πόλις Ἑλκανὰ καὶ Σαμουήλ· κεῖται δὲ αὕτη πλησίον Διοσπόλεως, ὅθεν ἦν Ἰωσήφ, ἐν εὐαγγελίοις ἀπὸ Ἀριμαθίας. In Jerome, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 96, the passage runs: Armathem Sophim civitas Helcanae et Samuhelis in regione Thamnitica juxta Diospolim, unde fuit Joseph, qui in evangeliis, de Arimathia scribitur). One passage, 1Ma_11:34, vouches for the correctness of this statement, for it says that down to the time of Jonathan the city belonged to Samaria. It is probably to be identified with the modern Beit Rima, north-east of Lydda, in the neighbourhood of Thamna (see Furrer in Schenkel’s Bibellexicon, art. “Rama”). Distinct from this one is another Ramah, in the tribe of Benjamin, which lay much nearer Jerusalem (against Graf, Studien und Kritiken, 1854, p. 858 ff., and Mühlau in Riehm’s Handwörterbuch, art. “Rama,” who identify the two places). Compare Gesenius, Thesaurus, p. 1275. Thenius, Die Bücher Samuels, on 1 Samuel 9:4. Winer, RWB. art. “Rama.” Stanley, Sinai and Palestine (1881), pp. 224, 225. Ewald, History of Israel, ii. 421. Henderson, Palestine, p. 111.
Such a receding ou the part of the Syrian king before the Jewish demands ten years previously would not have been thought of for a moment. But now the power of the Seleucidae was broken. None of the kings of Syria was henceforth sure of his throne. And Jonathan knew how to make use of this weakness, and skilfully to turn it to his own advantage. The next years gave him abundant opportunities for carrying out his policy of annexation. Demetrius had scarcely made these concessions, when he found himself obliged to make new promises in order to secure the support of Jonathan in circumstances of serious difficulty. A certain Diodotus, surnamed Tiypho, of Apamea,[216] a former general of Alexander Balas, managed to get hold of the person of the youthful son of Alexander, called Antiochus, who had been brought up by an Arab Imalkue, and set him up as rival king in opposition to Demetrius.[217] The situation was fraught with extreme peril to Demetrius, since his own troops deserted, and the inhabitants of Antioch assumed a hostile attitude. In face of these dangers, he promised to surrender to Jonathan the citadel of Jerusalem and the other fortresses of Judea, if Jonathan would place at his disposal auxiliary troops. Jonathan soon sent three thousand men, who just arrived at the right moment in order to afford powerful aid to the king in suppressing the revolt that had now broken out in Antioch. It was admittedly by their assistance that the rising in the city was crushed. With the thanks of the king, and with rich booty, the Jewish troops returned to Jerusalem.[218]
[216] Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 1: Ἀπαμεὺς τὸ γένος. More exactly, Strabo, xvi. 2. 10, p. 752: δηλοῖ δὲ τὴν δύναμιν ταύτην (scil. τῆς Ἀπαμείας) ἥ τε τοῦ Τρύφωνος ἐπικληθέντος Διοδότου παραύξησις καὶ ἐπίθεσις τῇ βασιλείᾳ τῶν Σύρων, ἐντεῦθεν ὁρμηθέντος. Ἐγεγένητο μὲν γὰρ ἐν Κασιανοῖς, φρουρίῳ τινὶ τῆς Ἀπαμέων γῆς, τραφεὶς δʼ ἐν τῇ Ἀπαμείᾳ καὶ συσταθεὶς τῷ βασιλεῖ καὶ τοῖς περὶ αὐτόν, ἐπειδὴ νεωτερίζειν ὥρμησεν, ἐκ τῆς πόλεως ταύτης ἔσχε τὰς ἀφορμὰς καὶ τῶν περιοικίδων, Λαρίσης τε καὶ τῶν Κασιανῶν καὶ Μεγάρων καὶ Ἀπολλωνίας καὶ ἄλλων τοιούτων, αἳ συνετέλουν εἰς τὴν Ἀπάμειαν ἅπασαι.—The fortress of Apamea, famous on account of its strength, lay on the Orontes, south of Antioch. Compare Strabo, xvi. 2. 8-10, pp. 751-753. Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 2. 1070, 1076-1086.
[217] 1Ma_11:39-40; 1Ma_11:54. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 1 and 2. Diodorus in Müller, Fragm. Hist. Graec. t. ii. p. xvii. n. 21. Livy, Epit. 52.—Appian. Syr. c. 68, erroneously calls the young king Alexander. The name of the Arab, Εἰμαλκουαί or Ἰμαλκουέ (1Ma_11:39), in Hebrew ימלכו, which is met with on Palmyrian inscriptions; see Nöldeke in Euting, Nabatäische Inschriften (1885), p. 74. Josephus, the Syriac, and the Latin text of the cod. Sagerm. read here Malchus; Diodorus gives Jamblichus, which also is nothing else than ימלכו Latin Jamblichus, Corp. Inscr. Rhenan., ed. Brambach, n. 1233.
[218] 1Ma_11:33; 1Ma_11:41-52. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 2-3.
But Demetrius did not fulfil the promise which he had made. It also soon appeared that he must yield before the new claimant to the throne. With the help of the troops that had deserted from Demetrius, Trypho and Antiochus made themselves masters of the capital Antioch, and in this way secured the sway in the centre of the empire. Without delay they sought also to win over Jonathan to their side. Antiochus confirmed him in possession of all that Demetrius had granted him. At the same time his brother Simon was appointed military commander for the king, from the ladder of Tyre down to the borders of Egypt.[219]
[219] 1Ma_11:53-59. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 3-4.—The κλίμαξ Τύρου or Τυρίων is, according to Josephus, Wars of the Jews, ii. 10. 2, a high hill, a hundred stades north of Ptolemais. By the appointment as στρατηγός over the district named, Simon became an officer of the king of the highest rank, and that also outside of Judea. The position must first have been given him in opposition to the στρατηγός of Demetrius. Compare Stark, Gaza, p. 491 f.
In view of the faithlessness and weakness of Demetrius, Jonathan regarded it as justifiable as well as useful to pass over to the side of Antiochus. He therefore joined his party, and undertook, in connection with his brother Simon, to reduce the provinces of the empire lying next to Judea under the rule of the new claimant. A beginning was made in those districts over which Simon had been appointed military commander. So Jonathan, at the head of Jewish and Syrian troops, went out against the cities of Ascalon and Gaza. The former readily declared its submission to Antiochus ; the latter yielded only after Jonathan had recourse to forcible measures. He compelled the city to give hostages, and took them with him to Jerusalem.[220] Then Jonathan proceeded to northern Galilee, and offered battle in the valley of Hazor to the general of Demetrius, which at first went against him, but at last resulted in a victory.[221] At the same time Simon laid siege to the fortress of Bethzur in the south of Judea, where still a garrison adhering to Demetrius lay. After a long siege he compelled them to surrender the citadel, and placed in it a Jewish garrison.[222]
[220] 1Ma_11:60-62. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 5.—On Askalon and Gaza, see Div. ii. vol. i. pp. 74 ff., 68 ff. It is deserving of notice that Jonathan is here regarded as a partisan of Trypho and Antiochus. It was not therefore intended to unite these cities with the Jewish territory, but only to compel them to attach themselves to the party to which Jonathan belonged.
[221] 1Ma_11:63-74. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 6-7.—Ἀσώρ, 1Ma_11:67, is the חָצוֹר of Joshua 11:1; Joshua 11:10-13; Joshua 12:19; Joshua 19:36; Judges 4:2; Judges 4:17; 1 Samuel 12:9; 1 Kings 9:15; 2 Kings 15:29. According to Josephus, Antiq. v. 5. 1 (compare Joshua 11:5), it lay in the neighbourhood of the Lake Semechonitis or Merom (ὑπέρκειται τῆς Σεμεχωνίτιδος λίμνης), therefore in the extreme north of Palestine. The name is probably still retained in the modern Merj Hadîreh (valley of Hadireh), and Jebel Hadîreh (Mount Hadireh), west of the Merom lake, in the great wady running down to the Merom lake. See Sheet iv. of the large English Map. Robinson describes “the ruins” lying in the neighbourhood of el-Khureibeh as marking the position of the city of Hazor. See generally, Robinson, Later Biblical Researches in Palestine, p. 365. Guérin, Galilée, ii. 363-368. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, i. 204. Also Raumer, Palästina, p. 127 f., and the article Hazor or Hasor in the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm. Ritter is mistaken when in his Erdkunde, xv. 1. 260-265 (Eng. transl. ii. 221-225), he places Hazor to the north-east of the Merom lake. That it lay on the western side, a little south of Kadish, is proved by 1Ma_11:63; 1Ma_11:67; 1Ma_11:73.
[222] 1Ma_11:65-66. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 6.
While taking those steps toward the establishment of his power, Jonathan did not forget to strengthen his position still further by diplomatic negotiations with foreign nations. He sent two ambassadors, Numenius and Antipater, to Rome, in order to renew the covenant with the Romans that had been concluded in the time of Judas.[223] These ambassadors were also bearers of letters from the high priest and Jewish people to Sparta and other places, in order to open up and secure friendly relations with them.[224] From these documents we also learn that such relations between the Jews and foreign peoples were not wholly without example in earlier times. In the letter to the Spartans, Jonathan refers to the fact that King Areus of Sparta had addressed a friendly communication to the high priest Onias.[225]
[223] 1Ma_12:1-4; the names of the ambassadors, 12:16. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 8.—Compare, Mendelssohn in Ritschl’s Acta Societatis philologue Lipsiensis, t. v. 1876, pp. 101-104.
[224] 1Ma_12:2 : πρὸς Σπαρτιάτας καὶ τόκους ἑτέρους. The letter to the Spartans in particular, 1Ma_12:5-23; Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 8. The answer of the Spartans, 1Ma_14:16-23.
[225] 1Ma_12:7-8; 1Ma_12:19-22. Josephus, Antiq. xii. 4. 10, xiii. 5. 8.—The name of the Spartan king seldom occurs in the manuscripts of the First Book of Maccabees. In 1Ma_12:7 it is given as Δαρεῖος, in 12:20 as Ὀνιάσης; but the codex Sinaiticus has the better reading ονιααρης, that is, Ὀνίᾳ Ἄσης, for the rare name Oniares is produced simply by combination with the previously occurring name of Onias. In both places, as both Josephus and the Vetus Lat. agree in showing, the original form was Ἄρειος. The more correct form is Ἀρεύς. It is thus given in Greek authors and inscriptions. See Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum, t. ii. 1, n. 352. Hicks, Manual of Greek Historical Inscriptions, Oxford 1882, p. 286 f.; Dittenberger, Sylloge inscript. grase. n. 163. There were two Spartan kings of this name : Areus I., who, according to Diodorus, xx. 29, reigned for forty years, from B.C. 309 to B.C. 265; and Areus II., who reigned about B.C. 255, but died while only a child of eight years. See Pausanias, iii. 6. 6. On the Spartan kings, see Clinton, Fasti Hellenici, ii. 255-271, and article “Areus” in Pauly’s Real-Encycl. While Onias II. could scarcely have been contemporary with Areus II., it has been assumed that Areue I. was the contemporary of Onias I. The combination of Josephus is certainly erroneous in Antiq. xii. 4. 10, which brings down the latter to the time of Onias III. The latter therefore belongs to the period of the Diadochae, when the Spartans, in their conflict with Antigonus and his son Demetrius Poliorcetes, might very naturally have been supposed to entertain the idea of making the situation difficult for their opponent by exciting agitations in the East.—Compare generally on the relations between the Jews and the Spartans: Wernsdorff, Commentatio historico- critica de fide historica librorum Maccabaicorum, 1747, pp. 140-171. H. J. E. Palmer, De epistolarum, quas Spartani atque Judaei invicem sibi misisse dicuntur, veritate, Darmst. 1828. Grimm, Exegetischen Handbuch zum 1 Makkabäerbuch, pp. 184 ff., 210 f. The articles “Sparta,” “Spartaner,” in the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm. The curious fancy which led Hitzig to seek the Spartans in Asia Minor, scarcely deserves mention. See Zeitschrift der deutschen morgenland. Gessellschaft, Bd. ix. 1855, pp. 731-737; Geschichte des Volkes Israel, ii. 345-349.—The fiction of a relationship between the Jews and the Spartans, which constituted the motive for the Spartans to write their letter (1Ma_12:6-7; 1Ma_12:21; compare 2Ma_5:9), was not unheard of during the era of Hellenism. Freudenthal, Alexander Polyhistor, p. 29, Anm., refers in illustration and for proof to Stephen of Byzantium under the word Ἰουδαία.… ὡς Κλαύδιος Ἰούλιος ἀπὸ, Οὐδαίου Σπάρτων ἑνὸς ἐκ Θήβης μετὰ Διονύσου ἐστρατευκότος. In a decree of the Pergamenes (Josephus, Antiq. xiv. 18. 22) there is also mention of a relation between the Jews and the Pergamenes. Compare also J. G. Müller, Die Semiten in ihrem Verhältniss zu Chamiten und Japhetiten (1872), p. 101.
The conflict between Jonathan and Demetrius meantime continued, and was so conducted by him that he not only served the interests of Trypho and Antiochus, but also advanced his own. Soon after the defeat which the troops of Demetrius sustained in the valley of Hazor, Demetrius sent a new army to attack Jonathan. But this time the Jewish leader withdrew farther to the north, into the district of Hamath, north of Lebanon. No decisive engagement had taken place, when the Syrian army was recalled.[226] Jonathan then turned his forces against the Arabian tribe of the Zabadeans, then against Damascus, and then, again, he directed his course southwards. When he had returned to Jerusalem he saw to the strengthening of the fortifications of the city, and by the erection of a high wall cut off the Syrian garrison from all intercourse with the city.[227] Even before Jonathan’s return Simon had placed a Jewish garrison in Joppa. He now also fortified Adida in the “Sephela,” that is, in the lowlands in the west of Judea.[228]
[226] 1Ma_12:24-30. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 10.—On the fact recorded here and in what follows, Derenbourg in his Histoire de la Palestine, pp. 99, 100, would refer to the statement in Megillath Taanith, § 33: “On the 17th Adar, when the Gentiles had risen against the little group of the scribes in the districts of Chalcis and Zabdea, there came salvation to the house of Israel.” This combination seems to me exceedingly venturous, although even Wellhausen in his Pharisäer und Sadducäer, p. 58, is inclined to agree to it.—On Hamath, see the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, Riehm, and Ritter, Erdkunde, xvii. 2. 1031 ff.
[227] 1Ma_12:31-37. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 10-11.
[228] 1Ma_12:33-34; 1Ma_12:38. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 5. 10.—Σεφήλα is the Hebrew שְׁפֵלָה, the lowland west of the mountainous region of Judea. In the Mishna, Schebiith ix. 2, a distinction is made between שפלת לוד (lowlands near Lydda) and שפלת הדרום (lowlands of the south). So, too, Jerome in his commentary on Obadiah ver. 19 (Opp. ed. Vallarsi, vi. 381): qui autem habitabant in Sephela id est in campestribus, Liddam et Emmaus, Diospolim scilicet Nicopolimque, significans.… Alii vero putant eam Sephelam id est campestrem regionem, quae circa Eleutheropolim est, repromitti etc. Less definite is the statement in Eusebius, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 296: Σεφηλά.…καὶ εἰς ἔτι νῦν Σεφηλὰ καλεῖται. αὕτη ἐστὶν πᾶσα ἡ περὶ τὴν Ἐλευθερόπολιν πεδινὴ χώρα πρὸς βορρᾶν καὶ δυσμάς. In our passage the district of Lydda is meant.—Ἀδιδά, 1Ma_12:38; 1Ma_13:13, to the חָדִיד of Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; Nehemiah 11:34. In the Mishna, Arachin ix. 6, חדיר is referred to as one of the old cities which were surrounded with walls as early as the days of Joshua. A Rabbi Jakim of Chadid is met with in Edujoth vii. 5. The common printed text has been indeed הדד or הדר, but all the better copies have חדיד. The Greek forms Ἄδδιδα or Ἄδιδα are given in Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 4, 15. 2; Wars of the Jews, iv. 9. 1. According to the latter passage, it commanded the main road which led from the west, therefore from Joppa to Jerusalem. The fact that in Ezra 2:34 and Nehemiah 7:37 it is named together with Lydda and Ono, is in agreement with this. The Aditha juxta, Diospolim quasi ad orientalem plagam respiciens, referred to by Eusebius and Jerome, Onomasticon, ed. Lagarde, p. 93, is therefore probably to be identified with the modern Haditheh, east of Lydda. See the dictionaries of Winer, Schenkel, and Riehm; also Raumer, Palästina, p. 168 f. Guérin, Samarie, ii. 64-67. The Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs by Conder and Kitchener, ii. 297, 322. See also large English Map, Sheet xiv.
All these operations were avowedly carried on by Jonathan and Simon in the interests of the young king Antiochus and his tutor-regent Trypho. But the latter seems to have regarded with considerable misgivings the increase of the Jewish power. And not without reason. For the more the power of the Jews themselves increased, the greater became the danger of their shaking themselves free of the Syrian dominion altogether. It may therefore be quite easily understood how Trypho, so soon as Demetrius allowed him a free hand, turned against Jonathan. According to the First Book of Maccabees, this came about because Trypho wished himself to assume the crown, while Jonathan would not allow it This may indeed have been so, only the motives by which Jonathan was actuated were not so much moral as political.[229]
[229] 1Ma_12:39-40. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 1.
Trypho went therefore with an army to Palestine, in order to reduce within moderate limits the increasing Jewish power. At Beth-sean or Scythopolis he met Jonathan. The interview was at first of a friendly nature, although Jonathan had with him as large an army as that of Trypho. Trypho sought to remove the suspicions of Jonathan by heaping upon him tokens of respect. He represented to him that a great army was superfluous, since they did not occupy toward one another a warlike attitude. If Jonathan should follow him with a small select company to Ptolemais, he should give over to him that city and “the rest of the fortresses and troops,” meaning those between the Ladder of Tyre and the borders of Egypt, over which Simon had been appointed military commander.[230] Jonathan actually allowed himself to be deceived by those promises. He dismissed his army, and followed Trypho to Ptolemais with only a thousand men. But scarcely had he reached that place when he was put in prison, and his people murderously cut down.[231]
[230] On Beth-sean or Scythopolis, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 110. On Ptolemais, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 90.
[231] 1Ma_12:41-53. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 1-3.
The news of this faithless proceeding of Trypho caused great excitement throughout Judea. It was natural that Simon, the last survivor of the five brothers of the Maccabees, should place himself at the head of affairs. By the decree of a popular assembly he was formally chosen leader. His first acts were the acceleration of the works on the fortifications of Jerusalem, and taking definite possession of Joppa. The latter place had never hitherto belonged to the Jewish territory. But in the exercise of his own official authority as military commander over the coast districts, Simon had placed there a Jewish garrison. The Gentile inhabitants were now expelled from Joppa, the city was Judaized and united with the Jewish territory.[232]
[232] 1Ma_13:1-11. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 3.—On Joppa, see Div. ii. vol. i. p. 79.
Trypho, now carrying Jonathan as prisoner with him, went against Judea with a great army. At Adida, Simon obstructed his march into the interior by opposing him with his troops. Thereupon Trypho sent ambassadors to Simon and let him know that he kept Jonathan prisoner only for this reason, that he had failed to pay the money due for the offices that had been conferred upon him. If the money should be paid, and as a guarantee of future fidelity, the sons of Jonathan delivered up as hostages, he would then set him free. But although Simon now sent all that was demanded, Jonathan was not liberated. Trypho sought rather by going round about the mountains, to push on to Jerusalem over Adora in Idumaea from the south. When he was prevented from accomplishing this by a heavy snowfall, he marched his troops on to Gilead, that is, through the country east of the Jordan, caused Jonathan to be murdered at Bascama, and returned back to Syria.[233]
[233] 1Ma_13:12-24. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 4-5. Adora is an Idumean city, which was afterwards conquered by John Hyrcanus (Antiq. xiii. 9. 1; see below, § 8).—Bascama is otherwise unknown. According to the connection of the story, it is to be looked for in the country east of the Jordan.
Simon now actually entered into his brother’s place as high priest of the Jews. He had the remains of Jonathan carried from Bascama, and buried him beside his parents and three brothers, at their native Modein. Over their common sepulchre, Simon, at a later period, erected a magnificent monument, which could be seen from the sea.[234]
[234] 1Ma_13:25-30. Josephus, Antiq. xiii. 6. 5.—The sepulchral monument at Modein was still existing in the time of Eusebius.